> I feel duty-bound to point out that the Gospel of Thomas, quoted by the parent, is non-canonical. Useful link here.
1. You _have_ read the Bible, right?
Matthew 23.13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in"
Luke 11.52 Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."
GoT (39) Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
2. _Who_ decides what is canonical?
3. Can you tell why the Catholic Bible has _additional apocrypha?
Precisely. How the hell is a consumer able to brick their $1,000 [LCD] TV by flashing the wrong firmware??
Sony is a hardware company that doesn't understand software NOR user experience. Microsoft is software company that doesn't understand hardware. Apple is a hardware + software + user experience company.
Sony doesn't have a clue how to build beautiful UI's - they are "engineer's UI's."
Riiiight, because _beliefs_ are the root cause of all the stupidities and atrocities ever committed by theists and atheists.
Oh wait, it is IMMATURE ACTIONS.
Tell me again which religion developed and USED the atomic bomb??
Getting rid of religion wouldn't change a dam thing (and neither would everyone having proof that "God is meta-physical.")
What you are blind to is:
EVERYONE has faith.
Even the atheists.
You have _faith_ that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is "grounded faith". You can't prove it until AFTER the event happens, at which point it becomes FACT.
No, the problem is not grounded-faith, blind-faith, nor belief. The ROOT problem INTOLERANCE. All the idiot fundamentalists of whatever belief smoking the false belief that "MY Way is the ONLY way." _ALL_ Religions, Philosophies, Beliefs, have BOTH strengths and weaknesses. Only the arrogant and ignorant toss the baby out with the bath water generalizing how X, Y, and Z beliefs are no good.
EVERY scripture / bible / "holy book" teaches the same thing: "Respect ALL THINGS."
It is only when people become addicted to power that they twist "good intentions" to suit THEIR wants, desires, and needs.
Christ is a GREEK TITLE. It is a translation of Hebrew: Messiah.
There were _many_ messiah's mentioned in the Talmud.
So, no.
Judaism just doesn't think that _one_ particular messiah was "The One". And thus they will keep waiting in vain because they are looking for an _external_ savior blind to the _internal_ savior.
Gospel of Thomas 39 Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
Gospel of Thomas 84: Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
> In Western theological terms, that's like saying that Christ is an inspirational person with some really interesting teachings, but not the Son of God.
Considering
1. Christ is a GREEK TITLE , not a NAME, (there are 20+ CHRISTS = MESSIAHS in the Old Testament), and
2. He said himself "Why do you call me good? There is no one good except God"
You'd have a point if it weren't for ignorant Christians.
As a mystic you are totally ignorant of the purpose of the Bible and ALL other scriptures / "holy books."
What the Bible is NOT:
Is NOT historical accurate. While it has _some_ basis in history, only an idiot would read it literally.
e.g. * There are numerous geological and astronomical proof that the earth is a few billion years old. * Why is every day of the 7 days of creation called good except day 2? * Why are there two contradictory stories of what day man was made? * Why would a (sadist) God take 40 days to destroy almost living thing when he could do it in a second? * How the hell does long hair give you strength? * If he loves everything why does he tell a certain group of people to "kill every man, woman, and child?" * As a "parent" why would he kill his son? How does this "magically" transfer and remove consequences for something you haven't even done yet?
The strength of Atheism is that it rejects these stupidities.
In fact, the bible was _intentionally_ designed to be contradictory so that you could NOT read it literally but the mind is forced to go: "Wait a minute! There are 2 creation stories here! What is the _deeper_ meaning behind this?"
What the Bible IS:
It is a (badly written & edited) textbook for spiritual kindergarten. Unfortunately, too many are able to separate the "intent" from the "literalism." and move on to advanced classes.
Let's start with an example.
