...armed with a soccer mom at our side, I seriously doubt any branch of the government will take our opposition seriously. Because the **AA's buy the politicians, but they still have to sell them to soccer moms.
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.
Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal. Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights, and anyone would have to be blind not to understand why they feel this is in their best interest.
As the submitter conceded, they're making an example.
Why do you believe life begins at conception? The only Biblical support that comes to mind for that belief comes through taking a couple of passages involving God "knowing" humans in the womb. To take that and extrapolate that the belief that what happens at fertility clinics is murder is completely isogetical and unwarranted.
I don't think enough Christians really understand what's happening at fertility clinics.
A lot of couples that couldn't ordinarily have children are able to have conceive through in vitro fertilization. I can't see how this is considered a bad thing.
Your analogy is completely off. The issue is not that the perpetrator didn't do anything wrong, or that he should not be punished. Doing something wrong in a silly little MMOG means you should get punished in the silly little MMOG, not the real world.
The fact that these items get sold for cash in the real world only further reinforces how MMOGs are simply being taken too far.
and the fact that PS2 fucking blows chunks from a technological standpoint vs the Xbox and the GC provides a good example of how much of a red herring HDTV is.
That is not a fact. The PS2 has a completely different architecture than the Xbox. Completely. Hint: you can't just compare mhz.
When will we have a non-monolithic distribution of X? I read it will be included in x.org 7.0.0, but in some places I've heard it'll come after 6.9.0 and other places I've heard it will come at the same time.
This will mean more than simply being able to easily take out possibly unwanted cruft out of X packages (stuff like xcalc, xterm, etc). It will be pretty easy to put just the X server libraries and binaries on one computer and the X protocol libraries and applications that use them on another.
I'm sure you could do that now, but it would require a lot of work.
Oh, if you want them to sign an NDA, forget it. Almost never happens.
If your idea is such that if explaining it to an investor would "give away the secret," then you probably don't have something worth their time anyways.
I guess we just kind of misunderstood eachother. Anyways, an interesting question would be "what is that void, exactly?"
Inasmuch as I don't go around taking random factoids and using them as "proof" that the God I believe in exists, I think others shouldn't go around using random factoids as "proof" that he doesn't, either.
Whether or not these issues lend themselves to certain beliefs (or disbeliefs) is an interesting discussion, provided we all maintain that ultimately this one singular instance cannot either prove nor disprove either side.
This is important because it allows us to draw meaningful conclusions while also avoiding petty religious flamewars.
That is not a 'proof.' There is plenty of reasonable doubt here. First of all, you have expanded your definition of 'religious experience' with great liberty. There could be more than one kind of 'religious experience.' For instance, suppose there are two: the genuine, and the fake. If it were the case that the Star Trek religious experience were of the "fake" variety, and, say, a Muslim's experience with Allah were of the "genuine" variety, then your "proof" would not hold.
Now, that is just a hypothetical situation. In reality, there might be four types of religious experiences, or four hundred, or even one, all of which would run contrary to your "proof."
In order for me to even consider your "proof" as a reasonable hypothesis, you must demonstrate why you think this Star Trek religious experience is the same as every other one; how it effects humans the same way. It would be a long and laborious process.
My point is that nothing is proven by the capacity for humans to believe in a fictional TV show. You may take from it whatever you wish. For you, that may reinforce your innate skepticism of religions in general. For another, it might reinforce the belief that humans are all just looking for something. For still others, it might reinforce the belief that there is some kind of Devil running around trying to trick people into believing silly deceptions.
Often times, what seems unlikely or improbably actually ends up being true. I have no problem with not believing in those things without evidence, but being unlikely does not make an idea disproven.
When we talk of religion as containing an imaginary god(s), we have already promoted it to the status of "disproven." I was addressing that fallacy, not suggesting God is proven.
The fact that such logical and rational people as the "skeptics" make such huge assumptions about comments concerning specifically religion, it only serves to make it more likely to me at least that one of these religions happens to be correct, and they just don't want to admit it to themselves because of the implications it would have on their lives.
But that's just me, and I'm pretty biased on the matter.
Way to completely miss the point of my post. I was suggesting that the belief in God wasn't disprovable, and thus not something to be approached scientifically. Science cannot solve this puzzle; it can only give you what you had already in a more useful form, in order to better understand what is already sitting in front of you.
Religion has got to be the longest-running form of science fiction ever.
