You can't possibly prove or observe the non-existence of all possible deities.
Atheists don't claim to have proof of the non-existence of god. Their position is that there isn't compelling evidence for god, so they do not believe he exists. Atheists may generally be confident in this belief, but it is almost always provisional - if convincing evidence is presented, they'll reconsider their position.
I personally don't believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, or pink unicorns orbiting Pluto. I cannot prove that these things do not exist, but it is rational to believe that they do not until conclusively demonstrated otherwise.
This is atheism's great logical problem. You say its up to believers to prove each of their individual deities. Since they can't, you go off and claim none exists. Uh... But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The positive assumption that "no gods exist" is itself exactly as unprovable as the assumption that any one or any set of deities does.
Nice try. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which behooves the proponent for the existence of god(s) to either put up or shut up. Sadly, they do neither. It is not irrational, it requires no faith, to disbelieve in something having no evidence for its existence.
I don't suppose we could change the topic for a moment so you can explain to us why we should believe there might be pink unicorns on Pluto? If that's not your position, perhaps you could explain why your position on pink unicorns differs from your position on god?
Atheism's core assumption is just as much of an assumption as anything in Scientology, to be blunt.
Hey, thanks for your frankness. I guess I never equated "I'll believe it when I see it" with "Hey, I believe all that crazy shit that L. Ron said." So, the core assumption that there are no pink unicorns orbiting Pluto is just as tenuous as the assumption that there are? Astounding.
If the biology of the sea is reverting back to a more primative state, it could mean that a biological reset and redesign is happening. Go back to a checkpoint in the design, scrap what came after it and start again to see if the new design can better cope with the changed environment.
Dude, don't anthropomorphize nature. She doesn't like it when you do that.
Here in Illinois, 50% of those on death row were proven by genetic analysis to be innocent of the crimes of which they had been convicted.
That's an incredible number. Do you have references to back it up? The only numbers I can find online are for around 12-16 exonerated, with about 150-160 on death row (
CNN,
BBC.) Of these, it would appear several of the exonerations were not due to DNA evidence, but by evidence being brought to light by outsiders.
That being said, even a 10% erroneous conviction rate is unnacceptable. If you can demonstrate a 50% error rate, I can't imagine anyone maintaining a pro-death penalty stance. It would certainly be a slam dunk for me.
Slackware users are grumpy, bearded old Unix sysadmins who prefer things be done the "good old fashioned way", making their Linux distro stick to traditional Unix principles, through 10 feet of snow, uphill, both ways!
I remember the MCC/SLS days, when people worried about this new 'Slackware' distribution that was going to dumb down and commercialize Linux.
I thought Ritalin was only used to treat ADHD in children, in that their response to amphetamines is different than that of adults. It slows them down instead of winding them up.
Why do some humans find it so hard to grasp that life more than likely exists elsewhere and likely close than we think?
Why do some humans find it so easy to believe life more than likely exists elsewhere and likely close than we think?
The more we look, the more we find, we've looked deep underground and found life, we've looked at cold arctic areas and found life, we have found life floating high in the atmosphere.
The volume and variety of life on earth in no way supports the notion that life exists outside of it.
Without reasonable evidence, the espousal of abundant E.T. life is a statement of religious belief, not scientific.
So, life on Mars? You bet some microbes are doing just fine there, and who knows what else.
Not if you're only going 10-12 MPH. I imagine the exertion to maintain that pace would be on the order of walking. You'd probably want to wear biking shorts for longer distances, but the shower should be unnecessary.
Well, Mandrake is up to version 9 already (they are almost always 1 higher than RedHat. I don't understand why Redhat can't keep up.) Also, Debian, the other 'open model' distro is languishing 5 behind everyone else, they being only up to version 3. What's up with that!
But the truly sad part is how far ahead of all of them Microsoft is; MS got up to version 2000 of their OS before they stopped counting. We've got a long way to go to reach that level. However,
Apple is only on version 10, so we just might be able to catch those slackers.
