>So calm the fuck down. Such spasmodic responses are typical of you people.
It's common to refer to ME, to mean people that think likewise. And you, people that think otherwise. I think it's a grammar thing. I really don't care about ME or HIM much, but the general case. This "Tolerance" has been discussed for centuries, since Kant and before.
>I am a human being. I have no need for God whatsoever, >so I see no reason to take a position on His existence.
Being a human doesn't mean you don't need it. It may be the fact that God is sustaining reality, so in fact you very much need him, but that he will not ask for it's approval. In that sense only, I think it's irrelevant to take a "position".
>Clearly, you have a need for God not to exist. And that >is why, as I said before, you are a slave to your own desires.
Sometimes they don't really need God to not exist, they just need human *mandated* "God" to go away. When they confuse "God" with a mandated religion, they talk this way, as they can't tell the difference between God and a religion.
>We, humans, know that god is fiction because he >is OUR fiction. We invented him. We made him up.
So he can't exist, because he is OUR fiction. And William Wallace didn't exist, because he is Mel Gibson's fiction.
>There's those of us who are honest enough to admit >that god is fiction, Jean-Luc Picard is fiction, >The Matrix is fiction, Dr. Frankenstein is fiction.
Who's not honest enough to know that The Matrix is fiction? More over, if you see that Picard is an invention, and The Matrix is a creation, why can't YOU be a creation? Religion exists in many forms, has existed in all ages of civilizations, spontaneusly, everywhere, in all places. People feel it inside their body and soul without anyone telling them.
>Claiming that Star Trek is fact is a lie.
By the way, Star Trek IS a fact (the movie/series), anyway, claiming what's shown *did happen* is a lie, BECAUSE we know it's not the case.
>Claiming that it "might be" fact or "could be" fact is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that there's an open question here anywhere is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that any of this is "opinion" is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>And it doesn't become any less of a lie because Mr. Picard is replaced by Mr. Anderson
Because we already know it's not real.
>or Mr God.
You and me, can't probe this. Claiming YOUR specific version of what GOD is fact, is a lie. You don't know. Claiming GOD does not exist is a lie, because you (nor anybody else) can't prove it. The thing is that it may exist, and that existence is independent of YOUR or my beliefs.
So let me have my beliefs, respecting yours, and I'll do the same for you. Else we really have a problem...trying to make me believe what you believe that you CAN'T probe is not fine. And people discovered this centuries ago.
Yes, because it *did* happen. You can bring people into Truman Shows lifes. It's not a matter of having them go through a traumatic event over an over, nor to deny them the right to try to erase whatever they don't like. But what *was*, *was*, you can't make it "to not have happened". Also, memories are tied one to another...why do you remember yourself crying in a hospital? Why do you remember all your friends calling you and asking if you were ok?
I don't think you can erase memory...you can only create "lagunas", that will never work as intented, and that will harm a state that at least was more consistent.
This is to annoy Google, nothing else. Google created lots of great stuff so that when we look for, or use information, they have the context to add relevant ads. Microsoft is taking going a step further, and putting the ads engine in the core and patenting it.
Federico
Re:tivoisation
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Linus comment is that that is a great goal, but goes beyond the scope of a software license. I mean, If we are unable to obtain uncloked hardware, Linux can't stop that from happening. We will only make sure that ALL efforts for software-specific hardware become closed NOT open source. We lose all the efforts and insights, and the propietary vendors win. Would you contribute to a project that instead of the effort put into enhancing the code, wanted to limit your legitimate ability from doing usefull solutions? Would you prefer TIVO used closed software? What's the benefit from a developers perspective? Because from an end user perspective, TIVO will go propietary and you'll lose that right.
And open hardware solutions will be harder or impossible to obtain, and even worst, most technological advances in the field of PRV will go closed platforms. With TIVOs allowed to lock down HARDWARE, you get to enable competitors to use TIVOs code to make open SOLUTIONS more likely to success (after all, they have all the software they need, and only need to make it work on non locked hardware).
Now the community is divided. You have better patent coverage + nasty limitations that involve which hardware can be used with GPL software, or you have a more fair and intelligent license like GPL v2 but that is not great for dealing with patent bombs.
