While (1) may be the historic, "technical", and even proper usage, (2) seems to be the much more common usage.
According to whom? You can say things like this all you want, and it doesn't make it true.
Setting aside for the moment that BOTH definitions are your own and therefor rather biased, you make a baseless claim about the popularity of your preferred "definition." If it was so bloody common why can't you find it in an actual dictionary? There's no better test of whether a definition for a word is a common or popular one, if you ask me. I mean (your protestations aside) that IS what they are for, isn't it? When you gave me the tired "dictionaries are insufficient" pap way back in the beginning of this discussion, I knew it was going to be a chore for anyone willing to debate you. But I never thought you would start writing your own!
sorry guy, but the faulty reasoning in my murderer analogy was intentional. Your statement:
if religion requires belief, then an absence of any belief whatsoever, which is what i originally said I had, means that this state of mind of is not a religious one.
...was exactly my point to Planesdragon's crazy-ass "atheism is a religion" claptrap. read some of my posts to him to see what I mean. And if you just thought that my logic was flawed on the basis of what you stated above (and couldn't tell that I was pointing out a flaw in Planesdragon's reasoning), then why the hell did you go off on this "you don't 'do' religion" tangent in the first place?
are you sure you even know what you're arguing?
Sorry if you got confused along the way, but like I said before, I'll make sure to point out in explicit detail all the things you're supposed to be paying attention to next time.
just to clear up any confusion that might remain, the post that started all this was my reply to Planesdragon's nutball suggestion that atheism (or, if you prefer "not having a belief in god" - I don't make a distinction between the two) is a religion, something we apparently both agree is stupid. So, I posted the following:
by your reasoning, the fact you haven't commited murder doesn't mean you aren't a murderer; you're just a different kind of murderer. Specifically, the kind of murderer that doesn't murder. That's some mighty fine logic you got there, guy.
Until just now, I didn't actually believe that someone could possibly interperate that as an endorsement for such thinking. Gotta hand it to you pal, you have managed to suprise me.
codswallop. If the current run of games requires you to spend more than $150 to upgrade the machine you bought 2-3 years ago (a very real possibility), then we're are not talking about "largely a wash."
As for not having to stay on the bleeding edge to play games, that's true: But to be able to play brand-new games on 3yr old hardware at a decent frame rate for more than a few minutes before your machine locks up or crashes is frankly not all that likely. 5yr old hardware? Forget it.
While this is technically correct, you have to believe something to have a (religious or otherwise) belief. Still with me? Good. Since both you and I appear to agree that a belief is needed for religion, and as I have previously explained "believe" is a verb, then your claim that religion requires no action is false. It might not require any physical action, but that's a pointless distinction to make. I apologize for not holding your hand through this exchange and showing you in explicit detail why your argument is faulty, won't happen again. And don't get snotty with me because you can't tell the difference between "murder" and "murderer" and define the wrong word in rebuttal.
considering your apparent inability to read posts carefully before posting a reply, I have little hope that this will do me any good, but here goes: m-u-r-d-e-r m-u-r-d-e-r-e-r Notice anything?
and although, as you so eloquently put it, "belief" is not a verb, " believe" in fact is. Since a believer is one who believes (and remember, "believe" is indeed a verb), your original reply to my murderER comment is pointless.
Firstly, let's discuss your straw-man argument. You said earlier in this debate that people trot out the dictionary definition as a straw-man argument. Well, when the debate is over the Definition of a word, your claim is flatly wrong, and serves to show you don't actually know what a straw-man argument is. The issue being discussed is whether atheism is a religion. Several times now, your argument has been based on anti- discrimination laws (a textbook straw-man argument). You do realize that US law has no bearing on the definition of words, right? Besides, I think our current administration (and frankly, all those before this one) has shown that the government claiming a thing is true doesn't make it so. Oh, I could argue about how anti-discrimination laws would still apply to atheists without having to assert that atheism is a religion, but since it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what atheism means, I'm satisfied with leaving the point alone.
