Bzzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. A bitwise copy (in the normal sense) would not include the session key tracks, and would not be playable on a normal DVD player (or for that matter, any DVD player). CSS controls copying by placing the keys in a separate place from the encrypted data, and preventing straightforward access to the key tracks. It is both a playback control and a copy protection device, and the distinction is unimportant for the purposes of the DMCA in any case.
What kind of crack are you smoking? A perfect copy of the DVD is easily possible and they are created all of the time. The Keys are on the DVD, otherwise their existence would be pointless. Anything on the DVD is physically copyable. CSS does not prevent this.
No, you can use a bit-for-bit copy if you can find some way of generating the session keys. The scrambling of the content, plus the inaccessibility of the session keys, together, go to make up CSS.
I don't think you could "easily" emulate the DVD session keys just by "writing a driver". Unless you have a specialised piece of equipment, or unless you can steal them by hacking a DVD-player (this, btw, would also count as "circumventing a copy protection device" under the DMCA). What kind of technique do you have in mind? (BTW, feel free; general discussion of techniques, as opposed to the creation of tools, is very definitely protected speech for which the strict test applies.)
Disclaimer: I think you're an idiot.
A bitwise copy of the DVD would be playable in a standard DVD player. CSS does not prevent the creation of a bit for bit copy of the DVD. Hence CSS does not prevent Mass Pirateing of a DVD. CSS only controls playback by disallowing playback on non MPAA approved players. From this we can draw the following conclusion: CSS is a playback control device, not a copyprotection device.
The addition of 'special equipment' into the picture is irrelevant.
Yeah, but if technique is far enough, why couldn't you change the characters to anything you would want them to be? You could make the story sort of like how you would want it to go, or just try out different options or strategies. You could even try this in a multi-user situation. A bit like a RPG, but still different.
That still doesn't make it a book. And while some people may have the fantastic artistic ability to draw exactly what is in their head others of us are limited to stickfigures. I think I'd prefer to take the text and convert it to image internally...
You no longer are employed by them. They can not force you to sign anything. My advice is to tell them to take a long stroll off of a short pier and then if they try to start anything with you just claim you didn't invent what their patent application is describing.
1. I wouldn't trade my (rather big) *paper* book collection for all the e-books in the world. There is more to books then content alone. 2. A *real* interactive book would be great. Think of a great novel, combined with music, different plots, and gameplay graphics a la Quake. Now that's a combination I would go for!
Well, then it wouldn't really be a book any more would it? It would be something completely different. One of the best things about books is that no one is telling you what the characters look or sound like. You build your own mental image of the characters based on the descriptions and your own impressions. That would be ruined by the introduction of graphics to the format. You would then have a Graphical Novel, which is a totally different beast.
Being saved has nothing to do with baptism. You ask Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins and dwell within you so that when you die you may spend eternity by His side.
Arab meaning That general middle eastern bronze skinned, dark haired, dark eyed look. Just the best word I have in my vocab for describing that particular look.
Jesus didn't have blond hair or blue eyes. But by all historical accounts of the region and that time period (Completely unrelated to religion) they weren't very concerned with keeping their hair all nice and tidy and cut above their ears, but let it grow until it was long enough to rach back and hack off.
Making drugs legal won't fix the problem and killing the dealers seems to be the only solution that has any hope of working.
Maybe we should look at the root cause of drug usage, namely that LIFE SUCKS. Doesn't matter who you are, how rich, how succesfuly, there are going to be times when you are so stressed you can't deal with it and our society doesn't have any mechanisms in place to deal with that. So people turn to drugs, most of the time it's Alcohol or nicotine, or caffeine, but sometimes it's heroin, crack, speed, LSD, etc.... We need to improve the overall quality of life for everyone and put mechanisms in to place for dealing with the stress of life.
Unless you try to sell it at a later point. If everyone who wanted a copy of song "foo" was to download it, instead of buy it, if they ever did rerelease the CD, no one would need to buy it. If you couldn't get Purple HAze, and downloaded it, when they rereleased the CD, you would no longer want it, because you have it. Sure, some people will still buy it, because they are completists, but most people don't have an urge to buy things they already own in another form.
Ok, so because someone down the road somewhere MIGHT re-release a piece of music in a purchasable form I should forego listening to it now, so that I don't cost this potential person a potential profit?
Umm, that's insane. I have a cure for cancer, I might someday in the future sell that cure, so everyone who's researching cancer now should stop because they might cost me potential profits should I choose to release my cure to the public.
Yeesh...
Kintanon
Re:I don't want to believe, I want to be left alon
on
Hackers And Mysticism?
·
· Score: 2
I hate it when they post topics I have a vocal opinion on during the weekends, I didn't find the topic until saturday night.>:)
In that case, you don't misunderstand atheists, you misunderstand what is meant by the term "atheist." It's rare for an atheist to claim they know for certain there is no deity of any kind; rather, they reject specific claims for the existence of a deity on the same grounds for which they reject the claim for the existence of the Easter Bunny, for example, or of Santa Claus.
You don't have a problem with someone rejecting the existence of (for example) Allah -- if you're a Christian, you no doubt do this yourself ("Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"). You say you understand other religions, which I take to mean you understand someone rejecting the existence of the Christian God. How then is there a problem with understanding the union of all these specific sets of disbelief?