For the record, I predict that GPL v4 will get rid of the stupid anti-tivoization elements, and keep the patent protections in place, and that Linux will migrate to GPL v4 by that time.
Sources report Slashdot was popularized a new term "Money-ready bloggers", a term coined to discredit unetical bloggers who choose topics based on money bounties.
Great point! I have no proof, and never will. We need to allow people to believe different things (By the way, I can and do share beliefs that science can't and will never be able to explain... by acting accordingly and looking at the results. I cannot prove I am right. I cannot force other to believe what I believe. I cannot accept being imposed a belief, except for scientifically proven stuff.)
I agree with you on that one. It can't ultimately prove anything. All in all, all that could be proved is we were manufactured. And if we where manufactured, it's more likely we've been manufactured by another race, than by what god "is".
>most things that are unscientific are wrong.
There are other categories:-) "Possibilities" are not right or wrong per se. For example axioms are never right or wrong. Coca cola taste is never right or wrong. Love is not right or wrong. Facts can be proved to not have existed, but the fact just are.
I understand your point, don't blame religion, blame weak, confused, dangerous unhappy DANGEROUS people. It's like nuclear energy. It just exists, people use it for stupid things.
The problem is ID and evolution are not contradictory. You could teach evolution, and at some point explain the odds:
1) It could have started by chance 2) it could have started with a little help
We will never know the answer (what happened), we could at best speculate about the odds. If you believe in chance, then chance all possible living forms given by our universe rules are possible. And therefore, we are as special as chance, and we could all die today. In fact, there should be infinite worlds like ours, with 99,99% similar humans, and infinite paths of history.
And still, having a system that exhausts all posibilities can be as intelligent as the opposite, in the sense that all options are possible. You can't have a better god than this. And the problem is what intelligent means. If he did not make us "special" (in the sense that he did not specifically ruled out other posibilities), it doesn't mean he does not care about us, knows about us, and is glad about us (as art, or whatever, because we'd be just chance).
So the question of god as a creator, and god as a something that "cares", cannot be answered through Evolution or ID discussions. All are missing the main topic. And none can probe the other wrong, nor ever will.
If you can't prove god does not exist, and NEVER will, why should you preclude people from believing in god? This is why faith exists, because we can't disprove them. We are interested in questions science will never be able to explain. So laughing out loud at religious people it a matter of taste, because you have not even 1% more reson that they have, you just focus on the unimportant questions that will be answered, and will never choose among the options you'll never be able to disprove.
So in the end, you are choosing to believe god does not exist, just because you can't prove it exists. So therefore, it must not exist. Get argument!
If the universe is infinite in size, this only proves that we can be chance, or created. It doesn't prove we are chance. Not only that, we'll never be able to prove we are chance, so all your hopes are lost, but the good news is you get to keep your logic intact. So you won, while loosing the important argument: we can't say we aren't created period:-)
Suppose there was no bible, no religion at all, nothing. It's still very likely that some people would believe they are not chance, and that someone else had built them. I believe this what Arthur Clarke belives, and I tend to agree intuitively. And no, science will never be able to prove is we where manufactured by chance. It could at most assure us that we could EXIST by chance. That does not make it true. If you look at software, it's the same. If we build an self replicating algorithm that evolves in time, and at some point, they become concious, they can trace their evolution as fast as they like. Randomness of the process and caos will make sure they cannot walk step by step to the very begining. And even if they do (they can't, they can only bring an hypotesis), they will reach a point where "this is the minimun program that can makes us what we are today"...and from there, they will have to assume the program happended by pure chance. But we know it didn't.
So you can never be sure ID is crap. Or you can, and I am wrong. If you prove it to the world, I can stop believing what I believe.
They do answer polls like that. Google is #1 in the "Great Places to Work" and they are fond of it and mention it "we are the best company to watch for". So no. You are wrong.:-) They do care.
I was playing devil's advocate. You DO have you own set of ethics, it's important to recognize that. I will only add that maybe I do believe animals deserve a better life, and we are treating most of with so much disrespect it's really sad.
So it would be ok for you to eat humans, if they tasted great and it was legal? You'd buy slaves if you were in the 18th century? You'd think women are inferior because they were made from a mans chest bones? You have no problem at all, because it suits you.
