"If physical existence/evidence is a necessity for you to believe in things, then I can only
recommend you to give up science as well.
At least everything about electromagnetic waves and such."
Really? Does science have hundreds of different theories (religions), each with its own rewrite
of the laws of physics (canons), with explanations that disagree with others?
Hmm... seems to me the logical thing to do is to accept religion as the science-fiction that it is,
unless you can either prove the existence of your imaginary friend, or disprove the law of
relativity. And believe me... I *will* respect you if you disprove the law of relativity.
Science fiction - A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative
scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other
planets, forms part of the plot or background.
I'm happy to say that the dictionary disagrees with you. It seems to me that religion has:
- Literary genre (the Bible, Koran, etc)
- Cinematic genre (google "religious movie")
- Fantasy... in the form of an imaginary being
- Speculation... and plenty of it!
- Environmental changes... key to evolution
- Space travel... God is everywhere, etc.
- Life on other planets... Hades, Celestial Kingdom, Telestial Kingdom, other universe!
- Forms almost ALL of the plot or background!
Notice that the commonly accepted dictionary definition states, "typically based on speculative
scientific discoveries or developments" -- and that it is not a requirement, per se.
"My inability to conjure up evidence about God definately doesn't disprove his existence (which
is what you imply by the use of the word 'imaginary.')"
More importantly, your inability to conjure up physical evidence about God doesn't PROVE the
possibility of his/her/its existence, either.
Religion has got to be the longest-running form of science fiction ever.
"Except that God isn't imaginary.
I've had plenty of proof of his existence.
I've had an imaginary friend, and it's not at all the same thing."
This just adds more weight to my original statement - "In short, the belief in God is
very similar and parallel to the belief in science-fiction. Both rely on an imaginary friend (or thing)"
Many people are convinced their experiences are real... and to them, they are. That does not
translate into proof of existence. No doubt, to you, your experiences with an invisible/imaginary
friend and his/her/its many maifestations are very real. So be it. But to many of us, this simply
constitutes another form of science-fiction...
worship of someone or something that is imaginary.
What you're describing, probably, is the non-human manifestations you choose to attribute to
a "higher being" -- a God. There is no physical God you can present to me (or anyone else)...
only an imaginary one, am I correct?
For example, the Mormons believe their temple garments will "protect" them against harm.
They are quick to cite instances in which someone wearing said garments was saved from
serious injury. At the same time, they make no mention of other instances in which someone
wearing temple garments was killed or injured.
Ask any temple-worthy Mormon how they
feel about their special garments, and they'll tell you it
makes them *feel* closer
to Heavenly Father.
It is left up to the reader to decide if they indeed are closer to this imaginary friend or not.
"C&C attacks are the staple of today's military. An organized, centralized effort should do wonders for laying waste to the economic value (and motivation) behind such behavior."
Yes, indeed -- they certainly worked wonders against Al-Qaeda, restoring peace and structure
to an otherwise torn nation quickly.
No doubt, this is the same C&C military strategy used in Vietnam, and even in the Castra assasination.
"how many people out there have a positive view on life because they believe in Star Trek in the same way that other faithful do."
This has nothing to do with geek-dom. Basic psychology reveals that people have been driven by inspiration for centuries. All you need do is look around at all the different
religions that have been inspiring believers
since early man inhabited this planet.
It is no mystery that human beings seek inspiration in that which they cannot explain,
or that which exceeds their own threshold of knowledge. It is that great unknown
which keeps some of us going during times when all hope seems lost.
In short, the belief in God is very similar and parallel to the belief in science-fiction. Both
rely on an imaginary friend (or thing), and both make you feel as if you're a part of something
special, and that you "belong."
Look at it from this perspective... someone on the street talking to an imaginary friend is
typically considered mentally imbalanced. However, if a group of people talk to an imaginary
friend in a church, that's considered normal. Likewise, if a group of friends gets together to talk
about an imaginary future, that's normal too. All provide inspiration and hope for something better.
In my eyes, science-ficition is just another religion. It's fun and sometimes a great social event,
but don't take it too seriously... after all, we're just arguing about imaginary things!