Another way to put it is this: all the world's religions can't be right -- there's too much contradiction between them -- but they can all be wrong. I can't prove that that's the case, but after careful examination of a large number of religions, I have to say that it's pretty easy for me to conclude that the whole lot is not worth pursuing...
What you describe here is what I view as Agnostic, not as Atheist. You admit that there is the possibility of one of the current religions being right, but you think they are wrong, but you also admit the possibility of their being a deity of some sort.
Oh, I personally do not deny the existance of Allah, and I base it on the very line you quoted. In order for there to be other gods that we could place before Him, then there must be other gods. Hence I believe there are other deities that exist as well as the Christian God. Also, my wife and I have developed a working theory for the coexistance of all religions based on the premise that all rewards and punishments are visited only on those who believe in them. Hence, Saved Christians go to heaven, unsaved go to Hell, worshippers of Satan go to Hell, everyone else is taken care of by their own deities, and Atheists and Agnostics if they are full 100% (Very difficult, most have some underlying background belief) simply cease to exist. It's not exactly scientific, but it's possible.
Anyways, I don't think you are an Atheist, I think you are an Agnostic. You haven't found anything you believe is correct yet, but you admit the possibility of something coming along.
I'm still confused on why taking the 'None of the above' opinion brings out such ire. I don't hate people for being religious. (In Rome a few years ago, I even watched in admiration the Pope give a public greeting on the steps of St. Peter's.)
Because 'None of the above' isn't as comforting as A,B, or C. And as long as you can admit to yourself (we can admit to ourselves) that we're picking our religion based on greed (God created us, he knows we operate on greed and self interest, He knows how to make it work for Him) then we won't be intolerant of others. But it's the people that feel they are somehow superior for choosing this particular religion over that particular religion (this and that being generic) that cause problems. Just like people who feel they are superior for being this color instead of that color, or this gender instead of that gender.
People who are insecure in their faith, and unsure as to why they believe what they believe are going to be openly hostile to anything which challenges their ideas because they know they have no defense for them.
Yes, I was referring to the supernatural (semi? are you kidding?) life-energy often referred to. I'm not aware how it is necessary for any martial art to function.
Chi is used by practitioners of Chinese Kung Fu (Wu Shu, Gung Fu, whichever you want to call it) to inrease the strength of their strikes and to lessen the impact of an opponents strike. The existance of the ability of Chi Masters to manipulate the heat and electrical energy in their body is a proven fact. You can hook them up to machines and watch the heat increase wherever they say it will increase, it's all about controlling your body. It's spiritual in the respect that one MUST be calm and mentally stable in order to concentrate well enough to do any of this. So it requires meditation and a lot of spirtuality in order to achieve this mental attitude. Chi is a very real physical principal and isn't exactly pseudo-mystical. If you ever get the chance to speak with a Chinese Kung Fu master get them to demonstrate Chi. Ask a practitioner of Iron Palm to break a coconut open for you with his hand... Those involve Chi Energy Transfers, not just brute strength. Sine the strongest man on earth can't break open a coconut simply by punching it.
One point that I hear a lot in Christian circles is that if God is the (ultimate) source of all that is good, then we should not expect godly behavior from people who do not accept him as God. So getting told off by someone you just tried to "proselytize" is expected, if they don't accept the message you are bearing.
On the other hand, it does neither the church nor the unbeliever any good to preach in an obnoxious or abusive way. It is one thing to be persecuted because people are afraid that many will believe what you are saying. It is another to be persecuted because you are picking on people who don't want to hear it.
Ok, I've been a Christian all my life, Saved at the age of 7, pretty much as soon as I was old enough to understand what it meant. And yes it was voluntary, I asked my mom what it was to be saved and then decided I wanted to do it. Now, to get to my point, Because I'm a long haired hippy looking freak ( >:) ) I've had clean cut business suit wearing Christians come up, hand me a pamphlet and start going off about how I'm going to burn in hell for my wicked ways. Then when I collapse on the floor laughing they wonder what's so funny and tell me that I'm going to be punished for rejecting God. Then when I get up and ask them just how they expect to convince anyone of their rightousness by being total ass holes they get all indignant and tell me that as Gods messengers they are obviously doing the right thing and are not to be questioned. So I tell them I'm a Christian and have been all my life, and they tell me 'Real christians don't have long hair', so when I stop laughing about that I point out to them that Jesus Christ was an Arab Jew who by all accounts had shoulder length hair because cutting it wasn't exactly an important concern 2 thousand years ago and they start looking at me funny and then go after some other poor sap who may not be as well equipped to deal with them.
Christians like that, who witness from a pedastal of self-rightousness are doing much harm to christianity. No one is going to agree with an ass hole, even if the ass hole is right, and for some reason a lot of christians seem to be missing that point.
I'm painted as the bad guy for even asking where the clothes on the emperor are. As if I'm being silly, or worse a bigot just for disagreeing. Someone please explain this reasoning to me, but skip the common explanations. Been there, done that.
Welp, the simple explanation for my belief in God (or some kind of creator deity) is that to me Random Chance just doesn't cut it for an explanation of the origin of all things. When someone can give me a better explanation for that I'll pick it up. But The idea that we went from nothing to today simply by random chance is to me as equally absurd as the idea that an all powerful God had nothing better to do than create walking meat. I think that as long as I'm going to believe something it might as well be something that has things working out well for me in the end (eternity in paradise isn't that bad a deal). I believe most of the main tenets of Christianity, that Christ walked the earth and performed mircales (don't see any reason why he couldn't have, we don't yet understand enough about the way the universe works to say it's impossible), that Christ wants us to dwell with him in heaven for eternity (must get somewhat boring being all powerful and not having anyone to play with). Beyond that I think it's just details.
