In the UK, there's still the issue of glebe land and Chancel Repair liability - large amounts of land that the Church of England has the right to make the owners pay for repairs to churches, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, as a result of some medieval law. I myself paid £100 for insurance to cover the risk of bankruptcy.
When people advocate the scientific method, they aren't advocating "mud-slinging and discrediting", they are advocating the scientific method, so that's just a straw man.
That people used "mud-slinging and discrediting" in the past isn't an argument against the scientific method, nor is it an argument in favour of religion. But yes, I was asking for ideals - to rephrase my question slightly, it would be: Which methods do religious people use to resolve their disagreements on religion, which you would advocate?
To which you give the answer: "is resolved by a shared common love of God, and to love one another as brothers and sisters."
To which I reply: what on earth does that mean?
Person A makes the claim that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, person B disagrees. How do they resolve the difference? I know how I'd advocate resolving it - through science, evidence, and reason; just like any other claim made about the real world. How does "loving God and each other" help us here?
Don't forget that prominent universities all started as theology schools and have religious roots
What has this got to do with anything? Even if it was true, it doesn't make religious claims correct. Nor does it answer my question.
I think you're misreading. No one's saying that the same one thing makes everyone happy. It just means that we can use science to investigate what things make people happy. The fact that some people like one thing and another people like another doesn't change that, it just means you need to research more than a single person.
Can you cite me an example where the scientific consensus has been something that isn't true, but used to fiercly oppose ideas that don't fit with the official line?
Of course, scientists will rightly say that "science" doesn't do any of that, science is an objective set of methods, that all those things are an abuse of science. But then, religionists will say that all the evils of religion are not really religion but are an abuse of it
But hang on - if a religious person is going to use this tactic (which I think is a valid one), then first they have to explain what the "religious method" is. You see, with science, we can clearly define the scientific method, and that's what people talk about when they promote science - the method, and not whatever individual scientists might do.
What "method" is it that religious people are promoting? Because all I see is not a method, but instead a range of different belief systems, all of which they claim are the one true faith.
And the fundamental problem with religion isn't to do with whether it's used to silence people - the biggest problem is that it's a load of rubbish in the first place.
An agnostic is someone who claims we don't know or can't know about God - it's not mutually exclusive with atheism (or indeed theism), nor does it mean they don't have strong feelings. Someone who doesn't care wouldn't identify as agnostic in the first place - apatheism may be a better term for them.
While they beefed Doctor Who up and he kicked the asses of the Family of Blood using time lord technology, that was the best thing they could have done. But after that Doctor Who went back to being a non-violent prat and bleeding heart liberal.
So wait - though showed him as both someone who used revenge, and someone who showed forgiveness - but showing both sides is political propaganda? They're only showing him as a "bleeding heart liberal" (except for all the times when he isn't)?
At least punish the evil aliens non-violently once in a while
Just like he did, then.
Boring ultra-left-wing
I don't recall a reference for his economic views? I don't think he has money, but that's probably more on account of him being an alien.
make Americans look bad by making US characters like Captain Jack Harkness look like a jerk, when clearly he is not and is a Time Cop and never shoots innocent aliens but only shoots the evil ones.
Ah, again - they make him look bad (except for the times when they don't).
How is he made to look a jerk, btw? A Time Cop from the 51st century, and the actor was born in Scotland, so I wouldn't think of him as representing America.
You've got religious zealots who want to believe that every scientific phenomenon explains their religion, and atheistic ones who want to believe that every single shred fights against religion.
And then you've got the straw men making zealots who like to polarise the debate into two unrealistic extremes, and then show how superior they are by deciding to fence-sit.
The religious don't actually have to make any argument regarding ketamine in order to validate or invalidate views on heaven, because only the fringes ever thought that NDEs had anything to do with it.
Yes, but saying "Only the fringes ever tried to argue with a scrap of evidence, and everyone else believed it without any evidence at all" is hardly a ringing endorsement for their position!
I find it amusing how the Wikipedia article for "kissogram" has received a sudden burst of activity coinciding with this episode. There's not just the "Popular culture" section that's been added - apparently before this episode aired, we didn't know that they tended to dress up as "a policewoman or nurse or french maid or nun"...
So in other words, even if we accepted the notion that it's a Good Thing that Apple control what you can do with your phone, purely for their marketing purposes and their brand image, you've pointed out that, as with the example of your friend, it doesn't actually work, anyway.
Sure, but then look how much criticism the Kindle gets for its closed nature.
Imagine if instead, we got hordes of people saying "But it's a good thing that Amazon don't want you to read 1984. By deleting it off your device, they're making things better for you. Why would I want to read 1984 anyway?" - ? It wouldn't be the Slashdot we once knew. That's how it feels everytime I read an Ipad story here now. (Not to mention that most tablets don't ever get coverage at all.)