Someone should write an article about the dangers of Paul Graham. For someone who objects
to the inevitable politics of opposing groups or businesses clashing together, he certainly seems to do a representative job of clashing with same.
> It seems he lacked enough charm to come out on top.
Maybe he prefers being a bottom?
I knew a woman once who was a switch.
Re:Congratulations are in order!
on
A Decade of PHP
·
· Score: 1
"... one wishlist item that I would like to see in PHP is Abstract Database Access. It's not really a good thing to hard code your application to a specific database, especially if it's a redistributable application."
Are you speaking for yourself, or for others? The reason I ask is because I do not want ADA in PHP. I want to code the application to the native database calls, for maximum speed and performance. It's bad enough that our applications have to be clustered as it is. We don't need another "universal, one solution fits all" abstraction layer sucking the performance out of our app.
So, how about if PHP were fitted with BOTH mechanisms? That way, you could choose your abstraction layer and not take away my choice in the process.
Redundant. Learn the rules of English grammar. The object is to reduce the sentence while still
retaining reference and understanding. Thank you for proving my point about the abundance of
illiteracy in today's society.
You're a moron for assuming I can't understand it. Since you're obviously
slow, I'll summarize for you in painstaking detail...
I was able to comprehend the message he was trying to convey. My comment
was about the fact that he's basically illiterate... as is most of America, sadly.
> Crap. Should of previewed.
What does "should of previewed" mean? Why is it that so many supposedly educated people on here are illiterate?
Re:Gone....for the moment
on
PHRACK Final
·
· Score: 1
> Ever considered a top-secret hacker's trick called [looks left, looks right] [whispers] www.google.com?
Yes, I have... you make it sound as if google is the answer to all questions. Are you aware of its limitations? Especially when it comes to people who do not participate "on the net" except for an occasional email exchange via their ISP account?
Another problem is the useless garbage you have to sort through when all you have is a name. For an example of this, type "Lew Payne" into google and see for yourself.
Re:Gone....for the moment
on
PHRACK Final
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're not kidding... I wonder what happened to Stan Cisneros (LOD kiddie from the 80's) who messed with COSMOS and RC-MAC one time too many, Jude Saucie [sp] of 8BBS, Bob West L.A. (aka Robert Lipman, concert pianist), Mike West Hollywood (aka Michael Williamson, pipe organ repairman), Mark Van Nuys (aka Mark Ross), Lenny DiCicco, Steve Pasadena (aka Steve Rhoades), and Roscoe (aka Lewis DePayne).
If you know how to get hold of any of the above, please let me know!
Most "news" sources are grossly inaccurate; either as a result of the reporter not being familiar with the subject, personal bias slanting the report or investigation, or the simple fact that "boring" news doesn't sell.
Why should Wired and the host of other publications which he appeared in have to retract anything?
By doing this, are they not implying that all their other stories are accurate?
Maybe someone (preferably John Stossel) should do a piece on inaccurate reporting in general, where reporters are "baited" into publishing patently false stories. Then, more and more Americans would start taking the "news" with a grain of salt. Better yet, news channels would replace sitcoms.
I wish there were more Alen Abels in this world...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv.ms t3k.misc/browse_thread/thread/97db6fd9d033ff86/4d2 5aa51bcbaa607?q=hoax+newspaper+abel&rnum=1&hl=en#4 d25aa51bcbaa607
"Not everything is a business, and every activity does not need to make a profit."
You are correct. Some activities only break-even. Those that bleed (lose) money die a slow and painful death.
"Something people forget in this economically rationalist age."
That's a fine pollyanna bromide, but that in itself doesn't make it true. The fact is that most countries (other than 3rd-world nations) are founded on capitalism. In this history of this country, there has never not been an economically rationalist age. That's what helped us grow into a super-power. Wake up.
"No, the contract has been violated by the marketers and the webmasters who use them. I'm now just defending myself with a squid proxy and adzap. Collateral damage like Slashdot's ads getting blocked is the result."...