I also whole heartedly agree with you, nonsense is nonsense, and my opinion of current scientific theory on the origin of everything and how it went from nothing to today is that it's equally nonsensical.
Hah! Organized religions are really organized religious bigotry. Organization and religious tolerance don't go together. They are systems for gaining profit for the priests, and as such, they are generally as ruthless and intolerant as they can get away with, which is generally a function of what percentage of the population they can claim. This is why minority religions almost always seem gentler and friendlier: they are weak and could be wiped out if they made too much fuss. For example, Judaism seems a gentle, harmless religion (especially in America), but look in the Old Testament and you'll find that ancient Hebrew law in the days when it had a local near-monopoly was as brutally intolerant as the Catholic inquisition; look to modern Isreal and you can just how "gentle" and "harmless" it is becoming once again, now that the very government is based on the religion (mind you, this would happen with any organized religion; it doesn't matter what it's "about", the priesthood will always attract those who enjoy exercising the power abusing their authority gives them). Look to Iran, if you want to see the threat of organized religion with general support over a long period.
Asa Christian I have to say this is VERY true.
Christianity began as small groups that studied together and only wanted enough political pull to stop themselves from being fed to lions. But as more people joined the movement various politically motivated people saw this demographic that didn't have much represntation in their government and saw it as a potential powerbase to further their own agenda. And hence 'The Church' was born. Christianity began it's downward spiral into an inreasingly harmful political movement instead of a beneficial religious movement with a primary motivation to help everyone. I find it extremely distateful when some pseudo-religious political figure gets up and pretends to represent MY views as a Christian while at the same time advocating all manner of harmful legislation, and proclaiming their hatred for various social groups. It's nothing like Christ seems to have intended it to be. Of course I can't say for certain that Christ wanted anything to be like anything else since I wasn't there. But from all accounts He was a tolerant and peaceful person not prone to inciting crusades to slaughter millions of people who disagree.
There are plenty of people who believe as I do that this notion of "sending mystical energy out to some unseen person" is a load of horse puckies--except that the effort in "sending mystical energy out" may cause the person doing the sending to behave better around the unseen person they're trying to "help." On the other hand, given how plain rotten most people are in their day to day lives, I couldn't give a tinker's damn if someone finds to be nicer in their day to day lives involves carving wierd looking Tolkienish ruins into wax candles and burning them out in the woods while they dance naked to the blood of the moon. Just as long as they're nicer to me...
Ok, if you've seen my other posts you know I'm a Christian, well I also believe in the existance of Chi. I've seen evidence of it, I've used it. I've been thrown across a 40 foot workout area by it. I've seen it used to heal nasty green bruises in 12 hours. Hence I believe it exists, the existance of Chi has actually been proven scientifically. Using the thermal image of a Chi Master back in the 50's they watched as the heat in his body intensified at will and flowed through him. He was also able to use it for things like breaking open coconuts and other things where the energy transfer was observed during the experiment. This was actually on the Discovery channel as well about 3 weeks ago which kind of surprised me.
So, now with some kind of scientific basis for one form of magic, what precludes the existence of other forms?
Oh, I'll find a link to that study and post it in a reply to myself as soon as I find it.
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but the only reason I'd be vocal with my religious beliefs would be to see how others react to challenges about their religion. I've noticed that people often react by trying to insult you, try to convert you to the One True religion (theirs), ignore you, or will discuss it rationally with you (very rare).
Boy do I ever hear that!
I'll go ahead and state that I'm a Christian. I suppose I'm technically a Baptist, but I tend to hold a lot of beliefs that most Baptists don't. And when I hear Christians babbling on about how God hates this and God hates that and telling people 'This is the Way it Is.' I have the urge to kick them. Because invariably when you take an opposing view point that don't have any argument beyond 'That's just the way it is.' which tells me pretty clearly that they haven't put one seconds thought in to what they believe. So how is anyone supposed to take them seriously? I see supposed Christian groups protesting Homosexuality, screaming about how 'God Hates Fags!' and it makes me sick. These are the kind of people that don't even bother to find out what Christ was actually teaching, they just use their religion as a big stick to beat down anyone they find annoying or disagreeable and then they pretend it makes them better people. I've made absolutely certain that I know why I believe what I believe and can discuss it with anyone who comes along no matter from what angle they attack my views (attack used in the sense of challenging ones ideas, not slandering them.),and I wish more Christians and in fact more people of all faiths would put a little more effort into understanding themselves and what they believe before they go blindly attempting to convert everyone to a system that they don't even understand yet.
Kintanon
Re:I don't want to believe, I want to be left alon
on
Hackers And Mysticism?
·
· Score: 2
For example, back at my old high school I can remember the subject of religion coming up casually in a conversation, and I made the mistake of mentioning I was an atheist. Because of this, I was harrassed for years. I had people constantly bringing up the subject, again and again and again. I had people trying to convert me just about every single day. They always ask, "why are you an atheist?" Had said I was christian, jewish, muslim, or even budhist I can't imagine being asked that question so many times.