It sounds great: you simply do what you feel like doing, and don't do what you don't want to do. You see no reason to get 'ethics' involved in any decision really.
Sounds great! But the truth is you don't care about any living thing maybe except for humans, because that's what you've been touch. All in all, you are accepting whatever programming got into your brain by who knows who, without thinking for yourself. That's why you see no reason for "ethics" in the first place.
Either you can afford a normal (though cheap) notebook, or the goverment can provide your kind with a toold aimed at children (that's 1/3 of the price). There is really no problem at all.
They want part manufacturers to cooperate, and they don't want enter into a messy war with OEMs, and they do not do it for a profit, and couldn't do it for a profit (a retail/logistics organizations add a lots of costs, the same notebook could end up costing $400 or more to end users, without any benefit for the OLPC).
Suppose they way just a little bit and they buy them at USD$150. Suppose you could buy 1,000,000 Pentiums...wow, no wait, better have another million kids close to technology for free! And the functionality is different. These are rugged notebook computers with low consumption tailored specifically at kids. I don't get your point.
It _natually_ leads to monopoly. When monopoly happens you no longer have _practical_ options, and there is _no_ competitive way around it. That's one way to define a monopoly, natural or otherwise. For a simple example:
Road ACME from A to B cost to construct 50 MUSD. Doing all monopoly practices they get a return of say 25%. That's the _ can extract from that road. No sane company will biuld a close to that one, as they would lose money. They will lose money. Say invest 100, and get something that even less that 125/2 (62,5, or ~ -30%). And this is a light example, because when there are economies of scale in the scheme, it can get worst (and that's why Bill gates is the riches man on earth, for example, and you we are not).
It's a good example, but not a usefull one. People care going to places they like, but they do not care about phones. Neutral or not, everyone today can call everyone in the world. We need examples where not having net neutrality would be a mess and a disaster at personal level, so that people can relate to.
Slashdot Mirror
>So calm the fuck down. Such spasmodic responses are typical of you people.
It's common to refer to ME, to mean people that think likewise. And you, people that think otherwise. I think it's a grammar thing. I really don't care about ME or HIM much, but the general case. This "Tolerance" has been discussed for centuries, since Kant and before.
>I am a human being. I have no need for God whatsoever,
>so I see no reason to take a position on His existence.
Being a human doesn't mean you don't need it. It may be the fact that God is sustaining reality, so in fact you very much need him, but that he will not ask for it's approval. In that sense only, I think it's irrelevant to take a "position".
>Clearly, you have a need for God not to exist. And that
>is why, as I said before, you are a slave to your own desires.
Sometimes they don't really need God to not exist, they just need human *mandated* "God" to go away. When they confuse "God" with a mandated religion, they talk this way, as they can't tell the difference between God and a religion.
I tend to agree when that's the case.
>We, humans, know that god is fiction because he
:-)
>is OUR fiction. We invented him. We made him up.
So he can't exist, because he is OUR fiction. And William Wallace didn't exist, because he is Mel Gibson's fiction.
>There's those of us who are honest enough to admit
>that god is fiction, Jean-Luc Picard is fiction,
>The Matrix is fiction, Dr. Frankenstein is fiction.
Who's not honest enough to know that The Matrix is fiction? More over, if you see that Picard is an invention, and The Matrix is a creation, why can't YOU be a creation? Religion exists in many forms, has existed in all ages of civilizations, spontaneusly, everywhere, in all places. People feel it inside their body and soul without anyone telling them.
>Claiming that Star Trek is fact is a lie.
By the way, Star Trek IS a fact (the movie/series), anyway, claiming what's shown *did happen* is a lie, BECAUSE we know it's not the case.
>Claiming that it "might be" fact or "could be" fact is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that there's an open question here anywhere is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>Claiming that any of this is "opinion" is a lie.
Because we already know it's not real.
>And it doesn't become any less of a lie because Mr. Picard is replaced by Mr. Anderson
Because we already know it's not real.
>or Mr God.
You and me, can't probe this. Claiming YOUR specific version of what GOD is fact, is a lie. You don't know. Claiming GOD does not exist is a lie, because you (nor anybody else) can't prove it. The thing is that it may exist, and that existence is independent of YOUR or my beliefs.