Then don't complain about the collateral damage caused when those sites figure out a way to defeat anti-popup software and launch even more intrusive pop-ups and ad banners... or multiple ones, because they have no way of knowing which blocker you're using and which technique to run on you.
You're not part of the solution... you're part of the protest committee that's bent on prolonging the problem into a lifelong feud.
... and did each website that YOU employ ad-blocking on do all these things to you? Hardly! Instead, your only argument is that "I've been wronged by all these OTHER marketers, so that gives me the right to SCREW OVER a non-involved website owner."
LetterJ -- Thank you for bringing reason and connon sense to a topic that most people seem to be unable to discuss rationally, let alone form a substantive opinion.
Most of the people here seem to just argue that if it were them, they'd run their site differently... and that is, of course, why so many web businesses are no longer in business -- they didn't focus on the relevant economics of their business model. That seems to be a concept most SlashDotters don't yet grasp... they're still too busy rebelling against anything and everything that threatens to replace their little "free" space on the web with capitalism. How ironic.
Here comes the stampede of SlashDot "laywers"... each with their own [unfounded]
opinion of what the defendants, judge and attorneys handling the case should do.
"to survive" -- But why? What's wrong with not propagating our species, and dying off? Just as with any other creature that has outlived its means or usefulness, so be it with humans.
I assure you that, after you're dead, the relevance of the human race will no longer be an issue to you.
What difference does it make if we, as a species, are extinct or not? After you've answered that question, then tell me... to whom does it make a difference? You? Well... you're still alive, so you don't count. Can you think of one dead person to whom our survival matters? No? My point exactly... If our species becomes extinct, it really doesn't matter in the overall picture. Let's get real, instead of writing prose that is severly lacking in substance.
"And what if the person just executed was found to of had been innocent afterall? Is it still justice?"
Even if found innocent afterwards, as long as that person was a minority, they're still guilty in the eyes of [white majority] justice. So latter exculpation really doesn't change anything.
Slashdot Mirror
"If physical existence/evidence is a necessity for you to believe in things, then I can only
recommend you to give up science as well.
At least everything about electromagnetic waves and such."
Really? Does science have hundreds of different theories (religions), each with its own rewrite
of the laws of physics (canons), with explanations that disagree with others?
Hmm... seems to me the logical thing to do is to accept religion as the science-fiction that it is,
unless you can either prove the existence of your imaginary friend, or disprove the law of
relativity. And believe me... I *will* respect you if you disprove the law of relativity.
"Nope. Because there's no science in it."
Science fiction - A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative
scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other
planets, forms part of the plot or background.
I'm happy to say that the dictionary disagrees with you. It seems to me that religion has:
- Literary genre (the Bible, Koran, etc)
- Cinematic genre (google "religious movie")
- Fantasy... in the form of an imaginary being
- Speculation... and plenty of it!
- Environmental changes... key to evolution
- Space travel... God is everywhere, etc.
- Life on other planets... Hades, Celestial Kingdom, Telestial Kingdom, other universe!
- Forms almost ALL of the plot or background!
Notice that the commonly accepted dictionary definition states, "typically based on speculative
scientific discoveries or developments" -- and that it is not a requirement, per se.
Now... you were saying?
"My inability to conjure up evidence about God definately doesn't disprove his existence (which
is what you imply by the use of the word 'imaginary.')"
More importantly, your inability to conjure up physical evidence about God doesn't PROVE the
possibility of his/her/its existence, either.
Religion has got to be the longest-running form of science fiction ever.
"Except that God isn't imaginary.
I've had plenty of proof of his existence.
I've had an imaginary friend, and it's not at all the same thing."
This just adds more weight to my original statement - "In short, the belief in God is
very similar and parallel to the belief in science-fiction. Both rely on an imaginary
friend (or thing)"
Many people are convinced their experiences are real... and to them, they are. That does not
translate into proof of existence. No doubt, to you, your experiences with an invisible/imaginary
friend and his/her/its many maifestations are very real. So be it. But to many of us, this simply
constitutes another form of science-fiction... worship of someone or something that is imaginary.