That's because religious people (myself included) do not understand Atheism. We understand Agnosticism, we understand other religions. But we do not understand Atheists. The fact that someone is actually willing to say that 'NO! There is no deity of any kind anywhere and I KNOW THIS FOR CERTAIN.' baffles us completely. Agnostics proclaim not to know the answer, perfectly understandable. Other religions have their own views, but all admit the possibility of an all powerful deity or multiple powerful deities somewhere doing something. Atheists proclaim that they have sure knowledge of the nonexistance of such a being despite there being no proof one way or the other. That is why you are constantly asked 'Why are you an Atheist.' if you were an Agnostic that probably wouldn't happen...
Please, bring up some more irrelevent arguments for this article. Here's a thought: I'm going to make this super strong material that'll let me build a space elevator that'll let people get there on $222 each way! Oh well I have no clue what the hell I'd make it out of, and I have no clue how much it'd truely cost, but if it cost X, and you split it up by Y, etc. etc.
Give me some facts. Research it. Show the material. Do some tests. Put up some data. None of this assumption crap. The Scientific Method is what defines science and helps us describe our environment. I see no evidence of that here. Just a bunch of assumptions and "cool shit". What I'd love to know the most is: How the hell do they go about constructing this? Obviously from the top down. How many rockets does it take to put this amount of crap in space? How the hell do they expect to get an asteroid... thats a big deal... How do they expect to build it? People, machines? etc. etc. etc.
Well, as mentioned in another post there is a carbon molecule with higher tensile strength than diamond that is in development that can serve this purpose without snapping or shattering. Once that is complete the rest is just details. To me the hard part will be joining the cable segments since your joint compound is going to certainly be weaker than the cable itself. And they definately aren't going to create a 144,000KM cable in once piece on earth and then stand it up.
Kintanon
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
You got the source code... set it up yourself if you think its of value.
Ahhh, that's the sticking point, it's not valuable enough to me that I want to spend MY time on it. I want someone ELSE do it and provide it to me for free.>:)
Anywho, the actual mechanical side of it isn't the hard part, since it's just a matter of making slashboxes and categories for each region you want to include, time consuming but not difficult.
The hard part is finding the correspondants...
Kintanon
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 2
Yeech! Do you know how many people you're talking about?! You can count slashdot's current staff on one hand.
If people send in the stories, we'll do our best to run them. That's what the YRO section was designed for. But it doesn't seem likely that the posting staff on slashdot will suddenly expand a hundredfold...
I didn't say it would be EASY. But it would be nice for the USERS of the site. Plus just think of all the regionally targetted advertising you could do! Larry's Pizza Parlor in Atlanta could throw banners all over the Georgia slashbox and voila! He's supporting the Georgia correspondat all by himself! >:)
I think tt's a good idea, but it might not be a PRACTICAL idea.>:)
So what you are trying to say is that there is no way to buy Purple Haze? It's not on any CD available anywhere? That's funny, I just did a search on Amazon and came up with 87 CDs with the song Purple Haze on it. Even assume only 25% are correct and not duplicates, that's 21 CDs with the song. Seems like someone sure is selling it.
Yeah, it's on the Greatest Hits CD. I just picked it as a random example of a relatively hard to find song that everyone has heard of. It's on 2 other CDs as well, one of which is no longer produced or sold, and one of which is sold someplaces but very hard to find. The fact is that SOMEONE somewhere bought the CD. And if that CD is no longer for sale, and the song on it is not available to be purchased through an RIAA approved distribution method then they CAN NOT lose money from me downloading it. You CAN NOT lose money if someone copies something you are not selling.
If you really like one songs, buy it as a single. But just because you don't want the whole CD doesn't make it right for you to steal even part of it.
Oh, of course, let me see... Now... where IS that purple haze single... Hrmmm. That's right, there isn't one! Well... I'll just buy the original album that had it on CD, what? No cd for that album! All they have is Band of Gypsies and Greatest Hits?! But all I want is Purple Haze.... Well, I guess since they aren't selling Purple Haze they can't possibly lose money if I download it. So there.
Not all songs are offered as singles, and not all albums are available in CD format, or even Tape format. What if I want music that the RIAA has decided there is no market for and so stopped selling? What am I supposed to do if there is no way for me to BUY the music I want? Buying it at a used CD shop or used Record shop doesn't give the RIAA a dime... So why should they care if I download it instead? If you aren't selling a product anymore, and someone can get that product for free without taking it away from you then no one is stealing from you.
Kintanon
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 2
What we need is regional slashboxes with local correspondants. That way if I want to know about Tech issues in Uganda I can just enable my Uganda slashbox and the local correspondant will be posting things local to the area sent in by Ugandan readers. And if I want to know about the US I can enable the USian slashbox, and possibly even Subcategories in the US for the States. You just need 1 paid correspondant in each place, possibly 2 in places like california and the UK that have more people. That does nothing but skim through articles in local papers, check out parliament/congress/whatever and post. Then everyone has an easy way to find their local Tech issues and see if they can do anything about it. Plus some of the people who don't give a shit about USian politics wouldn't have to read about it. And those of us who are interested in more than just USian politics can find the stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Bzzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. A bitwise copy (in the normal sense) would not include the session key tracks, and would not be playable on a normal DVD player (or for that matter, any DVD player). CSS controls copying by placing the keys in a separate place from the encrypted data, and preventing straightforward access to the key tracks. It is both a playback control and a copy protection device, and the distinction is unimportant for the purposes of the DMCA in any case.