Indeed - this idea of using the ill-defined "smartphone" category is rather misleading (especially when the original Iphone reasonably wasn't even a smartphone - things like running apps and Internet access were the domain of plain old feature phones by 2005, so a phone lacking extra features in 2007 hardly qualifies as smart). Even if we accepted that you could separate the market like that, it hardly disproves that Apple phones are a niche, when smartphones as a whole are not what most people are buying. [*]
It's like that article we had a while back, saying how Apple were the number one PC seller in PCs costing over $1000. Well, yes, Apple are good at selling expensive products! But that doesn't stop them being a niche.
[*] Of course, then we get that related claim of "But Apple have caused more people to buy smartphones, more than any other company" which simply can't be true - as at most, they can only claim 5% of new smartphone owners, where as Nokia are there at 40-50%.
Prediction: In five years' time, Apple will release a "smaller Ipad" that fits into a coat pocket. Perhaps it will also make phone calls.
Slashdot, the media, and Apple fans the world over will be in an ecstasy of self-wank at how amazing Apple are at releasing such a revolutionary product, that no other company had thought of before.
In all seriousness, though, iPhone and Android are rapidly changing the landscape of mobile devices and computing and inter-personal communications in general. Nokia's pretty much going to get left in the dust, unless their Android products catch on.
"rapidly changing the landscape"? My point is about Apple, not Android. Yes, Android is interesting (although I still wouldn't say rapidly changing the landscape), because it'll be available to run on phones from the major players like Motorola etc, who sell far more than Apple, who until now haven't had a decent OS (unlike Nokia). But to say this of Apple is laughable. Apple might have brought one or two new features, but this is nothing unique (that's what all tech companies do), and what they've done is nothing compared to the revolution that Nokia have made in mobile communications. In what way are Apple now "rapidly changing the landscape"?
Nokia are going to get left in the dust? If you say so. I'd expect that they might lose their dominant position as more companies enter the market, but that hardly means Apple are going to replace them, or come anywhere close.
With regard to Macs, the world is changing to a more platform-neutral world
Yes, it's true that Macs don't exist as such now, and are just a brandname for Apple PCs. Which just adds to my point that Macs themselves when they were around were always a niche.
2010 and beyond is about mobile computing devices.
2001 called. Mobile phones had turned into mobile computing long before 2007 - again, a classic Apple view that isn't aware of anything pre-Iphone. By 2005, even bog standard feature phones were mobile computers. And Nokia (and generally, loads of other companies aside from Apple) have been leading the way with regards to mobile computing, long before Apple even started playing catchup when they entered the market years after everyone else. And Nokia are still leading that way.
They have less than 5% of the mobile market - we're not interested in some arbitrary restricted category. Can you give me a definition of smartphone that includes the original Iphone, but not most feature phones? Thought not. Obviously if you restrict the category to "expensive phones", then Apple do better, but then that's still a niche.
You might as well say Macs aren't a niche, by looking at some arbitrary made up category that only includes Macs and some other expensive PCs. Or that Apple have 100% market share of Iphones!
Anyhow, even if we do take your arbitrary category - 18% is still way behind Nokia.
Why on earth is this a troll? Moderation is sure screwed up on Apple stories - anything that doesn't fit into the "Apple are the market leader in everything and did everything first" world view gets modded down:/
The Ipod was market leader, therefore the Ipad will be? Please, go back to school and learn basic logic. Do you think:
"Windows and IE were market leaders, therefore the Zune will be"?
>this is a big-ass iPod
Yes, because obviously making mp3 players bigger is just what people want. Let's go back to the 80s, so that people can walk around showing their Istales off, carrying them around on their shoulders blasting out music.
If they make money, it'll just be the classic Apple model of making money by selling expensive products to a niche, and getting large amounts of free hype and advertising for it. That's how it is for all other Apple products - the Macs, their PCs, the Iphones. It won't be anything remotely near the success of their one hit wonder, the Ipod.
Note to mods - disagreeing with a post doesn't make it a troll. Just because you have mod points today, doesn't stop the OP's argument being a logical fallacy. Come back when you have an actual coherent argument, rather than mod points.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, there's still the issue of glebe land and Chancel Repair liability - large amounts of land that the Church of England has the right to make the owners pay for repairs to churches, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, as a result of some medieval law. I myself paid £100 for insurance to cover the risk of bankruptcy.
When people advocate the scientific method, they aren't advocating "mud-slinging and discrediting", they are advocating the scientific method, so that's just a straw man.
That people used "mud-slinging and discrediting" in the past isn't an argument against the scientific method, nor is it an argument in favour of religion. But yes, I was asking for ideals - to rephrase my question slightly, it would be: Which methods do religious people use to resolve their disagreements on religion, which you would advocate?
