Is GWU Econ Prof. Nick Szabo Satoshi Nakamoto what?
OK, the joke was that was all one person with a lot of names. I honestly didn't get it at first, since the question was clearly grammatically correct, and I'm a Grammar Nazi.
Stop being a Grammar Nazi. It's outdated. Today we have Grammar Jihadists.;-)
Yes, I'm serious. And so is your lack of reading comprehension. Nowhere did I claim that "alot" is a word. Indeed, I did not say anything at all about whether "alot" is a word or not. I only wrote about the invalidity of the parent's method of deciding whether it is (by the existence of other words built the same way, which cannot work because the language is not entirely consistent to begin with), and pointed out the correct way to do it (consult a dictionary).
I've once heard that originally, besides the god Yahweh there was a goddess whose name I forgot. Yahweh was the god of war, and the goddess was the goddess for fertility.
Of course that doesn't proof that there is no word "alot". For example, "cannot" would be more logically written as "can not". With all other words it's separate "I must/I must not", "I may/I may not", "I might/I might not", "I shall/I shall not" etc. So from pure logic you'd also conclude that it's also "I can/I can not". But it isn't. It's "I can/I cannot".
The only way to see whether "alot" is a valid word is to consult a (sufficiently recent) dictionary.
So how would you definitely proof that there is no one who knows whether a god exists? OK, apart from the obvious option of killing everyone and then stating that since there's no one left, there's no one who could know anything – but then, in that case it won't matter any more anyway;-)
Of course you'll also get into the problem of defining exactly what "knowing" means, and if you are not careful, you'll easily define it in a way that no human is able to know anything. Of course in that case, the statement that no human knows whether a god exists is trivially true, but just as trivially meaningless.
Indeed, in the case that an omnipotent god exists, that omnipotent god should have the power to let anyone whom he wants to know it know that he exists. Therefore if you could proof that nobody can know if a god exists, then you would, by this very act, have disproved god, and therefore could no longer logically be an agnostic, but an atheist.
But that means that to proof that nobody knows whether a god exists, you'd have to do the proof without denying the possibility that they could possibly know. However, since you can't know what happens inside someone else's mind, how could you exclude that they gained that knowledge somehow?
Since there is no evidence for the claim that nobody knows whether there is a god, that claim can only be believed on faith. But faith is the antithesis of agnosticism.
I'm a lapsed Catholic (all of the guilt and none of the Sunday social commitments!) and a militant agnostic (I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU DAMMIT!)
Then you're not a true agnostic. Because a true agnostic knows not only that he doesn't know whether there is a god, but also that he has no way of knowing if someone else does know it.
Step 1: Determine when a competing trader is in the most vulnerable position Step 2: Seed clouds to start a weather pattern that reduces bandwidth of the microwave relay Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit!
"How did you manage to make so much money?" — "Well, I made good use of the cloud."
Ultimately, a coax cable is nothing than a tube with a wire in the middle. So yes, I'd expect that internet signals have already been sent through tubes. Indeed, if you're using cable internet, it's probably sent through a series of tubes right now.
So if I have no shirt or no shoes, then I get neither service nor Google Glass? Or is it that I won't get service without Google Glass, just as I won't without shirt or shoes?
OK, the summary clears it up: None of the possible interpretations of the title is correct.
Of course the title is not the one from the submission, which actually was descriptive and correct. So in future don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit — if they do, they make things worse!
Slashdot Mirror
And the correct answer is, of course, "no".
Case in point: "How Much Is Oracle To Blame For Healthcare IT Woes?" is a headline question which cannot be answered with "no".
OK, the joke was that was all one person with a lot of names. I honestly didn't get it at first, since the question was clearly grammatically correct, and I'm a Grammar Nazi.
Stop being a Grammar Nazi. It's outdated. Today we have Grammar Jihadists. ;-)
Also, does it mean they can be sued?
