We could peacefully ask who elected this guy. IIRC in democracy you elect people who change the law. That's been a joke lately, so I wonder if enforcing some laws means respecting authority (the ultimate authority is the decision of people expressed by vote) or it is an attack on democracy, whose perpetrators we usually call terrorists when their skin is of a different color.
The desktop is not irrelevant, but... linux desktops work better than windows ones. Easier to setup, to keep updated and clean. I think the reasons that keep linux from getting more share are: not enough native games (there are and are good but ppl want the flavour of the month) and migration impedance from what's already deployed (waiting for new samba) to the PEBKAC that freaks out when linux has icons of a different color (then came office ribbon and the usual UI reshuffle of new windows versions: karma exists)
A child is perfectly able to discriminate between reality and a videogame. That doesn't rule out the possibility that the videogame has effects on the subconscious mind.
Everything gets done by government decree and some tens of thousand laws in excess make justice inapplicable, that's been true for decades here.
That does not mean the current government is just like the old ones. I don't buy the "politicians are stupid/insane" theory but when I read newspapers, at first I think: "Franz Kafka on acid".
A pdf is not html, displaying the pdf inline will confuse the user which begins to see different options and view popping up and different behavior print options and so on. Different kind of document, different window.
In general, firefox should mantain its course. Do you need a chrome copycat? When you copy chrome and IE they will change UI again. It's them who need to build an unique experience for the user who become accustomed to do it the IE or Chrome way. Mozilla can instead focus on usability and use familiarity as one of the factors to consider. The good old menu bar worked fine since the xerox days, for example. Why the new version number? You're not gonna get to version 11 before chrome and ie are at 15 anyway. Do people shun the linux kernel just because it's years at major version 2?
From wikipedia: "A stun grenade, also known as a flashbang, is a non-lethal weapon. The first devices like this were created in the 1960s at the order of the British Special Air Service as an incapacitant.
These grenades are designed to temporarily neutralize the combat effectiveness of enemies by disorienting their senses. The flash of light momentarily activates all light sensitive cells in the eye, making vision impossible for approximately five seconds until the eye restores itself to its normal, unstimulated state. The extremely loud blast produced by the grenade adds to its incapacitating properties by disturbing the fluid in the ear."
The incapacitating effects of sensory overload are also known by some user interface designers and their long term effects are obvious: after 2 decades of MTV videos we have justin bieber.
If they advocated some control over the internet (like riaa and politicians around the world do) because of the increase in possessions, then I would agree that they confuse effects with causes. But from TFA I understand they take the development of internet as an established fact and they say we must be better prepared, the problem has been underestimated. Which seems a normal things to say at a conference about exorcisms. Of course I may have misunderstood them, it would be better to discuss official documents instead of TFA.
> he had taught himself "C, C++, Perl, Python, Ruby, Java, Lisp, Prolog, and x86 assembly in a week"? Math is different, think about the x86 instruction set, it's the result of design choices in the past not the constant application of proofs over axioms. Also, he might have photographic memory.
I agree that he should not skip stuff. But if he proceeds at his pace wherever he ends up is good. I just hope he's not pressured too much by parents.
I called atheist what denies a transcendent God. Science can discover only the immanent aspects of God, just like a cellular automata simulation can't tell if it refreshes at 3fps or 300fps. Yes, calling that atheist expresses a POV more than a definition and you are right to say you are not atheist. But your sig makes a strong general statement and so I found problems in a particular case (and not a very narrow one).
And that's what logic says: but religion says the Bible has some elements which would be satisfed by an immanent God ("I am WHO i am" and “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” can be very well modeled by a self-aware God=Universe, and the Protector is a concept much like Providence.
As another side note, your sig is quite good in its capability for communication so it will be difficult to alter it and keep that punch.
If your friend didn't defend you you'd have ended with damage or inconvenience. That's defense. IMHO the oaf is telling you your fly is open, instead. And "assuming you are atheist" is not "discussing an atheist position", which I see in your sig. I agree I should have written "illogic" instead. The relation between your sig and your beliefs is not my concern.