What kind of crack are you smoking? A perfect copy of the DVD is easily possible and they are created all of the time. The Keys are on the DVD, otherwise their existence would be pointless. Anything on the DVD is physically copyable. CSS does not prevent this.
Kintanon
No, you can use a bit-for-bit copy if you can find some way of generating the session keys. The scrambling of the content, plus the inaccessibility of the session keys, together, go to make up CSS.
I don't think you could "easily" emulate the DVD session keys just by "writing a driver". Unless you have a specialised piece of equipment, or unless you can steal them by hacking a DVD-player (this, btw, would also count as "circumventing a copy protection device" under the DMCA). What kind of technique do you have in mind? (BTW, feel free; general discussion of techniques, as opposed to the creation of tools, is very definitely protected speech for which the strict test applies.)
Disclaimer: I think you're an idiot.
A bitwise copy of the DVD would be playable in a standard DVD player. CSS does not prevent the creation of a bit for bit copy of the DVD. Hence CSS does not prevent Mass Pirateing of a DVD. CSS only controls playback by disallowing playback on non MPAA approved players. From this we can draw the following conclusion: CSS is a playback control device, not a copyprotection device.
The addition of 'special equipment' into the picture is irrelevant.
Kintanon
Yeah, but if technique is far enough, why couldn't you change the characters to anything you would want them to be? You could make the story sort of like how you would want it to go, or just try out different options or strategies. You could even try this in a multi-user situation. A bit like a RPG, but still different.
That still doesn't make it a book. And while some people may have the fantastic artistic ability to draw exactly what is in their head others of us are limited to stickfigures. I think I'd prefer to take the text and convert it to image internally...
Kintanon
You no longer are employed by them. They can not force you to sign anything. My advice is to tell them to take a long stroll off of a short pier and then if they try to start anything with you just claim you didn't invent what their patent application is describing.
Kintanon
Heh, the consensus among pretty much everyone is that Catholics are all going to burn in hell, no one likes them anyways.>:)
As for short hair, I'd contend it was either hacked off at the scalp or just above the shoulders where you could grab it and cut it off yourself.
Kintanon
1. I wouldn't trade my (rather big) *paper* book collection for all the e-books in the world. There is more to books then content alone. 2. A *real* interactive book would be great. Think of a great novel, combined with music, different plots, and gameplay graphics a la Quake. Now that's a combination I would go for!
Well, then it wouldn't really be a book any more would it? It would be something completely different. One of the best things about books is that no one is telling you what the characters look or sound like. You build your own mental image of the characters based on the descriptions and your own impressions. That would be ruined by the introduction of graphics to the format. You would then have a Graphical Novel, which is a totally different beast.
Kintanon
Being saved has nothing to do with baptism. You ask Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins and dwell within you so that when you die you may spend eternity by His side.
Arab meaning That general middle eastern bronze skinned, dark haired, dark eyed look. Just the best word I have in my vocab for describing that particular look.
Jesus didn't have blond hair or blue eyes. But by all historical accounts of the region and that time period (Completely unrelated to religion) they weren't very concerned with keeping their hair all nice and tidy and cut above their ears, but let it grow until it was long enough to rach back and hack off.
Kintanon
Making drugs legal won't fix the problem and killing the dealers seems to be the only solution that has any hope of working.
Maybe we should look at the root cause of drug usage, namely that LIFE SUCKS. Doesn't matter who you are, how rich, how succesfuly, there are going to be times when you are so stressed you can't deal with it and our society doesn't have any mechanisms in place to deal with that. So people turn to drugs, most of the time it's Alcohol or nicotine, or caffeine, but sometimes it's heroin, crack, speed, LSD, etc.... We need to improve the overall quality of life for everyone and put mechanisms in to place for dealing with the stress of life.
Kintanon
Unless you try to sell it at a later point. If everyone who wanted a copy of song "foo" was to download it, instead of buy it, if they ever did rerelease the CD, no one would need to buy it. If you couldn't get Purple HAze, and downloaded it, when they rereleased the CD, you would no longer want it, because you have it. Sure, some people will still buy it, because they are completists, but most people don't have an urge to buy things they already own in another form.
Ok, so because someone down the road somewhere MIGHT re-release a piece of music in a purchasable form I should forego listening to it now, so that I don't cost this potential person a potential profit?
Umm, that's insane. I have a cure for cancer, I might someday in the future sell that cure, so everyone who's researching cancer now should stop because they might cost me potential profits should I choose to release my cure to the public.
Yeesh...
Kintanon
I hate it when they post topics I have a vocal opinion on during the weekends, I didn't find the topic until saturday night.>:)
In that case, you don't misunderstand atheists, you misunderstand what is meant by the term "atheist." It's rare for an atheist to claim they know for certain there is no deity of any kind; rather, they reject specific claims for the existence of a deity on the same grounds for which they reject the claim for the existence of the Easter Bunny, for example, or of Santa Claus.
You don't have a problem with someone rejecting the existence of (for example) Allah -- if you're a Christian, you no doubt do this yourself ("Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"). You say you understand other religions, which I take to mean you understand someone rejecting the existence of the Christian God. How then is there a problem with understanding the union of all these specific sets of disbelief?