To which you give the answer: "is resolved by a shared common love of God, and to love one another as brothers and sisters."
To which I reply: what on earth does that mean?
Person A makes the claim that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, person B disagrees. How do they resolve the difference? I know how I'd advocate resolving it - through science, evidence, and reason; just like any other claim made about the real world. How does "loving God and each other" help us here?
Don't forget that prominent universities all started as theology schools and have religious roots
What has this got to do with anything? Even if it was true, it doesn't make religious claims correct. Nor does it answer my question.
I think you're misreading. No one's saying that the same one thing makes everyone happy. It just means that we can use science to investigate what things make people happy. The fact that some people like one thing and another people like another doesn't change that, it just means you need to research more than a single person.
Can you cite me an example where the scientific consensus has been something that isn't true, but used to fiercly oppose ideas that don't fit with the official line?
Of course, scientists will rightly say that "science" doesn't do any of that, science is an objective set of methods, that all those things are an abuse of science. But then, religionists will say that all the evils of religion are not really religion but are an abuse of it
But hang on - if a religious person is going to use this tactic (which I think is a valid one), then first they have to explain what the "religious method" is. You see, with science, we can clearly define the scientific method, and that's what people talk about when they promote science - the method, and not whatever individual scientists might do.
What "method" is it that religious people are promoting? Because all I see is not a method, but instead a range of different belief systems, all of which they claim are the one true faith.
And the fundamental problem with religion isn't to do with whether it's used to silence people - the biggest problem is that it's a load of rubbish in the first place.
Yeah, not to mention that woman who turned me into a newt.
Scientists resolve disagreements by coming up with experiments to test them. Legal disputes are resolved with reason and evidence.
How do religious people resolve their disagreements on religion?
An agnostic is someone who claims we don't know or can't know about God - it's not mutually exclusive with atheism (or indeed theism), nor does it mean they don't have strong feelings. Someone who doesn't care wouldn't identify as agnostic in the first place - apatheism may be a better term for them.
Well yes, that's exactly what the OP and others are criticising - that the "user experience" is moving "towards closed computer environments".
While they beefed Doctor Who up and he kicked the asses of the Family of Blood using time lord technology, that was the best thing they could have done. But after that Doctor Who went back to being a non-violent prat and bleeding heart liberal.
So wait - though showed him as both someone who used revenge, and someone who showed forgiveness - but showing both sides is political propaganda? They're only showing him as a "bleeding heart liberal" (except for all the times when he isn't)?
At least punish the evil aliens non-violently once in a while
Just like he did, then.
Boring ultra-left-wing
I don't recall a reference for his economic views? I don't think he has money, but that's probably more on account of him being an alien.
make Americans look bad by making US characters like Captain Jack Harkness look like a jerk, when clearly he is not and is a Time Cop and never shoots innocent aliens but only shoots the evil ones.
Ah, again - they make him look bad (except for the times when they don't).
How is he made to look a jerk, btw? A Time Cop from the 51st century, and the actor was born in Scotland, so I wouldn't think of him as representing America.
You've got religious zealots who want to believe that every scientific phenomenon explains their religion, and atheistic ones who want to believe that every single shred fights against religion.
And then you've got the straw men making zealots who like to polarise the debate into two unrealistic extremes, and then show how superior they are by deciding to fence-sit.
The religious don't actually have to make any argument regarding ketamine in order to validate or invalidate views on heaven, because only the fringes ever thought that NDEs had anything to do with it.
Yes, but saying "Only the fringes ever tried to argue with a scrap of evidence, and everyone else believed it without any evidence at all" is hardly a ringing endorsement for their position!
Yes, darn that gay Russell T Davies and his "family-oriented" agenda.
I find it amusing how the Wikipedia article for "kissogram" has received a sudden burst of activity coinciding with this episode. There's not just the "Popular culture" section that's been added - apparently before this episode aired, we didn't know that they tended to dress up as "a policewoman or nurse or french maid or nun"...
So in other words, even if we accepted the notion that it's a Good Thing that Apple control what you can do with your phone, purely for their marketing purposes and their brand image, you've pointed out that, as with the example of your friend, it doesn't actually work, anyway.
Do you have a source for that (that isn't the BNP or the Daily Mail)?
Sure, but then look how much criticism the Kindle gets for its closed nature.
Imagine if instead, we got hordes of people saying "But it's a good thing that Amazon don't want you to read 1984. By deleting it off your device, they're making things better for you. Why would I want to read 1984 anyway?" - ? It wouldn't be the Slashdot we once knew. That's how it feels everytime I read an Ipad story here now. (Not to mention that most tablets don't ever get coverage at all.)