As a child your parents most likely told you go to bed by a certain time. As you got older you were allowed to stay up later and later. Why? Because as a child you were not a) aware of the consequences of staying up late, b) not responsible, c) didn't have enough experience to exercise good judgment when you should or should not stay up late. As you grew up and as an adult you could decide for yourself "when it was too late" / "time for bed"
The Old Testament contains out-dated concepts such as slavery because AT THAT time, people could not understand radical concepts such as freedom. Hell, look how long it took in America for Blacks to be treated as first class citizens! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
The bible contains _3_ levels of truth. Literal, Allegorical, and Spiritual.
The ignorance of you and Atheism is that it tosses the baby out with the bath water; it assumes that there is only 1 level -- the literal -- and that the rest contains nothing worthwhile.
Whether a _story_ is LITERALLY true or not is completely irrelevantif you grok the MORAL INTENT.
The 10 commandments come almost directly from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Does that mean that the "Do not kill others" is a bad idea and that plagiarized ideas should be rejected? Of course not. Jesus _summarized_ the _entire_ Old Testament with 2 intents:
"Love God, and Love everyone."
The modern cliche is
"Be excellent to one another"
with is just a paraphrase of of
"Treat ALL THINGS with respect."
Only by _doing_ the literal can you come to understand the spiritual. THIS is what you are missing.
The christian missionaries, while misguided, are at least living their religion. How are you living yours? By condemning what you don't understand? So what is YOUR philosophy that we can APPLY to make a world a better place?
Awww, another noob who has never listened to $5,000 speakers, and thinks there is no difference between $5 shit ear buds and $100 professional cans.
Personally, I think paying more then $3,000 for a set of nice 5.1 speakers is too much (exponential decreasing returns) but hey, everybody has a hobby. People laugh at the geeks who spend $3k on a computer, at the gear head who spends $20K on a motorcycle, $50k on a car, etc. What's YOUR hobby?
> Yes, frequently you can. > BTW, $150 is pretty cheap. Depending on the kind of speakers you're trying to buy, there will probably be a noticeable step between there and $500, let alone $5000.
Completely concur! I found the factor to be ~ 5x to 10x with an error margin of +/- 25%
$10 crap ear buds $100 professional cans $1,000 bottom end "smart audiophile" $10,000 over-priced "dumb audiophile"
You can hear noticeably differences between them.
The sweet spot for home speakers seems to be $500 - $2,500 for some reason.
> but they are destroying the Windows brand in a manner that even their worse critics couldn't. Agreed.
> Similarly, why ruin a perfectly good UI which has been by & large consistent since Windows 95? Two points:
- Windows is NOT a good UI. While the problem is that every GUI sucks to some extent-- Windows, OSX, and all the various flavors of Window Managers atop X stink -- MS's version is slightly worse then everyone else's. They basically sat on their asses from about 1995 to ~2005 offering no new functionality aside from stupid skinning. Look how long it took them to add basic taskbar shuffle ( http://nerdcave.webs.com/ ) to Vista. Win 7 adds a few new features but compared to other Window Managers it is still a toy.
- Consistent? You ever tried looking at the control panel for each Windows version? MS doesn't understand the first thing about consistency. Go compare Apple's System Preferences between all the various 10.x versions. Microsoft has no holistic vision.
Ha! Best one line summary of the differences between Apple and Microsoft I've read in a while.
Mod up!
I've coined these two, but like your succinct version.
Subject: Viewing Tablets Microsoft: "Problem! This is going to cannibalize our Desktop/Windows sales! We are cutting into existing markets!" Apple: "Opportunity! This is going to augment our Desktop/Mac sales! We can grow into new markets!"
or
Microsoft is a software company that doesn't understand hardware Sony is a hardware company that doesn't understand software Apple understands hardware + software + user experience
> Bittorrent software is designed to allow people to download pirate movies and music. Yes, a very small group of IT folks use it for sharing open source, but the average user doesn't. (I'm surprised you even tried this approach...)
Blizzard's World of Warcraft (WOW) has ~ 12 millions subscribers.
Guess what the underlying system they use for updates / patches?
It's not about the protocols. It's about the right to share bits which represent an implementation of ideas.