Another way to put it is this: all the world's religions can't be right -- there's too much contradiction between them -- but they can all be wrong. I can't prove that that's the case, but after careful examination of a large number of religions, I have to say that it's pretty easy for me to conclude that the whole lot is not worth pursuing...
What you describe here is what I view as Agnostic, not as Atheist. You admit that there is the possibility of one of the current religions being right, but you think they are wrong, but you also admit the possibility of their being a deity of some sort.
Oh, I personally do not deny the existance of Allah, and I base it on the very line you quoted. In order for there to be other gods that we could place before Him, then there must be other gods. Hence I believe there are other deities that exist as well as the Christian God. Also, my wife and I have developed a working theory for the coexistance of all religions based on the premise that all rewards and punishments are visited only on those who believe in them. Hence, Saved Christians go to heaven, unsaved go to Hell, worshippers of Satan go to Hell, everyone else is taken care of by their own deities, and Atheists and Agnostics if they are full 100% (Very difficult, most have some underlying background belief) simply cease to exist. It's not exactly scientific, but it's possible.
Anyways, I don't think you are an Atheist, I think you are an Agnostic. You haven't found anything you believe is correct yet, but you admit the possibility of something coming along.
Kintanon
I'm still confused on why taking the 'None of the above' opinion brings out such ire. I don't hate people for being religious. (In Rome a few years ago, I even watched in admiration the Pope give a public greeting on the steps of St. Peter's.)
Because 'None of the above' isn't as comforting as A,B, or C. And as long as you can admit to yourself (we can admit to ourselves) that we're picking our religion based on greed (God created us, he knows we operate on greed and self interest, He knows how to make it work for Him) then we won't be intolerant of others. But it's the people that feel they are somehow superior for choosing this particular religion over that particular religion (this and that being generic) that cause problems. Just like people who feel they are superior for being this color instead of that color, or this gender instead of that gender.
People who are insecure in their faith, and unsure as to why they believe what they believe are going to be openly hostile to anything which challenges their ideas because they know they have no defense for them.
Kintanon
Yes, I was referring to the supernatural (semi? are you kidding?) life-energy often referred to. I'm not aware how it is necessary for any martial art to function.
Chi is used by practitioners of Chinese Kung Fu (Wu Shu, Gung Fu, whichever you want to call it) to inrease the strength of their strikes and to lessen the impact of an opponents strike. The existance of the ability of Chi Masters to manipulate the heat and electrical energy in their body is a proven fact. You can hook them up to machines and watch the heat increase wherever they say it will increase, it's all about controlling your body. It's spiritual in the respect that one MUST be calm and mentally stable in order to concentrate well enough to do any of this. So it requires meditation and a lot of spirtuality in order to achieve this mental attitude. Chi is a very real physical principal and isn't exactly pseudo-mystical. If you ever get the chance to speak with a Chinese Kung Fu master get them to demonstrate Chi. Ask a practitioner of Iron Palm to break a coconut open for you with his hand... Those involve Chi Energy Transfers, not just brute strength. Sine the strongest man on earth can't break open a coconut simply by punching it.
Kintanon
One point that I hear a lot in Christian circles is that if God is the (ultimate) source of all that is good, then we should not expect godly behavior from people who do not accept him as God. So getting told off by someone you just tried to "proselytize" is expected, if they don't accept the message you are bearing.
On the other hand, it does neither the church nor the unbeliever any good to preach in an obnoxious or abusive way. It is one thing to be persecuted because people are afraid that many will believe what you are saying. It is another to be persecuted because you are picking on people who don't want to hear it.
Ok, I've been a Christian all my life, Saved at the age of 7, pretty much as soon as I was old enough to understand what it meant. And yes it was voluntary, I asked my mom what it was to be saved and then decided I wanted to do it. Now, to get to my point, Because I'm a long haired hippy looking freak ( >:) ) I've had clean cut business suit wearing Christians come up, hand me a pamphlet and start going off about how I'm going to burn in hell for my wicked ways. Then when I collapse on the floor laughing they wonder what's so funny and tell me that I'm going to be punished for rejecting God. Then when I get up and ask them just how they expect to convince anyone of their rightousness by being total ass holes they get all indignant and tell me that as Gods messengers they are obviously doing the right thing and are not to be questioned. So I tell them I'm a Christian and have been all my life, and they tell me 'Real christians don't have long hair', so when I stop laughing about that I point out to them that Jesus Christ was an Arab Jew who by all accounts had shoulder length hair because cutting it wasn't exactly an important concern 2 thousand years ago and they start looking at me funny and then go after some other poor sap who may not be as well equipped to deal with them.
Christians like that, who witness from a pedastal of self-rightousness are doing much harm to christianity. No one is going to agree with an ass hole, even if the ass hole is right, and for some reason a lot of christians seem to be missing that point.
Kintanon
I'm painted as the bad guy for even asking where the clothes on the emperor are. As if I'm being silly, or worse a bigot just for disagreeing. Someone please explain this reasoning to me, but skip the common explanations. Been there, done that.