If Bob steals your copy of Photoshop, you can normally contact Adobe for a free/low cost replacement, after proving ownership. It will cost, let's say around $1.00 in production and shipping for them to send you a free CD. But let's say they charge you $5 S&H to send the replacement out.
So in your scenario, Bob has obtained a $500 software package with a $5 cost to you, As opposed to obtaining the warez version, which has no physical costs associated. Is Bob prosecuted as if he stole $5 from you? No, I'll bet he's in it for the full $500.
Anyway, in either case Bob will not be buying a legal version of the software. Let's use your 50% number to represent the likelihood that Bob would have purchased the software if here were honest. The total societal impact of theft is $255, whereas the impact of the copyright violation is $250. This is a 2% difference.
You are right in that if you steal the CD from a store, you damage them to at least the tune of what they paid for it. But they will charge you with stealing having a value equal to the selling price, not their wholesale price.
But what's your answer to "What if the CD was stolen directly from Adobe?" The cost of the physical item to Adobe is only what it would take to cut another one.
No, in the example you stole the CD from adobe. So you cost them about $0.25 (what it would cost them to cut another one.) So here we are; in both instances you have obtained the software illegally. In either case you may or may not have legally purchased the item had your moral compass not been pointing south. So in the case of the physical theft you've stolen $0.25 more than you have in the case of the copyright violation. This is a negligible amount; the crimes are essentially equal in damage for the sake of discussion.
You are reading too much into the definitions, and ignoring the larger point. There's nothing there to differentiate between stealing secret ideas and published ideas. Are you saying that it is possible to steal intangible assets, but only if they are secret?
The larger point is that 'steal' can be applied to non-physical assets, like ideas, in the first place, which is a refutation of the prior poster's point.
As far as 'stealing music' not being theft, you are technically correct, in that the definition of theft refers only to the appropriation of property. However,
I think it is wrong-headed to try to diminish the severity of copyright violation by arguing it isn't the same as the theft of a physical asset, and is thus less egregious.
Here's why: Let's say you've stolen a copy of Photoshop, let's say you take it directly from Adobe to avoid the middleman. Now they catch you, and you are charged with stealing $500 woth of merchandise. Do you think a judge is going to buy the argument that you only stole $.25, because that's the value of the raw material & cost of physical production, and Adobe can just cut another CD for that amount? Me neither. The value of the stolen goods is primarily in the content, not the physical medium.
So now, tell me why someone who obtains that same software from a warez site is not guilty of the doing the same amount of damage, minus the negligible worth of the physical medium?
Referring to copyright infringment as piracy or theft confuses very different crimes with different levels of harm of society and different laws governing them.
You are implying that copyright violation does a significantly smaller amount of damage to society than theft. Can you support this assertion?
Namely, can you explain the significant difference in societal damage between these two:
No, you're violating a copyright. Stealing involves depleting a finite resource, copyright infringement involves violating a fixed-term government-granted monopoly on an idea or work. Stealing affects provable loss of a physical possession; copyright infringement dilutes the economic incentive set up by your government to promote the arts and sciences.
No, it is stealing (as well as copyright violation.)
Webster's NewWorld Dictionary, 2nd College Edition steal: 1. to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner.
Cambridge International Dictionary of English
steal [cambridge.org]:
to take (something) without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it
The boys were charged with stealing bikes from a house in Summerhill Rd. [T]
The number of cars which are stolen every year has risen considerably. [T]
She came home to find she'd had her TV and video stolen (=someone had stolen them). [T]
When the book was published we found that the author had stolen several of our ideas. [T]
The firm is now accusing a small band of its former employees of stealing trade secrets. [T]
They were so hungry they had to steal in order to eat. [I]
He has been convicted of stealing. [I]
From these definitions, it is clear that the word 'steal' may be applied to the appropriation of ideas, trade secrets, and other non-physical assets (like copyrighted digital music.)