Again, "My inability to conjure up evidence about God definately doesn't disprove his existence (which is what you imply by the use of the word 'imaginary.')" applies.
Please try to understand what I'm saying before you attack it.
I suppose Christianity today in America really is so deeply rooted in traditionalism that myopia has set in. I think the nonsense about questioning carbon dating is a good example (if you need me to explain, I will).
Most Christians I've met could have stood to gain more than a bit of wisdom, but I think that goes for non-Christians as well.
Um, no--I have never defended Christianity in my life, nor am I likely to ever do so (except in the most broad of terms), but I have gotten negative mods nearly every time I've mentioned religion in any way.
My experience is exactly opposite; I think I'll be content with religion being a sufficiently polar topic that anyone talking about it will get burned. At any rate, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Christian is a minority in the geek community.
I'm sure someone can quote the name of that specific fallacy, but in the meantime if anyone really believes that wanting something to be true is proof that it's true... man, I have a perpetual motion machine to sell him!
It's no more fallacious than taking it to mean that religions are shown to be even more ridiculous because of it.
By "it" I mean that whole bit about, well, you know, the tendency of some to treat Star Trek like a religion.
I agree, but remember that just because one individual is susceptible to the "correlation vs. causation" fallacy, another individual isn't as a rule. It is not required to "bend logic" in order to be convinced of the existence of God if said God does indeed exist.
There is no physical God you can present to me (or anyone else)... only an imaginary one, am I correct?
My inability to conjure up evidence about God definately doesn't disprove his existence (which is what you imply by the use of the word 'imaginary.')
However, since human logic tends to fail when it actually requires us humans to change ourselves, I don't blame God for not providing more proof. We would continue to ignore him and go about our daily lives anyway.
This is Slashdot. It's defending Christianity that gets you attacked by the moderators-on-crack.
At any rate,
I think it makes the "traditionally faithfull" look back.
It definately demonstrates the innate desire for humans to search after something to obsess after/find truth in. One man might take that piece of evidence to suggest that all of these things we obsess over are clearly wrong, but another man might take it to mean that this desire to seek after a set of ideals or truths suggests that such a truth exists; someone created us with the desire to "return home." As Solomon put it, God may have set eternity in the hearts of men.
Now I'm not trying to establish that what I just supposed is the case, merely that my conjecture will stem from my world view, and yours will do likewise. What I think I have established is that our final opinions are pretty much guesses that confirm the beliefs we had before we got into this discussion.
It takes wisdom, not intelligence, to consider all the possible reasons for things being the way they are.
Most people have reacted to it by laughing. I think the most honest answer I can give is that I'm only half serious--I believe it's true that people (including myself from time to time) often act quite immature and self important. Obviously, since I still post quite frequently, I don't think it's such a big deal that I cannot participate (that, more than anything else, would be hypocritical), I'm just making a friendly jab at the community that I spend so much time on.
I totally agree with you. I oversimplified Lewis' position to make a quick example. He was definately not a universalist, nor did he believe that the Bible is not divinely inspired in its entirety.
... because we've got a long way to go and are condemned to however many lifetimes it takes?
A big thing about Christianity even Christians often fail to realize is that the nature of God's relationship to man is one of ongoing reconciliation. When all we (specifically Christians) speak of is the atonement of sin, we forget that God also has had a hand in the reconciliation; a much larger one, actually. If the cross is his effort to reach out to us, then faith is ours. No amount of good works could atone for our sin because doing so would be simply ignoring his good faith offering. It would be like trying to mend your relationship with a separated spouse by buying them gifts and ignoring their acts of love.
This is why the law failed for the Jews, they didn't see the law itself as an act of love, but a means by which they could get to God without loving him in return.
I agree with the rest you said; I wish American churches weren't so "me centered," but the simple fact is that America is "me centered."
I regret the fact that posts can be taken the wrong way, but the tone I intended was not combative. I think the damning element was italicizing "wrong." I wanted to be somewhat blunt, but not in an unfriendly way.
I don't believe for a moment that Christ wanted us to hate ourselves because we were created imperfect.
I never said that. Genuine new creations bent upon demonstrating the teachings of Christ through action are not going to hate themselves because of who they were. Granted, the old man we left behind still comes back up now and then and it can be quite frustrating.