Welp, the simple explanation for my belief in God (or some kind of creator deity) is that to me Random Chance just doesn't cut it for an explanation of the origin of all things. When someone can give me a better explanation for that I'll pick it up. But The idea that we went from nothing to today simply by random chance is to me as equally absurd as the idea that an all powerful God had nothing better to do than create walking meat. I think that as long as I'm going to believe something it might as well be something that has things working out well for me in the end (eternity in paradise isn't that bad a deal). I believe most of the main tenets of Christianity, that Christ walked the earth and performed mircales (don't see any reason why he couldn't have, we don't yet understand enough about the way the universe works to say it's impossible), that Christ wants us to dwell with him in heaven for eternity (must get somewhat boring being all powerful and not having anyone to play with). Beyond that I think it's just details.
I also whole heartedly agree with you, nonsense is nonsense, and my opinion of current scientific theory on the origin of everything and how it went from nothing to today is that it's equally nonsensical.
Kintanon
Hah! Organized religions are really organized religious bigotry. Organization and religious tolerance don't go together. They are systems for gaining profit for the priests, and as such, they are generally as ruthless and intolerant as they can get away with, which is generally a function of what percentage of the population they can claim. This is why minority religions almost always seem gentler and friendlier: they are weak and could be wiped out if they made too much fuss. For example, Judaism seems a gentle, harmless religion (especially in America), but look in the Old Testament and you'll find that ancient Hebrew law in the days when it had a local near-monopoly was as brutally intolerant as the Catholic inquisition; look to modern Isreal and you can just how "gentle" and "harmless" it is becoming once again, now that the very government is based on the religion (mind you, this would happen with any organized religion; it doesn't matter what it's "about", the priesthood will always attract those who enjoy exercising the power abusing their authority gives them). Look to Iran, if you want to see the threat of organized religion with general support over a long period.
Asa Christian I have to say this is VERY true.
Christianity began as small groups that studied together and only wanted enough political pull to stop themselves from being fed to lions. But as more people joined the movement various politically motivated people saw this demographic that didn't have much represntation in their government and saw it as a potential powerbase to further their own agenda. And hence 'The Church' was born. Christianity began it's downward spiral into an inreasingly harmful political movement instead of a beneficial religious movement with a primary motivation to help everyone. I find it extremely distateful when some pseudo-religious political figure gets up and pretends to represent MY views as a Christian while at the same time advocating all manner of harmful legislation, and proclaiming their hatred for various social groups. It's nothing like Christ seems to have intended it to be. Of course I can't say for certain that Christ wanted anything to be like anything else since I wasn't there. But from all accounts He was a tolerant and peaceful person not prone to inciting crusades to slaughter millions of people who disagree.
Kintanon
Here is a link to the study I mentioned above:t ml
http://www.dallas.net/~matzke/papers/tucson2b.h
Kintanon
There are plenty of people who believe as I do that this notion of "sending mystical energy out to some unseen person" is a load of horse puckies--except that the effort in "sending mystical energy out" may cause the person doing the sending to behave better around the unseen person they're trying to "help." On the other hand, given how plain rotten most people are in their day to day lives, I couldn't give a tinker's damn if someone finds to be nicer in their day to day lives involves carving wierd looking Tolkienish ruins into wax candles and burning them out in the woods while they dance naked to the blood of the moon. Just as long as they're nicer to me...
Ok, if you've seen my other posts you know I'm a Christian, well I also believe in the existance of Chi. I've seen evidence of it, I've used it. I've been thrown across a 40 foot workout area by it. I've seen it used to heal nasty green bruises in 12 hours. Hence I believe it exists, the existance of Chi has actually been proven scientifically. Using the thermal image of a Chi Master back in the 50's they watched as the heat in his body intensified at will and flowed through him. He was also able to use it for things like breaking open coconuts and other things where the energy transfer was observed during the experiment. This was actually on the Discovery channel as well about 3 weeks ago which kind of surprised me.
So, now with some kind of scientific basis for one form of magic, what precludes the existence of other forms?
Oh, I'll find a link to that study and post it in a reply to myself as soon as I find it.
Kintanon
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but the only reason I'd be vocal with my religious beliefs would be to see how others react to challenges about their religion. I've noticed that people often react by trying to insult you, try to convert you to the One True religion (theirs), ignore you, or will discuss it rationally with you (very rare).
,and I wish more Christians and in fact more people of all faiths would put a little more effort into understanding themselves and what they believe before they go blindly attempting to convert everyone to a system that they don't even understand yet.
Boy do I ever hear that!
I'll go ahead and state that I'm a Christian. I suppose I'm technically a Baptist, but I tend to hold a lot of beliefs that most Baptists don't. And when I hear Christians babbling on about how God hates this and God hates that and telling people 'This is the Way it Is.' I have the urge to kick them. Because invariably when you take an opposing view point that don't have any argument beyond 'That's just the way it is.' which tells me pretty clearly that they haven't put one seconds thought in to what they believe. So how is anyone supposed to take them seriously? I see supposed Christian groups protesting Homosexuality, screaming about how 'God Hates Fags!' and it makes me sick. These are the kind of people that don't even bother to find out what Christ was actually teaching, they just use their religion as a big stick to beat down anyone they find annoying or disagreeable and then they pretend it makes them better people. I've made absolutely certain that I know why I believe what I believe and can discuss it with anyone who comes along no matter from what angle they attack my views (attack used in the sense of challenging ones ideas, not slandering them.)
Kintanon
For example, back at my old high school I can remember the subject of religion coming up casually in a conversation, and I made the mistake of mentioning I was an atheist. Because of this, I was harrassed for years. I had people constantly bringing up the subject, again and again and again. I had people trying to convert me just about every single day. They always ask, "why are you an atheist?" Had said I was christian, jewish, muslim, or even budhist I can't imagine being asked that question so many times.