Moving along, let us discuss your "going to the dictionary to specifically define a word is insufficient" assertion. In order to have a meaningful debate (or conversation, for that matter), there has to be a mutually agreed upon language with clear meanings behind the words. Since I refuse to accept you as a more authoritative source of the definitions of words than WEBSTER, and I presume you would say the same about me, I submit to you that you either agree to use the dictionary as the mutually agreed upon source of words' meanings, or you agree that my revised definition of "God" to "my cock" is valid and meaningful.
by your reasoning, the fact you haven't commited murder doesn't mean you aren't a murderer; you're just a different kind of murderer. Specifically, the kind of murderer that doesn't murder. That's some mighty fine logic you got there, guy.
well gee, if we're going to conform the definition of atheism to whatever you want it to be, then how about this: the definition of "God" is now "my cock". Have a problem with that? It's every bit as valid as claiming that those that have no religion have a religion because you say so. And for your information, jackass, I'm not an atheist. I just know how to use a fucking dictionary. It's all good though: go back to loving "God," because "God" loves you back.
atheism espouses no belief in a supernatural being, it's not a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship, and it's not (necessarily) a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Therefore, IT'S NOT A RELIGION.
You forget about the HUGE voltage drop alkalines would see with such a high drain on them. I suspect that this thing would drain batteries as much as - if not more than - a digital camera. If I'm right, then we're talking about less than an hour for alkaline batteries, twice or more than that for NiMH (which handles high drain much better), and longer still for lithium batts.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
How's THAT for an easy-to-update Linux system?
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
apt-get dist-upgrade
766 files will be updated, 400 installed, 0 kept back
I'll believe it when I see it. Just last night the possibility of it not going as planned (not all 6th graders would be getting one) was on the news here in Lansing.
Frankly, I hope they scratch the whole idea. What a titanic waste of money!
right, the article is about the likelihood a new MS worm is on the way, so I post a silly comment that underscores the ubiquity of such a topic, and I'm modded as a troll.
I don't see it... all I see is a bunch of widgets that set "755" and "644" - what the hell does this stuff mean to an luser?
It means "read a man page, luser."
Look, you said yourself that to get a distro that comes close to the ease and usability of Windows, they will have to use a non-free distro to do it. So? Just wtf is wrong with that? It seems to work well for MS. It's pretty simple, really.
If you don't mind actually learning how your OS works and have the time/interest/skill, take your pick of 150+ distros and have at.
If you want your hand held and want to spend $3,000+ for all the softawre you might want, buy Windows & all the other software you need.
If you want your hand held, but don't want to be pushed around/spend more than $200 on your software, then take your pick of about a dozen or so "winalike" distros out there.
offset, electric, and ratcheting screw drivers aside, the reason that the basic srewdriver doesn't change is because the design is a careful balance of several factors that make it the most useful shape most of the time.
That, and screws are deliberately put in places that the intended screwdriver can reach.
Operating systems, however, are niether so mature that no more innovation is needed nor as simple as a bevelled stick with a specifically shaped point.
I submit to you that MS hasn't figured out the perfect GUI yet (boy, was that an understatement). With each new version, they are trying to get a bit closer to that goal, while at the same time updating the code for what's new in the computer world.
I am sure that I can dig up someone that will tell you that DOS was the pinnacle of the man/machine interface. Should MS have stopped at DOS to please him? If they did, would you be grateful that the didn't change to the pesky GUI? At the end of the day, would his opinion of what OS manufacturers should do be any less valid than yours?
Honestly, XP is only mildly different from 98 when it comes to the interface. And at that, most of the changes made were done to simplify the experience. As for computers wearing out in 3 years, I have my doubts. I can still use my 166 machine that was bought in 95, and my girlfriend still pulls out her ~20 yr old Tandy on occasion.
One program (adminmenu) allows you to install security updates, recompile the kernel, download Mozilla plugins, configure sound, download and install new programs (via Synaptic)...the list, as they say, goes on.
that's a pretty unrealistic standard you have there, don't you think?
"I want a new operating system with new features, but if it isn't EXACTLY like the one I have been using for years, then I don't want it"
I'm not trying to put you down, but why can't you take a little time and learn how to use it, rather than shun it because they dared to make something you're not entirely familiar with?
Do you play/have you ever played video games? Do you demand that your flight simulator and your solitare game have the same interface? Or for that matter, do you insist that your word processor and your photo-editing software have the same interface?
they didn't snip it out because by obfuscating their comment, and using the same red font for the actual linux code that they used for the comment comparison above it, they give the casual observer the impression that the greek text is the same thing as the red linux code opposite it - inother words, they make it look like both comments AND code have been copied in this place, and SCO doesn't want to reveal "their IP."
Slashdot Mirror
While (1) may be the historic, "technical", and even proper usage, (2) seems to be the much more common usage.
According to whom? You can say things like this all you want, and it doesn't make it true.