Happens ALL. THE. TIME
I guess with all the murder, slander and gossip, backstabbing, manipulation, theft, adultery, greed, ambition, and perversion it gets drowned out. All of us commit both wonderful acts of love and damnable acts of selfishness. The point is, God wants perfection, not inconsistency. Since perfection is impossible for us, the the acknowledgement of the death of His son and the implications thereof are sufficient to "get us back on track." Which is why that one decision reaps the ultimate eternal reward.
If you think the Passion and Resurrection are what is significant about Christ, I think you're a poor student of His teachings.
The Passion and Ressurection establish salvation. Where we go from there is following his teachings. But the love of God is shown through the cross (in addition to following the teachings), which is what my point was.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?"
...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?
I dunno...just a guess.
I would think that they'd get into issues with reposting other website's material.
I kid, I kid.
...armed with a soccer mom at our side, I seriously doubt any branch of the government will take our opposition seriously. Because the **AA's buy the politicians, but they still have to sell them to soccer moms.
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.
Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal. Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights, and anyone would have to be blind not to understand why they feel this is in their best interest.
As the submitter conceded, they're making an example.
What are the Federation defense plans for Minos Corva?
Why do you believe life begins at conception? The only Biblical support that comes to mind for that belief comes through taking a couple of passages involving God "knowing" humans in the womb. To take that and extrapolate that the belief that what happens at fertility clinics is murder is completely isogetical and unwarranted.
I don't think enough Christians really understand what's happening at fertility clinics.
A lot of couples that couldn't ordinarily have children are able to have conceive through in vitro fertilization. I can't see how this is considered a bad thing.
The fact that these items get sold for cash in the real world only further reinforces how MMOGs are simply being taken too far.
They're not the cheapest, but their staff is the most knowledgable I have seen, and they're definately the most Linux-friendly.
The more people that switch away from SBC the more money the competition has to fight this stuff.
and the fact that PS2 fucking blows chunks from a technological standpoint vs the Xbox and the GC provides a good example of how much of a red herring HDTV is.
That is not a fact. The PS2 has a completely different architecture than the Xbox. Completely. Hint: you can't just compare mhz.
This will mean more than simply being able to easily take out possibly unwanted cruft out of X packages (stuff like xcalc, xterm, etc). It will be pretty easy to put just the X server libraries and binaries on one computer and the X protocol libraries and applications that use them on another.
I'm sure you could do that now, but it would require a lot of work.
Oh, if you want them to sign an NDA, forget it. Almost never happens.
If your idea is such that if explaining it to an investor would "give away the secret," then you probably don't have something worth their time anyways.
Inasmuch as I don't go around taking random factoids and using them as "proof" that the God I believe in exists, I think others shouldn't go around using random factoids as "proof" that he doesn't, either.
Whether or not these issues lend themselves to certain beliefs (or disbeliefs) is an interesting discussion, provided we all maintain that ultimately this one singular instance cannot either prove nor disprove either side.
This is important because it allows us to draw meaningful conclusions while also avoiding petty religious flamewars.
Now, that is just a hypothetical situation. In reality, there might be four types of religious experiences, or four hundred, or even one, all of which would run contrary to your "proof."
In order for me to even consider your "proof" as a reasonable hypothesis, you must demonstrate why you think this Star Trek religious experience is the same as every other one; how it effects humans the same way. It would be a long and laborious process.
My point is that nothing is proven by the capacity for humans to believe in a fictional TV show. You may take from it whatever you wish. For you, that may reinforce your innate skepticism of religions in general. For another, it might reinforce the belief that humans are all just looking for something. For still others, it might reinforce the belief that there is some kind of Devil running around trying to trick people into believing silly deceptions.
Who knows?
Often times, what seems unlikely or improbably actually ends up being true. I have no problem with not believing in those things without evidence, but being unlikely does not make an idea disproven.
When we talk of religion as containing an imaginary god(s), we have already promoted it to the status of "disproven." I was addressing that fallacy, not suggesting God is proven.
The fact that such logical and rational people as the "skeptics" make such huge assumptions about comments concerning specifically religion, it only serves to make it more likely to me at least that one of these religions happens to be correct, and they just don't want to admit it to themselves because of the implications it would have on their lives.
But that's just me, and I'm pretty biased on the matter.
Religion has got to be the longest-running form of science fiction ever.
Again, "My inability to conjure up evidence about God definately doesn't disprove his existence (which is what you imply by the use of the word 'imaginary.')" applies.