> Wrong, my feelings have no bearing on whether a proposition is logical.
I was talking about religion. If you think any religion can make a logical or illogical proposition when the subject is transcendental, you are not logical. I repeat my first post for the last time. You can create universes with different underlying logic. Therefore our logic is not necessarily valid outside our universe. If you don't like religion because it's not logical nor predictive (without being escatological), that's ok. I don't like rock because it is not funk. But If you say "vice versa" when it's logically not vice versa, expect reactions.
I am not sure of the app hub concept. It's great to have peer reviewed game, but what if you come up with an original idea and a big publisher incorporates it in one of his games? They can rush it through the store by simply investing enough resources to polish it. That would work even without needing to bribe MS into putting the game in the fast lane. So you are better off putting the complete final version and hope it gets first to market. You get no advantages and all the disadvantages.
> science can explain the changes that happen in one's brain when one experiences religion
Science has explained manna too, its occurrence could be coincidence viewed as miracle. Does it disprove miracles? If some substances make people have ecstasy (and make others jump out the window) science can track the phenomenon from the chemical reaction in the receptor of the nose to the whole travelling of stimuli through the brain. Religion can theorize that it's not the real God. Human logic says you can't prove anything about the relation between a God and a shitty drug without going into a God's domain and "ask him". When you return you might not even be able to recall and relate to "the answer".
> Religion cannot explain this. Bill Oâ(TM)Reilly docet. Consider the best possible scenario for science: the universe is deterministic and science gets to track every single present past or future interaction between every single particle and finds no outside influence. Occam's razor says: an unneeded and unknowable divine level does not need to exist, so it doesn't exist. Logic says: wait! "an unneeded and unknowable divine level does not exist" is not a conclusive statement, by definition of "unknowable". It's an assumption. So either you don't apply Occam's razor at all, a good idea since it's not even a law, or you apply it again: the assumption "an unneeded and unknowable divine level does not exist" is unneeded, must be removed. Transcendent level stays transcendent. I call it the double blade Occam's razor.
A religion with a transcendent creator can trivially explain anything, the catch is that it does that by starting from axioms. Just like science does (the objective nature of reality is just one of the possible models, after all). YOUR FEELING on the validity of the explanation matters, not the capability for explanations.
If you want my opinion on emotions, they look much like IPC (inter process communication). And dreams look like garbage collection. Problem is, are they always just that? Good luck finding it out.
> Thanks for the defense Pointing out a flaw is an attack, then? This is an unnecessary assumption. Discussing an atheist position might also yield a better atheist position. In fact I was not defending a religion, I was defending logic.
> "Praying" is really "talking to yourself", asking yourself to do the things you want/need, instead of partying the whole time.
Funny, "you pray for your self, not for God", is something I heard from a religious guy. In all religions where the God is omniscient, prayer cannot likely have the function to tell Him about your problems or express gratitude since He already knows them and how you feel.
> Religion is about control A guy that learns how the omnipresent google and facebook make money concludes that the web is about control, too.
You're confusing religion with the concept of a monotheistic God. He said Science can explain Religion, which in a way it can.
If you keep on reading you get to "not vice versa", and that's what I proved to be false. I can pick whatever religion I prefer, since one counterexample is sufficient to disprove an assertion. And you can substitute easily other religions with their own myths about the presence of humans and get other counterexamples.
You can say plenty about Religion using logic(...)Even if you confuse religion with a single montheistic God as you seem to do, you can still use logic to say things so when you state 'you can't say anything about a god by using logic' you are wrong.
But your logical conclusions are all dependent on the assumption that binary logic is an abstraction applicable to the transcendent as it is to our reality. That assumption is reasonable, but it taints all reasoning about the divine plane.
Every Religion I've read about for instance is incompatible with all of the others so logic allows me to say that at most one can be right.