So let me have my beliefs, respecting yours, and I'll do the same for you. Else we really have a problem...trying to make me believe what you believe that you CAN'T probe is not fine. And people discovered this centuries ago.
Thanks and regards
Yes, because it *did* happen. You can bring people into Truman Shows lifes. It's not a matter of having them go through a traumatic event over an over, nor to deny them the right to try to erase whatever they don't like. But what *was*, *was*, you can't make it "to not have happened". Also, memories are tied one to another...why do you remember yourself crying in a hospital? Why do you remember all your friends calling you and asking if you were ok?
I don't think you can erase memory...you can only create "lagunas", that will never work as intented, and that will harm a state that at least was more consistent.
What does the bible has to do with all this? Do not confuse the fact that we can be "created" with the Bible.
This is to annoy Google, nothing else. Google created lots of great stuff so that when we look for, or use information, they have the context to add relevant ads. Microsoft is taking going a step further, and putting the ads engine in the core and patenting it.
Federico
Linus comment is that that is a great goal, but goes beyond the scope of a software license. I mean, If we are unable to obtain uncloked hardware, Linux can't stop that from happening. We will only make sure that ALL efforts for software-specific hardware become closed NOT open source. We lose all the efforts and insights, and the propietary vendors win. Would you contribute to a project that instead of the effort put into enhancing the code, wanted to limit your legitimate ability from doing usefull solutions? Would you prefer TIVO used closed software? What's the benefit from a developers perspective? Because from an end user perspective, TIVO will go propietary and you'll lose that right.
And open hardware solutions will be harder or impossible to obtain, and even worst, most technological advances in the field of PRV will go closed platforms. With TIVOs allowed to lock down HARDWARE, you get to enable competitors to use TIVOs code to make open SOLUTIONS more likely to success (after all, they have all the software they need, and only need to make it work on non locked hardware).
Now the community is divided. You have better patent coverage + nasty limitations that involve which hardware can be used with GPL software, or you have a more fair and intelligent license like GPL v2 but that is not great for dealing with patent bombs.
For the record, I predict that GPL v4 will get rid of the stupid anti-tivoization elements, and keep the patent protections in place, and that Linux will migrate to GPL v4 by that time.
Federico
Sources report Slashdot was popularized a new term "Money-ready bloggers", a term coined to discredit unetical bloggers who choose topics based on money bounties.
Great point! I have no proof, and never will. We need to allow people to believe different things (By the way, I can and do share beliefs that science can't and will never be able to explain... by acting accordingly and looking at the results. I cannot prove I am right. I cannot force other to believe what I believe. I cannot accept being imposed a belief, except for scientifically proven stuff.)
I agree with you on that one. It can't ultimately prove anything. All in all, all that could be proved is we were manufactured. And if we where manufactured, it's more likely we've been manufactured by another race, than by what god "is".
:-) "Possibilities" are not right or wrong per se. For example axioms are never right or wrong. Coca cola taste is never right or wrong. Love is not right or wrong. Facts can be proved to not have existed, but the fact just are.
>most things that are unscientific are wrong.
There are other categories
I understand your point, don't blame religion, blame weak, confused, dangerous unhappy DANGEROUS people. It's like nuclear energy. It just exists, people use it for stupid things.
The problem is ID and evolution are not contradictory. You could teach evolution, and at some point explain the odds:
1) It could have started by chance
2) it could have started with a little help
We will never know the answer (what happened), we could at best speculate about the odds. If you believe in chance, then chance all possible living forms given by our universe rules are possible. And therefore, we are as special as chance, and we could all die today. In fact, there should be infinite worlds like ours, with 99,99% similar humans, and infinite paths of history.
And still, having a system that exhausts all posibilities can be as intelligent as the opposite, in the sense that all options are possible. You can't have a better god than this. And the problem is what intelligent means. If he did not make us "special" (in the sense that he did not specifically ruled out other posibilities), it doesn't mean he does not care about us, knows about us, and is glad about us (as art, or whatever, because we'd be just chance).
So the question of god as a creator, and god as a something that "cares", cannot be answered through Evolution or ID discussions. All are missing the main topic. And none can probe the other wrong, nor ever will.