Please try to understand what I'm saying before you attack it.
I suppose Christianity today in America really is so deeply rooted in traditionalism that myopia has set in. I think the nonsense about questioning carbon dating is a good example (if you need me to explain, I will).
Most Christians I've met could have stood to gain more than a bit of wisdom, but I think that goes for non-Christians as well.
Um, no--I have never defended Christianity in my life, nor am I likely to ever do so (except in the most broad of terms), but I have gotten negative mods nearly every time I've mentioned religion in any way.
My experience is exactly opposite; I think I'll be content with religion being a sufficiently polar topic that anyone talking about it will get burned. At any rate, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Christian is a minority in the geek community.
I'm sure someone can quote the name of that specific fallacy, but in the meantime if anyone really believes that wanting something to be true is proof that it's true... man, I have a perpetual motion machine to sell him!
It's no more fallacious than taking it to mean that religions are shown to be even more ridiculous because of it.
By "it" I mean that whole bit about, well, you know, the tendency of some to treat Star Trek like a religion.
There is no physical God you can present to me (or anyone else)... only an imaginary one, am I correct?
My inability to conjure up evidence about God definately doesn't disprove his existence (which is what you imply by the use of the word 'imaginary.')
However, since human logic tends to fail when it actually requires us humans to change ourselves, I don't blame God for not providing more proof. We would continue to ignore him and go about our daily lives anyway.
At any rate,
I think it makes the "traditionally faithfull" look back.
It definately demonstrates the innate desire for humans to search after something to obsess after/find truth in. One man might take that piece of evidence to suggest that all of these things we obsess over are clearly wrong, but another man might take it to mean that this desire to seek after a set of ideals or truths suggests that such a truth exists; someone created us with the desire to "return home." As Solomon put it, God may have set eternity in the hearts of men.
Now I'm not trying to establish that what I just supposed is the case, merely that my conjecture will stem from my world view, and yours will do likewise. What I think I have established is that our final opinions are pretty much guesses that confirm the beliefs we had before we got into this discussion.
It takes wisdom, not intelligence, to consider all the possible reasons for things being the way they are.
Most people have reacted to it by laughing. I think the most honest answer I can give is that I'm only half serious--I believe it's true that people (including myself from time to time) often act quite immature and self important. Obviously, since I still post quite frequently, I don't think it's such a big deal that I cannot participate (that, more than anything else, would be hypocritical), I'm just making a friendly jab at the community that I spend so much time on.
I totally agree with you. I oversimplified Lewis' position to make a quick example. He was definately not a universalist, nor did he believe that the Bible is not divinely inspired in its entirety.
A big thing about Christianity even Christians often fail to realize is that the nature of God's relationship to man is one of ongoing reconciliation. When all we (specifically Christians) speak of is the atonement of sin, we forget that God also has had a hand in the reconciliation; a much larger one, actually. If the cross is his effort to reach out to us, then faith is ours. No amount of good works could atone for our sin because doing so would be simply ignoring his good faith offering. It would be like trying to mend your relationship with a separated spouse by buying them gifts and ignoring their acts of love.
This is why the law failed for the Jews, they didn't see the law itself as an act of love, but a means by which they could get to God without loving him in return.
I agree with the rest you said; I wish American churches weren't so "me centered," but the simple fact is that America is "me centered."
I think you've overreacted.
I don't believe for a moment that Christ wanted us to hate ourselves because we were created imperfect.
I never said that. Genuine new creations bent upon demonstrating the teachings of Christ through action are not going to hate themselves because of who they were. Granted, the old man we left behind still comes back up now and then and it can be quite frustrating.
Happens ALL. THE. TIME
I guess with all the murder, slander and gossip, backstabbing, manipulation, theft, adultery, greed, ambition, and perversion it gets drowned out. All of us commit both wonderful acts of love and damnable acts of selfishness. The point is, God wants perfection, not inconsistency. Since perfection is impossible for us, the the acknowledgement of the death of His son and the implications thereof are sufficient to "get us back on track." Which is why that one decision reaps the ultimate eternal reward.
If you think the Passion and Resurrection are what is significant about Christ, I think you're a poor student of His teachings.
The Passion and Ressurection establish salvation. Where we go from there is following his teachings. But the love of God is shown through the cross (in addition to following the teachings), which is what my point was.