Indeed - this idea of using the ill-defined "smartphone" category is rather misleading (especially when the original Iphone reasonably wasn't even a smartphone - things like running apps and Internet access were the domain of plain old feature phones by 2005, so a phone lacking extra features in 2007 hardly qualifies as smart). Even if we accepted that you could separate the market like that, it hardly disproves that Apple phones are a niche, when smartphones as a whole are not what most people are buying. [*]
It's like that article we had a while back, saying how Apple were the number one PC seller in PCs costing over $1000. Well, yes, Apple are good at selling expensive products! But that doesn't stop them being a niche.
[*] Of course, then we get that related claim of "But Apple have caused more people to buy smartphones, more than any other company" which simply can't be true - as at most, they can only claim 5% of new smartphone owners, where as Nokia are there at 40-50%.
Prediction: In five years' time, Apple will release a "smaller Ipad" that fits into a coat pocket. Perhaps it will also make phone calls.
Slashdot, the media, and Apple fans the world over will be in an ecstasy of self-wank at how amazing Apple are at releasing such a revolutionary product, that no other company had thought of before.
If only it was redundant to point this out.
In all seriousness, though, iPhone and Android are rapidly changing the landscape of mobile devices and computing and inter-personal communications in general. Nokia's pretty much going to get left in the dust, unless their Android products catch on.
"rapidly changing the landscape"? My point is about Apple, not Android. Yes, Android is interesting (although I still wouldn't say rapidly changing the landscape), because it'll be available to run on phones from the major players like Motorola etc, who sell far more than Apple, who until now haven't had a decent OS (unlike Nokia). But to say this of Apple is laughable. Apple might have brought one or two new features, but this is nothing unique (that's what all tech companies do), and what they've done is nothing compared to the revolution that Nokia have made in mobile communications. In what way are Apple now "rapidly changing the landscape"?
Nokia are going to get left in the dust? If you say so. I'd expect that they might lose their dominant position as more companies enter the market, but that hardly means Apple are going to replace them, or come anywhere close.
With regard to Macs, the world is changing to a more platform-neutral world
Yes, it's true that Macs don't exist as such now, and are just a brandname for Apple PCs. Which just adds to my point that Macs themselves when they were around were always a niche.
2010 and beyond is about mobile computing devices.
2001 called. Mobile phones had turned into mobile computing long before 2007 - again, a classic Apple view that isn't aware of anything pre-Iphone. By 2005, even bog standard feature phones were mobile computers. And Nokia (and generally, loads of other companies aside from Apple) have been leading the way with regards to mobile computing, long before Apple even started playing catchup when they entered the market years after everyone else. And Nokia are still leading that way.
"Windows was a fucking popular OS, therefore the fucking Zune will be too".
Funny how this is "flamebait", yet the same logic applied to Apple products isn't.
They have less than 5% of the mobile market - we're not interested in some arbitrary restricted category. Can you give me a definition of smartphone that includes the original Iphone, but not most feature phones? Thought not. Obviously if you restrict the category to "expensive phones", then Apple do better, but then that's still a niche.
You might as well say Macs aren't a niche, by looking at some arbitrary made up category that only includes Macs and some other expensive PCs. Or that Apple have 100% market share of Iphones!
Anyhow, even if we do take your arbitrary category - 18% is still way behind Nokia.
Mod abuse yet again - I get modded flamebait for parodying the OP's swearing, yet using "fuck" - when it's in support of Apple - is perfectly fine.
it as the same 'magical' do-nothing-special device
I have to laugh at the spam that Apple sent me, branding the Ipad as "magical". I guess if it can "reshape the Internet!!!" it must be magic.
(No idea why a major company like Apple get away with sending unsolicited spam like a viagra or sex company anyway. I never signed up for it.)
Why on earth is this a troll? Moderation is sure screwed up on Apple stories - anything that doesn't fit into the "Apple are the market leader in everything and did everything first" world view gets modded down :/
Please quit this homophobia. It's offensive to suggest that gay people would want to use Apple products.
*snort* +5 deluded.
The Ipod was market leader, therefore the Ipad will be? Please, go back to school and learn basic logic. Do you think:
"Windows and IE were market leaders, therefore the Zune will be"?
>this is a big-ass iPod
Yes, because obviously making mp3 players bigger is just what people want. Let's go back to the 80s, so that people can walk around showing their Istales off, carrying them around on their shoulders blasting out music.
If they make money, it'll just be the classic Apple model of making money by selling expensive products to a niche, and getting large amounts of free hype and advertising for it. That's how it is for all other Apple products - the Macs, their PCs, the Iphones. It won't be anything remotely near the success of their one hit wonder, the Ipod.
Note to mods - disagreeing with a post doesn't make it a troll. Just because you have mod points today, doesn't stop the OP's argument being a logical fallacy. Come back when you have an actual coherent argument, rather than mod points.