That's because religious people (myself included) do not understand Atheism. We understand Agnosticism, we understand other religions. But we do not understand Atheists. The fact that someone is actually willing to say that 'NO! There is no deity of any kind anywhere and I KNOW THIS FOR CERTAIN.' baffles us completely. Agnostics proclaim not to know the answer, perfectly understandable. Other religions have their own views, but all admit the possibility of an all powerful deity or multiple powerful deities somewhere doing something. Atheists proclaim that they have sure knowledge of the nonexistance of such a being despite there being no proof one way or the other. That is why you are constantly asked 'Why are you an Atheist.' if you were an Agnostic that probably wouldn't happen...
Kintanon
Please, bring up some more irrelevent arguments for this article. Here's a thought: I'm going to make this super strong material that'll let me build a space elevator that'll let people get there on $222 each way! Oh well I have no clue what the hell I'd make it out of, and I have no clue how much it'd truely cost, but if it cost X, and you split it up by Y, etc. etc.
Give me some facts. Research it. Show the material. Do some tests. Put up some data. None of this assumption crap. The Scientific Method is what defines science and helps us describe our environment. I see no evidence of that here. Just a bunch of assumptions and "cool shit". What I'd love to know the most is: How the hell do they go about constructing this? Obviously from the top down. How many rockets does it take to put this amount of crap in space? How the hell do they expect to get an asteroid... thats a big deal... How do they expect to build it? People, machines? etc. etc. etc.
Well, as mentioned in another post there is a carbon molecule with higher tensile strength than diamond that is in development that can serve this purpose without snapping or shattering. Once that is complete the rest is just details. To me the hard part will be joining the cable segments since your joint compound is going to certainly be weaker than the cable itself. And they definately aren't going to create a 144,000KM cable in once piece on earth and then stand it up.
Kintanon
You got the source code... set it up yourself if you think its of value.
Ahhh, that's the sticking point, it's not valuable enough to me that I want to spend MY time on it. I want someone ELSE do it and provide it to me for free.>:)
Anywho, the actual mechanical side of it isn't the hard part, since it's just a matter of making slashboxes and categories for each region you want to include, time consuming but not difficult.
The hard part is finding the correspondants...
Kintanon
Yeech! Do you know how many people you're talking about?! You can count slashdot's current staff on one hand.
If people send in the stories, we'll do our best to run them. That's what the YRO section was designed for. But it doesn't seem likely that the posting staff on slashdot will suddenly expand a hundredfold...
I didn't say it would be EASY. But it would be nice for the USERS of the site. Plus just think of all the regionally targetted advertising you could do! Larry's Pizza Parlor in Atlanta could throw banners all over the Georgia slashbox and voila! He's supporting the Georgia correspondat all by himself! >:)
I think tt's a good idea, but it might not be a PRACTICAL idea.>:)
Kintanon
So what you are trying to say is that there is no way to buy Purple Haze? It's not on any CD available anywhere? That's funny, I just did a search on Amazon and came up with 87 CDs with the song Purple Haze on it. Even assume only 25% are correct and not duplicates, that's 21 CDs with the song. Seems like someone sure is selling it.
Yeah, it's on the Greatest Hits CD. I just picked it as a random example of a relatively hard to find song that everyone has heard of. It's on 2 other CDs as well, one of which is no longer produced or sold, and one of which is sold someplaces but very hard to find. The fact is that SOMEONE somewhere bought the CD. And if that CD is no longer for sale, and the song on it is not available to be purchased through an RIAA approved distribution method then they CAN NOT lose money from me downloading it. You CAN NOT lose money if someone copies something you are not selling.
Kintanon
If you really like one songs, buy it as a single. But just because you don't want the whole CD doesn't make it right for you to steal even part of it.
Oh, of course, let me see... Now... where IS that purple haze single... Hrmmm. That's right, there isn't one! Well... I'll just buy the original album that had it on CD, what? No cd for that album! All they have is Band of Gypsies and Greatest Hits?! But all I want is Purple Haze.... Well, I guess since they aren't selling Purple Haze they can't possibly lose money if I download it. So there.
Not all songs are offered as singles, and not all albums are available in CD format, or even Tape format. What if I want music that the RIAA has decided there is no market for and so stopped selling? What am I supposed to do if there is no way for me to BUY the music I want? Buying it at a used CD shop or used Record shop doesn't give the RIAA a dime... So why should they care if I download it instead? If you aren't selling a product anymore, and someone can get that product for free without taking it away from you then no one is stealing from you.
Kintanon
What we need is regional slashboxes with local correspondants. That way if I want to know about Tech issues in Uganda I can just enable my Uganda slashbox and the local correspondant will be posting things local to the area sent in by Ugandan readers. And if I want to know about the US I can enable the USian slashbox, and possibly even Subcategories in the US for the States. You just need 1 paid correspondant in each place, possibly 2 in places like california and the UK that have more people. That does nothing but skim through articles in local papers, check out parliament/congress/whatever and post. Then everyone has an easy way to find their local Tech issues and see if they can do anything about it. Plus some of the people who don't give a shit about USian politics wouldn't have to read about it. And those of us who are interested in more than just USian politics can find the stuff.
Kintanon