To suggest that the definitions and examples that I have presented are in any way undermined by yours is not a valid line of argument. And please don't waste our time trying to distract from the issue with the 'stealing a kiss' nonsense. It won't work.
I have presented definitions from a two dictionaries which indicate that the word 'steal' may relate to the "without permission, dishonest, or unlawful" appropriation of non-physical assets, such as ideas or trade secrets. This idea is presented in the same context as the theft of property, not in alternate definitions like 'stealing first base.'
Your presentation of definitions which are narrower in scope in no way invalidates the broader scope. Unless you can:
A. Establish that these two mainstream dictionaries are erroneous, or
2. Explain why the appropriation of copyrighted materials is substantially different from the appropriation of ideas or trade secrets,
I don't see how you can rationally continue this line of reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
Atheists don't claim to have proof of the non-existence of god. Their position is that there isn't compelling evidence for god, so they do not believe he exists. Atheists may generally be confident in this belief, but it is almost always provisional - if convincing evidence is presented, they'll reconsider their position.
I personally don't believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, or pink unicorns orbiting Pluto. I cannot prove that these things do not exist, but it is rational to believe that they do not until conclusively demonstrated otherwise.
This is atheism's great logical problem. You say its up to believers to prove each of their individual deities. Since they can't, you go off and claim none exists. Uh... But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The positive assumption that "no gods exist" is itself exactly as unprovable as the assumption that any one or any set of deities does.Nice try. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which behooves the proponent for the existence of god(s) to either put up or shut up. Sadly, they do neither. It is not irrational, it requires no faith, to disbelieve in something having no evidence for its existence.
I don't suppose we could change the topic for a moment so you can explain to us why we should believe there might be pink unicorns on Pluto? If that's not your position, perhaps you could explain why your position on pink unicorns differs from your position on god?
Atheism's core assumption is just as much of an assumption as anything in Scientology, to be blunt.Hey, thanks for your frankness. I guess I never equated "I'll believe it when I see it" with "Hey, I believe all that crazy shit that L. Ron said." So, the core assumption that there are no pink unicorns orbiting Pluto is just as tenuous as the assumption that there are? Astounding.
Dude, don't anthropomorphize nature. She doesn't like it when you do that.
Bah! I remember when people worried about this shiny new distro called Slackware that was going to try to take Linux commercial.
Anybody else remember MCC or SLS?
Link seems to be about a test deployment of a sail only; nothing about it being used in a working spacecraft.
all the governmental solar sail spacecraft? WTF?
That's an incredible number. Do you have references to back it up? The only numbers I can find online are for around 12-16 exonerated, with about 150-160 on death row ( CNN, BBC .) Of these, it would appear several of the exonerations were not due to DNA evidence, but by evidence being brought to light by outsiders.
That being said, even a 10% erroneous conviction rate is unnacceptable. If you can demonstrate a 50% error rate, I can't imagine anyone maintaining a pro-death penalty stance. It would certainly be a slam dunk for me.
I remember the MCC/SLS days, when people worried about this new 'Slackware' distribution that was going to dumb down and commercialize Linux.
God I feel old.
Now, if you wanted to trash 'mericuns, well, that's a different matter.
I thought Ritalin was only used to treat ADHD in children, in that their response to amphetamines is different than that of adults. It slows them down instead of winding them up.
Why do some humans find it so easy to believe life more than likely exists elsewhere and likely close than we think?
The more we look, the more we find, we've looked deep underground and found life, we've looked at cold arctic areas and found life, we have found life floating high in the atmosphere.
The volume and variety of life on earth in no way supports the notion that life exists outside of it.
Without reasonable evidence, the espousal of abundant E.T. life is a statement of religious belief, not scientific.
So, life on Mars? You bet some microbes are doing just fine there, and who knows what else.
Preach it, brother!