We could discuss the meaning of incompatibility and "being right". But let's simply suppose 2 religions are incompatible. Religion A says god is one, religion B says there are more gods. Logic allows me to say that "one", "more", and "A xor (not A) is always true" are concepts not necessarily defined the same way as ours in a possible divine dimension. We are just left with the concept of "god(s)" as an hypothesis. So theoretically both religions can be right.
If I project a pyramid on two planes I could have a square and a triangle. You cannot say that something must either be a square or a triangle because that logic is valid in 2d only. Of course if your experience of the universe is limited to 2d there is no way I can prove to you that pyramids exist. Plato's cave revisited.
Your main argument is that God could be outside of the universe and utterly unknowable.
That's a physical way to say "transcendent stuff is transcendent" which is a major stumbling block for application of logic.
This is true but it is equally true that if you expanded the 'universe' to include that God it would be valid to reuse that argument to suggest that there was a second God who sat outside the first one etc. This is simply the rebuttal to the First Cause argument or more simply put 'Who created God'.
If you "expanded the universe" of colors to include smell, would it be valid to ask what light wavelengths generate the smell of a rose? nope. Simply put: 'Who created God - compiler warning: "who", "created" are undefined'
This is not nitpicking, example: Create: "what wasn't there earlier, is there later". A definition clearly dependent on a lot of concepts, including time. The Christian God, for example, is said to be eternal. Therefore you can't apply the concept of cause or of creator to Him; by our logic, who is beyond time has no creator or cause.
Since introducing the idea of God hasn't in any way simplified our explanation of the universe or added anything to our knowledge it is logical to question why we should seriously consider it.
Can you define "introducing"? as I perceive it, you simply considered the system composed of the universe and a hypothetical unknowable dimension, applied human concepts and logic to it, and shown that it causes infinite regress. In fact the regress stops if and when the concepts become inapplicable. For what concerns us, that happens at the first iteration.
Besides, the idea of God as first cause is a philosophic, theological matter. One can perfectly conceive an universe that needs no creator, because "everything needs a cause" is another law DERIVED from observation, the universe doesn't obey laws, laws just model it. The question
among the TOS there's something like: You give us the right to access, retain, use and disclose your account information and Your Files to (give assistance, comply with the TOS and the law...)
Same TOS say you are in charge for the security of your files. That means I'd use the service to store encrypted backups, not mp3 or photos.
> Science can explain religion; not vice versa. "God created man, man observed its surroundings, derived rules and models that predict changes in those surroundings and called it science."
Science explains religion under the hypothesis that a god doesn't exist (unless evidence is given, which is a currently irrelevant clause). The dual is: religion explains science under the hypothesis that his god(s) exist. That's what I just did. Easy. Let's forget about God and go on.
"Another man reasoned that if a law describes an event, then that event obeys that law. And thought laws to be absolute, and applied logic outside the physical world to the trascendent one, (a groundless assumption because it's trivial for us to create systems ruled by ternary or fuzzy logic) so atheism / theology were born"
In other words, you can't say anything about a god by using logic. Those proclaiming atheism is a religion might be wrong in their reasoning but they accidentally get to the right conclusions.
And it always be like that because evidence can't be given: nothing that happens however extraordinary, proves God (simple demonstration: whatever our knowledge of the universe is, you can't prove it's the ultimate*. All that lies between ours and ultimate knowledge is indistinguishable from divine power). You might set an arbitrary threshold for thinking God would prove itself, but that's technically called "faith" not "evidence".
So, you're free to believe, to not believe, to not choose. Not bad.
*even if the accumulated knowledge used logic to prove its completeness, there's nothing that guarantees that logic to be always valid.
IIRC either Italian law or the national PRO regulations forbid third parties to do backups of protected multimedia content. Possibly just offering generic backup space is enough not to be affected. Of course it's retarded, but similar laws could be around elsewhere and Google already demonstrated with street view and wireless data sniffing (the latter I do not approve) that they should care more about regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
We could peacefully ask who elected this guy. IIRC in democracy you elect people who change the law. That's been a joke lately, so I wonder if enforcing some laws means respecting authority (the ultimate authority is the decision of people expressed by vote) or it is an attack on democracy, whose perpetrators we usually call terrorists when their skin is of a different color.