What you're describing, probably, is the non-human manifestations you choose to attribute to
a "higher being" -- a God. There is no physical God you can present to me (or anyone else)...
only an imaginary one, am I correct?
For example, the Mormons believe their temple garments will "protect" them against harm.
They are quick to cite instances in which someone wearing said garments was saved from
serious injury. At the same time, they make no mention of other instances in which someone
wearing temple garments was killed or injured. Ask any temple-worthy Mormon how they
feel about their special garments, and they'll tell you it makes them *feel* closer
to Heavenly Father.
It is left up to the reader to decide if they indeed are closer to this imaginary friend or not.
"C&C attacks are the staple of today's military. An organized, centralized effort should do
wonders for laying waste to the economic value (and motivation) behind such behavior."
Yes, indeed -- they certainly worked wonders against Al-Qaeda, restoring peace and structure
to an otherwise torn nation quickly.
No doubt, this is the same C&C military strategy used in Vietnam, and even in the Castra assasination.
Perhaps our military needs a new stapler?
"how many people out there have a positive view on life because they believe in Star Trek in the same way that other faithful do."
This has nothing to do with geek-dom. Basic psychology reveals that people have been
driven by inspiration for centuries. All you need do is look around at all the different
religions that have been inspiring believers since early man inhabited this planet.
It is no mystery that human beings seek inspiration in that which they cannot explain,
or that which exceeds their own threshold of knowledge. It is that great unknown
which keeps some of us going during times when all hope seems lost.
In short, the belief in God is very similar and parallel to the belief in science-fiction. Both
rely on an imaginary friend (or thing), and both make you feel as if you're a part of something
special, and that you "belong."
Look at it from this perspective... someone on the street talking to an imaginary friend is
typically considered mentally imbalanced. However, if a group of people talk to an imaginary
friend in a church, that's considered normal. Likewise, if a group of friends gets together to talk
about an imaginary future, that's normal too. All provide inspiration and hope for something better.
In my eyes, science-ficition is just another religion. It's fun and sometimes a great social event,
but don't take it too seriously... after all, we're just arguing about imaginary things!
Someone should write an article about the dangers of Paul Graham. For someone who objects to the inevitable politics of opposing groups or businesses clashing together, he certainly seems to do a representative job of clashing with same.
> It seems he lacked enough charm to come out on top.
Maybe he prefers being a bottom?
I knew a woman once who was a switch.
"... one wishlist item that I would like to see in PHP is Abstract Database Access. It's not really a good thing to hard code your application to a specific database, especially if it's a redistributable application."
Are you speaking for yourself, or for others? The reason I ask is because I do not want ADA in PHP. I want to code the application to the native database calls, for maximum speed and performance. It's bad enough that our applications have to be clustered as it is. We don't need another "universal, one solution fits all" abstraction layer sucking the performance out of our app.
So, how about if PHP were fitted with BOTH mechanisms? That way, you could choose your abstraction layer and not take away my choice in the process.
Sounds to me like you've just described Mormonism.
Redundant. Learn the rules of English grammar. The object is to reduce the sentence while still
retaining reference and understanding. Thank you for proving my point about the abundance of
illiteracy in today's society.
You're a moron for assuming I can't understand it. Since you're obviously
slow, I'll summarize for you in painstaking detail...
I was able to comprehend the message he was trying to convey. My comment
was about the fact that he's basically illiterate... as is most of America, sadly.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, bright guy.
> Crap. Should of previewed. What does "should of previewed" mean? Why is it that so many supposedly educated people on here are illiterate?
> Ever considered a top-secret hacker's trick called [looks left, looks right] [whispers] www.google.com?
Yes, I have... you make it sound as if google is the answer to all questions. Are you aware of its limitations? Especially when it comes to people who do not participate "on the net" except for an occasional email exchange via their ISP account?
Another problem is the useless garbage you have to sort through when all you have is a name. For an example of this, type "Lew Payne" into google and see for yourself.
