OTOH. The point a lot of other posters are making is that this isn't anything unique. Not the latest and greatest, not expecially cool, not being used in unusual ways, been done before.
Agree totally. It amuses me when I see people going gah-gah over some spiffy new overpriced PC that will cost half as much and and be concidered an "entry-level" system in 6 months.
OTOH, I have bought 2 SMP machines in the last 18 months. I knew they weren't the fastest (P3 v P4) but they chug along much more robustly, and will probably be of more value in later years.
Actually genocide and other evil things are caused by people, not meaningless or random chance, whatever that is. So isn't the solution to preventing evil also in the people?
...without evidence either way, but on the balance of evidence..."
Perhaps a better way to have said that would be that I won't say there is no god without evidence (or vice versa), but the fact there has been no evidence supporting god's existence suggests it is less probable it does.
An atheist does this by saying, "all the evil (and all the good) in the world is completely random and I shouldn't bother with trying to understand why it is happening". A theist on the other hand believes a supernatural explanation for the evil in the world. In the case of the Christian, he or she believes the Bible's explanation for evil, that the sin of man is at the root of all evil, and only by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross can we be saved.
I think it unwise to speak for all atheists and christians in such a broad way (especially without reading some history). However, I think atheists are more likely to seek an answer and solution to "evil" in human causes and actions because they don't already have the prepackaged answer. To say atheists wouldn't bother is an insult to the many that do.
An honest atheist would have to agree that their approach to dealing with life is as much about what they believe (ie, have faith in) about the world than about what can actually be proven about it.
I have faith that modern liberal democracies tend to be happier places to live than despotisms. But what has this got to do with "god"? As an agnostic, I refuse to categorically refute there is a god without evidence either way, but on the balance of evidence, believe (have faith) that a god (epecially one from human imagination) is unlikely.
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
Where does it give permission to slap a new license on it?
You're forgetting that the US has an interesting form of democracy whereby a President is elected and then that President selects a bunch of civil servants for important tasks. Most other democracies have elected representatives doing important jobs like defense, foreign policy etc..
Actually, agnosticism is not about belief in any way at all, it's about "not knowing" without evidence. Thomas Huxley, the original agnostic:
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
So many idiots since that time have twisted "agnosticism" into many new meanings.
Actually, the whole movement is like that. They are anti-profit, but pro-tax. Anti-monopoly, but pro-government. Anti-capitalist, but pro-freedom.
Really, the corporate CEO and the tree-hugger want the same things, neither of which are in the interests of the government, which does its best to set them against each other.
Please explain how CEOS are "anti-profit/monopoly/capitalist". If anything they are the antithesis of the "tree-huggers" you describe above.
The team, from the Southern Methodist University in Texas, analysed more than a million earthquake reports, looking for the tell-tale signal of strangelets hitting Earth.
So they went looking through a huge pile of earthquake data just to find two seismic events that happened soon after the other and blame it on a particle that has been posited but never observed.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH. The point a lot of other posters are making is that this isn't anything unique. Not the latest and greatest, not expecially cool, not being used in unusual ways, been done before.
Agree totally. It amuses me when I see people going gah-gah over some spiffy new overpriced PC that will cost half as much and and be concidered an "entry-level" system in 6 months.
OTOH, I have bought 2 SMP machines in the last 18 months. I knew they weren't the fastest (P3 v P4) but they chug along much more robustly, and will probably be of more value in later years.
Including babies who die at birth?
Actually genocide and other evil things are caused by people, not meaningless or random chance, whatever that is. So isn't the solution to preventing evil also in the people?
I like drinking beer. Masturbation is nice too sometimes.
Perhaps a better way to have said that would be that I won't say there is no god without evidence (or vice versa), but the fact there has been no evidence supporting god's existence suggests it is less probable it does.
An atheist does this by saying, "all the evil (and all the good) in the world is completely random and I shouldn't bother with trying to understand why it is happening". A theist on the other hand believes a supernatural explanation for the evil in the world. In the case of the Christian, he or she believes the Bible's explanation for evil, that the sin of man is at the root of all evil, and only by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross can we be saved.
I think it unwise to speak for all atheists and christians in such a broad way (especially without reading some history). However, I think atheists are more likely to seek an answer and solution to "evil" in human causes and actions because they don't already have the prepackaged answer. To say atheists wouldn't bother is an insult to the many that do.
An honest atheist would have to agree that their approach to dealing with life is as much about what they believe (ie, have faith in) about the world than about what can actually be proven about it.
I have faith that modern liberal democracies tend to be happier places to live than despotisms. But what has this got to do with "god"? As an agnostic, I refuse to categorically refute there is a god without evidence either way, but on the balance of evidence, believe (have faith) that a god (epecially one from human imagination) is unlikely.
I'm amazed that we still have religions in this day and age. Surely humanism offers a more coherent and compassionate view of the world.
I'll be dead. I don't think I'll really care too much.
The first step is Mad Max-like, then comes Skynet, then The Matrix. Or have I been lied to again by Hollywood?
Dictionary
FreeBSD license
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
Where does it give permission to slap a new license on it?
Tomorrow: Freebsd 5.0-RC2 one day old.
It's a strange thing. I think part of their philosophy is to colonize other OSen with the GPL.
Look at the strange GNU/Darwin project that has just taken a sharp right turn towards abject failure.
I can't think of any other reason to replace a perfectly good userland with an almost identical, in function, userland.
I dunno about you but I'm too busy reading Slashdot to waste time replying to spammers.
You're forgetting that the US has an interesting form of democracy whereby a President is elected and then that President selects a bunch of civil servants for important tasks. Most other democracies have elected representatives doing important jobs like defense, foreign policy etc..
All good reasons to adopt a Westminster system and have elected representatives in senior executive positions instead of all these public servants.
Sure, "educate" them while they're young and turn them into "reasonable" people.
The IPU will be sorely disappointed with your "rational" beliefs.
I can't.
Actually, agnosticism is not about belief in any way at all, it's about "not knowing" without evidence. Thomas Huxley, the original agnostic:
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
So many idiots since that time have twisted "agnosticism" into many new meanings.
Actually, the whole movement is like that. They are anti-profit, but pro-tax. Anti-monopoly, but pro-government. Anti-capitalist, but pro-freedom.
Really, the corporate CEO and the tree-hugger want the same things, neither of which are in the interests of the government, which does its best to set them against each other.
Please explain how CEOS are "anti-profit/monopoly/capitalist". If anything they are the antithesis of the "tree-huggers" you describe above.
Nyah nyah
It's pretty sad if you consider freedom to spend your money your only freedom.
"it is highly portable and can easily be integrated into GNU/Linux systems"
Otherwise it wouldn't be newsworthy.
The team, from the Southern Methodist University in Texas, analysed more than a million earthquake reports, looking for the tell-tale signal of strangelets hitting Earth.
So they went looking through a huge pile of earthquake data just to find two seismic events that happened soon after the other and blame it on a particle that has been posited but never observed.
Numbers of earthquakes in a year