Setting aside for the moment that BOTH definitions are your own and therefor rather biased, you make a baseless claim about the popularity of your preferred "definition." If it was so bloody common why can't you find it in an actual dictionary? There's no better test of whether a definition for a word is a common or popular one, if you ask me. I mean (your protestations aside) that IS what they are for, isn't it? When you gave me the tired "dictionaries are insufficient" pap way back in the beginning of this discussion, I knew it was going to be a chore for anyone willing to debate you. But I never thought you would start writing your own!
Dude, you're my hero. I quit responding to this guy a while ago when I realized you were doing a better job than I could hope to.
sorry guy, but the faulty reasoning in my murderer analogy was intentional. Your statement:
...was exactly my point to Planesdragon's crazy-ass "atheism is a religion" claptrap. read some of my posts to him to see what I mean. And if you just thought that my logic was flawed on the basis of what you stated above (and couldn't tell that I was pointing out a flaw in Planesdragon's reasoning), then why the hell did you go off on this "you don't 'do' religion" tangent in the first place?
if religion requires belief, then an absence of any belief whatsoever, which is what i originally said I had, means that this state of mind of is not a religious one.
are you sure you even know what you're arguing?
Sorry if you got confused along the way, but like I said before, I'll make sure to point out in explicit detail all the things you're supposed to be paying attention to next time.
just to clear up any confusion that might remain, the post that started all this was my reply to Planesdragon's nutball suggestion that atheism (or, if you prefer "not having a belief in god" - I don't make a distinction between the two) is a religion, something we apparently both agree is stupid. So, I posted the following:
by your reasoning, the fact you haven't commited murder doesn't mean you aren't a murderer; you're just a different kind of murderer. Specifically, the kind of murderer that doesn't murder. That's some mighty fine logic you got there, guy.
Until just now, I didn't actually believe that someone could possibly interperate that as an endorsement for such thinking. Gotta hand it to you pal, you have managed to suprise me.
Cheers
codswallop. If the current run of games requires you to spend more than $150 to upgrade the machine you bought 2-3 years ago (a very real possibility), then we're are not talking about "largely a wash."
As for not having to stay on the bleeding edge to play games, that's true: But to be able to play brand-new games on 3yr old hardware at a decent frame rate for more than a few minutes before your machine locks up or crashes is frankly not all that likely. 5yr old hardware? Forget it.
Who said anything about belief
You did:
Religion isn't a verb. It's a belief
I'm taking issue with your statement:
You don't "do" religion
While this is technically correct, you have to believe something to have a (religious or otherwise) belief. Still with me? Good. Since both you and I appear to agree that a belief is needed for religion, and as I have previously explained "believe" is a verb, then your claim that religion requires no action is false. It might not require any physical action, but that's a pointless distinction to make. I apologize for not holding your hand through this exchange and showing you in explicit detail why your argument is faulty, won't happen again. And don't get snotty with me because you can't tell the difference between "murder" and "murderer" and define the wrong word in rebuttal.
considering your apparent inability to read posts carefully before posting a reply, I have little hope that this will do me any good, but here goes:
m-u-r-d-e-r
m-u-r-d-e-r-e-r
Notice anything?
and although, as you so eloquently put it, "belief" is not a verb, " believe" in fact is. Since a believer is one who believes (and remember, "believe" is indeed a verb), your original reply to my murderER comment is pointless.
I'm going to try one more time here.
Firstly, let's discuss your straw-man argument. You said earlier in this debate that people trot out the dictionary definition as a straw-man argument. Well, when the debate is over the Definition of a word, your claim is flatly wrong, and serves to show you don't actually know what a straw-man argument is. The issue being discussed is whether atheism is a religion. Several times now, your argument has been based on anti- discrimination laws (a textbook straw-man argument). You do realize that US law has no bearing on the definition of words, right? Besides, I think our current administration (and frankly, all those before this one) has shown that the government claiming a thing is true doesn't make it so. Oh, I could argue about how anti-discrimination laws would still apply to atheists without having to assert that atheism is a religion, but since it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what atheism means, I'm satisfied with leaving the point alone.
Moving along, let us discuss your "going to the dictionary to specifically define a word is insufficient" assertion. In order to have a meaningful debate (or conversation, for that matter), there has to be a mutually agreed upon language with clear meanings behind the words. Since I refuse to accept you as a more authoritative source of the definitions of words than WEBSTER, and I presume you would say the same about me, I submit to you that you either agree to use the dictionary as the mutually agreed upon source of words' meanings, or you agree that my revised definition of "God" to "my cock" is valid and meaningful.