The desktop is not irrelevant, but... linux desktops work better than windows ones. Easier to setup, to keep updated and clean.
I think the reasons that keep linux from getting more share are: not enough native games (there are and are good but ppl want the flavour of the month) and migration impedance from what's already deployed (waiting for new samba) to the PEBKAC that freaks out when linux has icons of a different color (then came office ribbon and the usual UI reshuffle of new windows versions: karma exists)
A child is perfectly able to discriminate between reality and a videogame. That doesn't rule out the possibility that the videogame has effects on the subconscious mind.
Everything gets done by government decree and some tens of thousand laws in excess make justice inapplicable, that's been true for decades here.
That does not mean the current government is just like the old ones. I don't buy the "politicians are stupid/insane" theory but when I read newspapers, at first I think: "Franz Kafka on acid".
konqueror on kde4 has inline pdf, through okular.
This could become an usability fail.
A pdf is not html, displaying the pdf inline will confuse the user which begins to see different options and view popping up and different behavior print options and so on.
Different kind of document, different window.
In general, firefox should mantain its course. Do you need a chrome copycat? When you copy chrome and IE they will change UI again. It's them who need to build an unique experience for the user who become accustomed to do it the IE or Chrome way. Mozilla can instead focus on usability and use familiarity as one of the factors to consider. The good old menu bar worked fine since the xerox days, for example.
Why the new version number? You're not gonna get to version 11 before chrome and ie are at 15 anyway. Do people shun the linux kernel just because it's years at major version 2?
The military already knows.
From wikipedia:
"A stun grenade, also known as a flashbang, is a non-lethal weapon. The first devices like this were created in the 1960s at the order of the British Special Air Service as an incapacitant.
These grenades are designed to temporarily neutralize the combat effectiveness of enemies by disorienting their senses. The flash of light momentarily activates all light sensitive cells in the eye, making vision impossible for approximately five seconds until the eye restores itself to its normal, unstimulated state. The extremely loud blast produced by the grenade adds to its incapacitating properties by disturbing the fluid in the ear."
The incapacitating effects of sensory overload are also known by some user interface designers and their long term effects are obvious: after 2 decades of MTV videos we have justin bieber.
If they advocated some control over the internet (like riaa and politicians around the world do) because of the increase in possessions, then I would agree that they confuse effects with causes. But from TFA I understand they take the development of internet as an established fact and they say we must be better prepared, the problem has been underestimated. Which seems a normal things to say at a conference about exorcisms.
Of course I may have misunderstood them, it would be better to discuss official documents instead of TFA.
... and ask about magnets.
> he had taught himself "C, C++, Perl, Python, Ruby, Java, Lisp, Prolog, and x86 assembly in a week"?
Math is different, think about the x86 instruction set, it's the result of design choices in the past not the constant application of proofs over axioms.
Also, he might have photographic memory.
I agree that he should not skip stuff. But if he proceeds at his pace wherever he ends up is good. I just hope he's not pressured too much by parents.
>by "walling off" content on its YouTube site...
This is the most retarded stuff since the ramblings about GPL, if what you say is true.
MS want to make robots.txt and possibly ACLs irrelevant and DOS/crack attacks legal, by masquerading them as indexing `walled off` content.
I called atheist what denies a transcendent God. Science can discover only the immanent aspects of God, just like a cellular automata simulation can't tell if it refreshes at 3fps or 300fps. Yes, calling that atheist expresses a POV more than a definition and you are right to say you are not atheist. But your sig makes a strong general statement and so I found problems in a particular case (and not a very narrow one).
And that's what logic says: but religion says the Bible has some elements which would be satisfed by an immanent God ("I am WHO i am" and “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” can be very well modeled by a self-aware God=Universe, and the Protector is a concept much like Providence.