Not if you're only going 10-12 MPH. I imagine the exertion to maintain that pace would be on the order of walking. You'd probably want to wear biking shorts for longer distances, but the shower should be unnecessary.
Because UL is perceived, accurately or not, as an attempt by the participating distros to join forces and collectively gain market share on RedHat.
But the truly sad part is how far ahead of all of them Microsoft is; MS got up to version 2000 of their OS before they stopped counting. We've got a long way to go to reach that level. However, Apple is only on version 10, so we just might be able to catch those slackers.
If Bob steals your copy of Photoshop, you can normally contact Adobe for a free/low cost replacement, after proving ownership. It will cost, let's say around $1.00 in production and shipping for them to send you a free CD. But let's say they charge you $5 S&H to send the replacement out.
So in your scenario, Bob has obtained a $500 software package with a $5 cost to you, As opposed to obtaining the warez version, which has no physical costs associated. Is Bob prosecuted as if he stole $5 from you? No, I'll bet he's in it for the full $500.
Anyway, in either case Bob will not be buying a legal version of the software. Let's use your 50% number to represent the likelihood that Bob would have purchased the software if here were honest. The total societal impact of theft is $255, whereas the impact of the copyright violation is $250. This is a 2% difference.
Suppose I have a backup copy? Or suppose you lifted the CD from Adobe?
You are right in that if you steal the CD from a store, you damage them to at least the tune of what they paid for it. But they will charge you with stealing having a value equal to the selling price, not their wholesale price.
But what's your answer to "What if the CD was stolen directly from Adobe?" The cost of the physical item to Adobe is only what it would take to cut another one.
No, in the example you stole the CD from adobe. So you cost them about $0.25 (what it would cost them to cut another one.) So here we are; in both instances you have obtained the software illegally. In either case you may or may not have legally purchased the item had your moral compass not been pointing south. So in the case of the physical theft you've stolen $0.25 more than you have in the case of the copyright violation. This is a negligible amount; the crimes are essentially equal in damage for the sake of discussion.
Somebody mod this bastard up. ;)
As far as 'stealing music' not being theft, you are technically correct, in that the definition of theft refers only to the appropriation of property. However, I think it is wrong-headed to try to diminish the severity of copyright violation by arguing it isn't the same as the theft of a physical asset, and is thus less egregious.
Here's why: Let's say you've stolen a copy of Photoshop, let's say you take it directly from Adobe to avoid the middleman. Now they catch you, and you are charged with stealing $500 woth of merchandise. Do you think a judge is going to buy the argument that you only stole $.25, because that's the value of the raw material & cost of physical production, and Adobe can just cut another CD for that amount? Me neither. The value of the stolen goods is primarily in the content, not the physical medium.
So now, tell me why someone who obtains that same software from a warez site is not guilty of the doing the same amount of damage, minus the negligible worth of the physical medium?
You are implying that copyright violation does a significantly smaller amount of damage to society than theft. Can you support this assertion?
Namely, can you explain the significant difference in societal damage between these two:
No, it is stealing (as well as copyright violation.)
Webster's NewWorld Dictionary, 2nd College Edition
steal: 1. to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner.
Cambridge International Dictionary of English
steal [cambridge.org]: to take (something) without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it
From these definitions, it is clear that the word 'steal' may be applied to the appropriation of ideas, trade secrets, and other non-physical assets (like copyrighted digital music.)
I have presented definitions from a two dictionaries which indicate that the word 'steal' may relate to the "without permission, dishonest, or unlawful" appropriation of non-physical assets, such as ideas or trade secrets. This idea is presented in the same context as the theft of property, not in alternate definitions like 'stealing first base.'
Your presentation of definitions which are narrower in scope in no way invalidates the broader scope. Unless you can:
A. Establish that these two mainstream dictionaries are erroneous, or
2. Explain why the appropriation of copyrighted materials is substantially different from the appropriation of ideas or trade secrets,
I don't see how you can rationally continue this line of reasoning.
Sorry. That was pretty arrogant.