You recognize that according to the bible, we all are in his family? So at least if you're a man, you might want to reconsider that statement. ;-)
Yes, I'm serious. And so is your lack of reading comprehension. Nowhere did I claim that "alot" is a word. Indeed, I did not say anything at all about whether "alot" is a word or not. I only wrote about the invalidity of the parent's method of deciding whether it is (by the existence of other words built the same way, which cannot work because the language is not entirely consistent to begin with), and pointed out the correct way to do it (consult a dictionary).
I've once heard that originally, besides the god Yahweh there was a goddess whose name I forgot. Yahweh was the god of war, and the goddess was the goddess for fertility.
Misogynist! ;-)
to believe: to assume something is true despite not having sufficient evidence to support that assumption
Of course that only applies for monotheistic religions. In polytheism, it's easy: Our god favours us, and the other tribe's god favours them.
Of course that doesn't proof that there is no word "alot". For example, "cannot" would be more logically written as "can not". With all other words it's separate "I must/I must not", "I may/I may not", "I might/I might not", "I shall/I shall not" etc. So from pure logic you'd also conclude that it's also "I can/I can not". But it isn't. It's "I can/I cannot".
The only way to see whether "alot" is a valid word is to consult a (sufficiently recent) dictionary.
So how would you definitely proof that there is no one who knows whether a god exists? OK, apart from the obvious option of killing everyone and then stating that since there's no one left, there's no one who could know anything – but then, in that case it won't matter any more anyway ;-)
Of course you'll also get into the problem of defining exactly what "knowing" means, and if you are not careful, you'll easily define it in a way that no human is able to know anything. Of course in that case, the statement that no human knows whether a god exists is trivially true, but just as trivially meaningless.
Indeed, in the case that an omnipotent god exists, that omnipotent god should have the power to let anyone whom he wants to know it know that he exists. Therefore if you could proof that nobody can know if a god exists, then you would, by this very act, have disproved god, and therefore could no longer logically be an agnostic, but an atheist.
But that means that to proof that nobody knows whether a god exists, you'd have to do the proof without denying the possibility that they could possibly know. However, since you can't know what happens inside someone else's mind, how could you exclude that they gained that knowledge somehow?
Since there is no evidence for the claim that nobody knows whether there is a god, that claim can only be believed on faith. But faith is the antithesis of agnosticism.
The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."
"A little of people"? Doesn't make sense to me.
He didn't say it happened. He only said that God's promise doesn't cover it.
Which may be because the neanderthal people were primarily in Europe.
Luckily I'm not an atheist.
I'm a lapsed Catholic (all of the guilt and none of the Sunday social commitments!) and a militant agnostic (I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU DAMMIT!)
Then you're not a true agnostic. Because a true agnostic knows not only that he doesn't know whether there is a god, but also that he has no way of knowing if someone else does know it.
Well, that way they get their first citation right on publication. ;-)
So up to two sons of Noah's wife weren't actually his?
Let me guess: The new code was "77777777"?
No wait, I know: "12345678"!
SCNR ;-)
Please show me a 3D printer that prints microcontrollers. I also doubt that you can print a stepper motor.
Step 1: Determine when a competing trader is in the most vulnerable position
Step 2: Seed clouds to start a weather pattern that reduces bandwidth of the microwave relay
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
"How did you manage to make so much money?" — "Well, I made good use of the cloud."
Ultimately, a coax cable is nothing than a tube with a wire in the middle. So yes, I'd expect that internet signals have already been sent through tubes. Indeed, if you're using cable internet, it's probably sent through a series of tubes right now.
Of course people who love to not be recorded while eating will read those "bad reviews" as good reviews ...
OK, so how do you train your dog to call the police with your iPhone?
So if I have no shirt or no shoes, then I get neither service nor Google Glass? Or is it that I won't get service without Google Glass, just as I won't without shirt or shoes?
OK, the summary clears it up: None of the possible interpretations of the title is correct.
Of course the title is not the one from the submission, which actually was descriptive and correct. So in future don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit — if they do, they make things worse!