You're not kidding... I wonder what happened to Stan Cisneros (LOD kiddie from the 80's) who messed with COSMOS and RC-MAC one time too many, Jude Saucie [sp] of 8BBS, Bob West L.A. (aka Robert Lipman, concert pianist), Mike West Hollywood (aka Michael Williamson, pipe organ repairman), Mark Van Nuys (aka Mark Ross), Lenny DiCicco, Steve Pasadena (aka Steve Rhoades), and Roscoe (aka Lewis DePayne).
If you know how to get hold of any of the above, please let me know!
Most "news" sources are grossly inaccurate; either as a result of the reporter not being familiar with the subject, personal bias slanting the report or investigation, or the simple fact that "boring" news doesn't sell. Why should Wired and the host of other publications which he appeared in have to retract anything? By doing this, are they not implying that all their other stories are accurate? Maybe someone (preferably John Stossel) should do a piece on inaccurate reporting in general, where reporters are "baited" into publishing patently false stories. Then, more and more Americans would start taking the "news" with a grain of salt. Better yet, news channels would replace sitcoms. I wish there were more Alen Abels in this world... http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv.ms t3k.misc/browse_thread/thread/97db6fd9d033ff86/4d2 5aa51bcbaa607?q=hoax+newspaper+abel&rnum=1&hl=en#4 d25aa51bcbaa607
Well... at least Paul Murphy proved his point regarding "useful idiots" chiming in.
"Not everything is a business, and every activity does not need to make a profit."
You are correct. Some activities only break-even. Those that bleed (lose) money die a slow and painful death.
"Something people forget in this economically rationalist age."
That's a fine pollyanna bromide, but that in itself doesn't make it true. The fact is that most countries (other than 3rd-world nations) are founded on capitalism. In this history of this country, there has never not been an economically rationalist age. That's what helped us grow into a super-power. Wake up.
"No, the contract has been violated by the marketers and the webmasters who use them. I'm now just defending myself with a squid proxy and adzap. Collateral damage like Slashdot's ads getting blocked is the result."... Then don't complain about the collateral damage caused when those sites figure out a way to defeat anti-popup software and launch even more intrusive pop-ups and ad banners... or multiple ones, because they have no way of knowing which blocker you're using and which technique to run on you.
You're not part of the solution... you're part of the protest committee that's bent on prolonging the problem into a lifelong feud.
... and did each website that YOU employ ad-blocking on do all these things to you? Hardly! Instead, your only argument is that "I've been wronged by all these OTHER marketers, so that gives me the right to SCREW OVER a non-involved website owner."
Gee... that's brillant.
LetterJ -- Thank you for bringing reason and connon sense to a topic that most people seem to be unable to discuss rationally, let alone form a substantive opinion.
Most of the people here seem to just argue that if it were them, they'd run their site differently... and that is, of course, why so many web businesses are no longer in business -- they didn't focus on the relevant economics of their business model. That seems to be a concept most SlashDotters don't yet grasp... they're still too busy rebelling against anything and everything that threatens to replace their little "free" space on the web with capitalism. How ironic.
Here comes the stampede of SlashDot "laywers"... each with their own [unfounded]
opinion of what the defendants, judge and attorneys handling the case should do.
It's better than subscribing to True Detective!
"to survive" -- But why? What's wrong with not propagating our species, and dying off? Just as with any other creature that has outlived its means or usefulness, so be it with humans.
I assure you that, after you're dead, the relevance of the human race will no longer be an issue to you.
What difference does it make if we, as a species, are extinct or not? After you've answered that question, then tell me... to whom does it make a difference? You? Well... you're still alive, so you don't count. Can you think of one dead person to whom our survival matters? No? My point exactly... If our species becomes extinct, it really doesn't matter in the overall picture. Let's get real, instead of writing prose that is severly lacking in substance.
To survive? GIVE ME A BREAK !
"DragonFly BSD: The BSD with Balls" Yea... I can hear them scraping the ground, too.
"And what if the person just executed was found to of had been innocent afterall? Is it still justice?"
Even if found innocent afterwards, as long as that person was a minority, they're still guilty in the eyes of [white majority] justice. So latter exculpation really doesn't change anything.