Um, "murderer" isn't a verb either.
by your reasoning, the fact you haven't commited murder doesn't mean you aren't a murderer; you're just a different kind of murderer. Specifically, the kind of murderer that doesn't murder. That's some mighty fine logic you got there, guy.
well gee, if we're going to conform the definition of atheism to whatever you want it to be, then how about this: the definition of "God" is now "my cock". Have a problem with that? It's every bit as valid as claiming that those that have no religion have a religion because you say so. And for your information, jackass, I'm not an atheist. I just know how to use a fucking dictionary. It's all good though: go back to loving "God," because "God" loves you back.
atheism espouses no belief in a supernatural being, it's not a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship, and it's not (necessarily) a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Therefore, IT'S NOT A RELIGION.
You forget about the HUGE voltage drop alkalines would see with such a high drain on them. I suspect that this thing would drain batteries as much as - if not more than - a digital camera. If I'm right, then we're talking about less than an hour for alkaline batteries, twice or more than that for NiMH (which handles high drain much better), and longer still for lithium batts.
How's THAT for an easy-to-update Linux system?
apt-get dist-upgrade
766 files will be updated, 400 installed, 0 kept back
later:
Installation complete.
I'll believe it when I see it. Just last night the possibility of it not going as planned (not all 6th graders would be getting one) was on the news here in Lansing.
Frankly, I hope they scratch the whole idea. What a titanic waste of money!
So, just in case you misconstrued HP's offer, your close friend SCO is happy to put some words in HP's mouth.
How thoughtful.
right, the article is about the likelihood a new MS worm is on the way, so I post a silly comment that underscores the ubiquity of such a topic, and I'm modded as a troll.
...Scientists predict the sun will rise tomorrow.
I don't see it... all I see is a bunch of widgets that set "755" and "644" - what the hell does this stuff mean to an luser?
It means "read a man page, luser."
Look, you said yourself that to get a distro that comes close to the ease and usability of Windows, they will have to use a non-free distro to do it. So? Just wtf is wrong with that? It seems to work well for MS. It's pretty simple, really.
If you don't mind actually learning how your OS works and have the time/interest/skill, take your pick of 150+ distros and have at.
If you want your hand held and want to spend $3,000+ for all the softawre you might want, buy Windows & all the other software you need.
If you want your hand held, but don't want to be pushed around/spend more than $200 on your software, then take your pick of about a dozen or so "winalike" distros out there.
I guess I don't see what the problem is here.
psst, genius: They ain't called the electoral college for nothin'.
offset, electric, and ratcheting screw drivers aside, the reason that the basic srewdriver doesn't change is because the design is a careful balance of several factors that make it the most useful shape most of the time.
That, and screws are deliberately put in places that the intended screwdriver can reach.
Operating systems, however, are niether so mature that no more innovation is needed nor as simple as a bevelled stick with a specifically shaped point.
I submit to you that MS hasn't figured out the perfect GUI yet (boy, was that an understatement). With each new version, they are trying to get a bit closer to that goal, while at the same time updating the code for what's new in the computer world.
I am sure that I can dig up someone that will tell you that DOS was the pinnacle of the man/machine interface. Should MS have stopped at DOS to please him? If they did, would you be grateful that the didn't change to the pesky GUI? At the end of the day, would his opinion of what OS manufacturers should do be any less valid than yours?
Honestly, XP is only mildly different from 98 when it comes to the interface. And at that, most of the changes made were done to simplify the experience. As for computers wearing out in 3 years, I have my doubts. I can still use my 166 machine that was bought in 95, and my girlfriend still pulls out her ~20 yr old Tandy on occasion.
You sir, should take a gander at Libranet.
One program (adminmenu) allows you to install security updates, recompile the kernel, download Mozilla plugins, configure sound, download and install new programs (via Synaptic)...the list, as they say, goes on.
that's a pretty unrealistic standard you have there, don't you think?
"I want a new operating system with new features, but if it isn't EXACTLY like the one I have been using for years, then I don't want it"
I'm not trying to put you down, but why can't you take a little time and learn how to use it, rather than shun it because they dared to make something you're not entirely familiar with?
Do you play/have you ever played video games? Do you demand that your flight simulator and your solitare game have the same interface? Or for that matter, do you insist that your word processor and your photo-editing software have the same interface?
they didn't snip it out because by obfuscating their comment, and using the same red font for the actual linux code that they used for the comment comparison above it, they give the casual observer the impression that the greek text is the same thing as the red linux code opposite it - inother words, they make it look like both comments AND code have been copied in this place, and SCO doesn't want to reveal "their IP."
parents don't get paid for paying attention to their screaming kids.