If you can't prove god does not exist, and NEVER will, why should you preclude people from believing in god? This is why faith exists, because we can't disprove them. We are interested in questions science will never be able to explain. So laughing out loud at religious people it a matter of taste, because you have not even 1% more reson that they have, you just focus on the unimportant questions that will be answered, and will never choose among the options you'll never be able to disprove.
So in the end, you are choosing to believe god does not exist, just because you can't prove it exists. So therefore, it must not exist. Get argument!
>This proof relegates god to the role of the die.
:-)
If the universe is infinite in size, this only proves that we can be chance, or created. It doesn't prove we are chance. Not only that, we'll never be able to prove we are chance, so all your hopes are lost, but the good news is you get to keep your logic intact. So you won, while loosing the important argument: we can't say we aren't created period
Suppose there was no bible, no religion at all, nothing. It's still very likely that some people would believe they are not chance, and that someone else had built them. I believe this what Arthur Clarke belives, and I tend to agree intuitively. And no, science will never be able to prove is we where manufactured by chance. It could at most assure us that we could EXIST by chance. That does not make it true. If you look at software, it's the same. If we build an self replicating algorithm that evolves in time, and at some point, they become concious, they can trace their evolution as fast as they like. Randomness of the process and caos will make sure they cannot walk step by step to the very begining. And even if they do (they can't, they can only bring an hypotesis), they will reach a point where "this is the minimun program that can makes us what we are today"...and from there, they will have to assume the program happended by pure chance. But we know it didn't.
So you can never be sure ID is crap. Or you can, and I am wrong. If you prove it to the world, I can stop believing what I believe.
They do answer polls like that. Google is #1 in the "Great Places to Work" and they are fond of it and mention it "we are the best company to watch for". So no. You are wrong. :-) They do care.
I was playing devil's advocate. You DO have you own set of ethics, it's important to recognize that. I will only add that maybe I do believe animals deserve a better life, and we are treating most of with so much disrespect it's really sad.
So it would be ok for you to eat humans, if they tasted great and it was legal? You'd buy slaves if you were in the 18th century? You'd think women are inferior because they were made from a mans chest bones? You have no problem at all, because it suits you.
It sounds great: you simply do what you feel like doing, and don't do what you don't want to do. You see no reason to get 'ethics' involved in any decision really.
Sounds great! But the truth is you don't care about any living thing maybe except for humans, because that's what you've been touch. All in all, you are accepting whatever programming got into your brain by who knows who, without thinking for yourself. That's why you see no reason for "ethics" in the first place.
Drink 1 less cup of great tasting coffee out of every 10 cups you'd drink of filtered coffee, and you'll be fine.
Either you can afford a normal (though cheap) notebook, or the goverment can provide your kind with a toold aimed at children (that's 1/3 of the price). There is really no problem at all.
They want part manufacturers to cooperate, and they don't want enter into a messy war with OEMs, and they do not do it for a profit, and couldn't do it for a profit (a retail/logistics organizations add a lots of costs, the same notebook could end up costing $400 or more to end users, without any benefit for the OLPC).
Suppose they way just a little bit and they buy them at USD$150. Suppose you could buy 1,000,000 Pentiums...wow, no wait, better have another million kids close to technology for free! And the functionality is different. These are rugged notebook computers with low consumption tailored specifically at kids. I don't get your point.
It _natually_ leads to monopoly. When monopoly happens you no longer have _practical_ options, and there is _no_ competitive way around it. That's one way to define a monopoly, natural or otherwise. For a simple example:
Road ACME from A to B cost to construct 50 MUSD. Doing all monopoly practices they get a return of say 25%. That's the _ can extract from that road. No sane company will biuld a close to that one, as they would lose money. They will lose money. Say invest 100, and get something that even less that 125/2 (62,5, or ~ -30%). And this is a light example, because when there are economies of scale in the scheme, it can get worst (and that's why Bill gates is the riches man on earth, for example, and you we are not).
It's a good example, but not a usefull one. People care going to places they like, but they do not care about phones. Neutral or not, everyone today can call everyone in the world. We need examples where not having net neutrality would be a mess and a disaster at personal level, so that people can relate to.
IMHO
... Or, you use it if you are Google, Yahoo or the US Census Bureau.