As another side note, your sig is quite good in its capability for communication so it will be difficult to alter it and keep that punch.
LOL ok, let's try again
SEND + MORE = MONEY
0000 + 0000 = 00000
no no, i forgot about the first E :)
SEND + MORE = MONEY
0001 + 0001 = 00010
The Art Of Cheating, Problem?
If your friend didn't defend you you'd have ended with damage or inconvenience. That's defense. IMHO the oaf is telling you your fly is open, instead.
And "assuming you are atheist" is not "discussing an atheist position", which I see in your sig. I agree I should have written "illogic" instead. The relation between your sig and your beliefs is not my concern.
> Wrong, my feelings have no bearing on whether a proposition is logical.
I was talking about religion. If you think any religion can make a logical or illogical proposition when the subject is transcendental, you are not logical.
I repeat my first post for the last time. You can create universes with different underlying logic. Therefore our logic is not necessarily valid outside our universe. If you don't like religion because it's not logical nor predictive (without being escatological), that's ok. I don't like rock because it is not funk. But If you say "vice versa" when it's logically not vice versa, expect reactions.
I am not sure of the app hub concept. It's great to have peer reviewed game, but what if you come up with an original idea and a big publisher incorporates it in one of his games? They can rush it through the store by simply investing enough resources to polish it. That would work even without needing to bribe MS into putting the game in the fast lane. So you are better off putting the complete final version and hope it gets first to market. You get no advantages and all the disadvantages.
> science can explain the changes that happen in one's brain when one experiences religion
Science has explained manna too, its occurrence could be coincidence viewed as miracle. Does it disprove miracles? If some substances make people have ecstasy (and make others jump out the window) science can track the phenomenon from the chemical reaction in the receptor of the nose to the whole travelling of stimuli through the brain. Religion can theorize that it's not the real God. Human logic says you can't prove anything about the relation between a God and a shitty drug without going into a God's domain and "ask him". When you return you might not even be able to recall and relate to "the answer".
> Religion cannot explain this.
Bill Oâ(TM)Reilly docet.
Consider the best possible scenario for science: the universe is deterministic and science gets to track every single present past or future interaction between every single particle and finds no outside influence.
Occam's razor says: an unneeded and unknowable divine level does not need to exist, so it doesn't exist.
Logic says: wait! "an unneeded and unknowable divine level does not exist" is not a conclusive statement, by definition of "unknowable". It's an assumption. So either you don't apply Occam's razor at all, a good idea since it's not even a law, or you apply it again: the assumption "an unneeded and unknowable divine level does not exist" is unneeded, must be removed. Transcendent level stays transcendent.
I call it the double blade Occam's razor.
A religion with a transcendent creator can trivially explain anything, the catch is that it does that by starting from axioms. Just like science does (the objective nature of reality is just one of the possible models, after all).
YOUR FEELING on the validity of the explanation matters, not the capability for explanations.
If you want my opinion on emotions, they look much like IPC (inter process communication). And dreams look like garbage collection. Problem is, are they always just that? Good luck finding it out.
> Thanks for the defense
Pointing out a flaw is an attack, then? This is an unnecessary assumption. Discussing an atheist position might also yield a better atheist position. In fact I was not defending a religion, I was defending logic.
> "Praying" is really "talking to yourself", asking yourself to do the things you want/need, instead of partying the whole time.
Funny, "you pray for your self, not for God", is something I heard from a religious guy. In all religions where the God is omniscient, prayer cannot likely have the function to tell Him about your problems or express gratitude since He already knows them and how you feel.
> Religion is about control
A guy that learns how the omnipresent google and facebook make money concludes that the web is about control, too.
If you keep on reading you get to "not vice versa", and that's what I proved to be false. I can pick whatever religion I prefer, since one counterexample is sufficient to disprove an assertion. And you can substitute easily other religions with their own myths about the presence of humans and get other counterexamples.
But your logical conclusions are all dependent on the assumption that binary logic is an abstraction applicable to the transcendent as it is to our reality. That assumption is reasonable, but it taints all reasoning about the divine plane.
We could discuss the meaning of incompatibility and "being right". But let's simply suppose 2 religions are incompatible. Religion A says god is one, religion B says there are more gods. Logic allows me to say that "one", "more", and "A xor (not A) is always true" are concepts not necessarily defined the same way as ours in a possible divine dimension. We are just left with the concept of "god(s)" as an hypothesis. So theoretically both religions can be right.
If I project a pyramid on two planes I could have a square and a triangle. You cannot say that something must either be a square or a triangle because that logic is valid in 2d only. Of course if your experience of the universe is limited to 2d there is no way I can prove to you that pyramids exist. Plato's cave revisited.
That's a physical way to say "transcendent stuff is transcendent" which is a major stumbling block for application of logic.
If you "expanded the universe" of colors to include smell, would it be valid to ask what light wavelengths generate the smell of a rose? nope.
Simply put:
'Who created God - compiler warning: "who", "created" are undefined'
This is not nitpicking, example:
Create: "what wasn't there earlier, is there later". A definition clearly dependent on a lot of concepts, including time. The Christian God, for example, is said to be eternal. Therefore you can't apply the concept of cause or of creator to Him; by our logic, who is beyond time has no creator or cause.
Can you define "introducing"? as I perceive it, you simply considered the system composed of the universe and a hypothetical unknowable dimension, applied human concepts and logic to it, and shown that it causes infinite regress. In fact the regress stops if and when the concepts become inapplicable. For what concerns us, that happens at the first iteration.
Besides, the idea of God as first cause is a philosophic, theological matter. One can perfectly conceive an universe that needs no creator, because "everything needs a cause" is another law DERIVED from observation, the universe doesn't obey laws, laws just model it.
The question
That's possible,
among the TOS there's something like: You give us the right to access, retain, use and disclose your account information and Your Files to (give assistance, comply with the TOS and the law...)
Same TOS say you are in charge for the security of your files. That means I'd use the service to store encrypted backups, not mp3 or photos.
> Science can explain religion; not vice versa.
"God created man, man observed its surroundings, derived rules and models that predict changes in those surroundings and called it science."
Science explains religion under the hypothesis that a god doesn't exist (unless evidence is given, which is a currently irrelevant clause).
The dual is: religion explains science under the hypothesis that his god(s) exist. That's what I just did. Easy. Let's forget about God and go on.
"Another man reasoned that if a law describes an event, then that event obeys that law. And thought laws to be absolute, and applied logic outside the physical world to the trascendent one, (a groundless assumption because it's trivial for us to create systems ruled by ternary or fuzzy logic) so atheism / theology were born"
In other words, you can't say anything about a god by using logic. Those proclaiming atheism is a religion might be wrong in their reasoning but they accidentally get to the right conclusions.
And it always be like that because evidence can't be given: nothing that happens however extraordinary, proves God (simple demonstration: whatever our knowledge of the universe is, you can't prove it's the ultimate*. All that lies between ours and ultimate knowledge is indistinguishable from divine power). You might set an arbitrary threshold for thinking God would prove itself, but that's technically called "faith" not "evidence".
So, you're free to believe, to not believe, to not choose. Not bad.
*even if the accumulated knowledge used logic to prove its completeness, there's nothing that guarantees that logic to be always valid.
>As a hobbiest web based game developer it's performance I wouldn't have money to get elsewhere.
sooo... you really haven't been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like, I guess.
> You really think they understand computers and IT better than Microsoft? After all, Microsoft has been in the business since the 80's.
You really think we understand state leadership better than Gaddafi? After all, Gaddafi has been in the business since 1969.
IIRC either Italian law or the national PRO regulations forbid third parties to do backups of protected multimedia content. Possibly just offering generic backup space is enough not to be affected. Of course it's retarded, but similar laws could be around elsewhere and Google already demonstrated with street view and wireless data sniffing (the latter I do not approve) that they should care more about regulations.