The basis of any advanced civilization is _founded_ upon sharing. That is, when an artists produces something that other people find to be of value (NOT necessarily monetary ) after a set amount of time, it becomes part of culture for everyone to enjoy, to use, to parody, to build off. Greedy artists would love to have perpetual copyright so that they can earn money ANYTIME someone wants to "access" it. The public wants there to be NO copyright so that anyone can freely access it. American Copyright was a compromise between the two sets of extremes: Greed vs Freedom.
> but I stand fast by my opinion that IP must be protected if we expect to continue to see creative works. So what did civilization do for the 5,000+ years before the Imaginary Pseudo-Property became law??
> I haven't, and I don't have the spare space to make one. Even a shitty little 42" screen CAN replicate the film experience -- why don't you actually try defining the exact nature of what the problem is before blowing it off.
> (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home
Which is what exactly? To be entertained? I don't go to a movie theater to watch a documentary.
Methinks you can take your grainy & choppy 24 Hz "film" and keep it. I'll stick with my 120 Hz plasma with its vivid colors and hope someday movies grow beyond shitty 24 FPS.
Some people film, some like DLP, some like LED/OLED, some like Plasma. They all suck -- its about which Picture Quality (PQ) compromises are you willing to make.
Actually that quote is mis-quoted. The ONLY sentence that is accurate is: "It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have." The rest is paraphrased and made up.
> "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO > "[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's...
Agreed. So Eric Schmidt has no problem sharing his SSN, his PIN, his Phone #, etc. ??
The problem is NOT with the information per se, but with its misuse, namely the PEOPLE who are _irresponsible_.
a) of laws in other countries. In Canada is is perfectly _legal_ to download copyrighted material.
b) of the breakdown of/. and their 3 camps...
i) The small minority who say abolish this nonsensical artificial "right". _Publishers_ invented copyright because they didn't want _other_ publishers from printing & making money.
ii) The majority who say copyright is reasonable, but its current duration is absurd.
iii) The extremely minority who think the current duration is just fine.
> You are stealing from artists who created content. You keep using this word 'stealing.' I don't thin it means what you think it means.
How am I "stealing" when I share a number?? Who's property have I deprived??
> No system can work in which nobody gets compensated for their work. And your proof is where again?
> You're not contributing anything back when you pirate something. So if I buy a DVD/Bluray and let my family watch, are they "leeching"?
What if I invite 50 of my friends over? Are they leeching?
Why am I not allowed to share with strangers?
What about libraries? They sure as hell share content with many, many people, yet the original artist never receives compensation. With your logic libraries should be illegal.
No, Science is applied philosophy, aka the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. It is _one_ way to acquire Truth. And like any process, it works well with certain types of inputs, and completely fails at others.
But it is NOT the _only_ process; however it happens to work well, and handle many inputs.
Many people ignore the fact that it is an _incomplete_ process. Ignoring the weaknesses of any system is the height of arrogance.
Slashdot Mirror
> I feel duty-bound to point out that the Gospel of Thomas, quoted by the parent, is non-canonical. Useful link here.
1. You _have_ read the Bible, right?
Matthew 23.13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in"
Luke 11.52 Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."
GoT (39) Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
2. _Who_ decides what is canonical?
3. Can you tell why the Catholic Bible has _additional apocrypha?
> Most POSIX APIs return true on error and false on success.
You were being funny but it comes down to granularity.
* For success you only need to know that it passed.
* If the function fails you want more details.
Here is an example:
Make sense?
> They won't build what the customer wants.
Precisely. How the hell is a consumer able to brick their $1,000 [LCD] TV by flashing the wrong firmware??
Sony is a hardware company that doesn't understand software NOR user experience. Microsoft is software company that doesn't understand hardware. Apple is a hardware + software + user experience company.
Sony doesn't have a clue how to build beautiful UI's - they are "engineer's UI's."
Riiiight, because _beliefs_ are the root cause of all the stupidities and atrocities ever committed by theists and atheists.
Oh wait, it is IMMATURE ACTIONS.
Tell me again which religion developed and USED the atomic bomb??
Getting rid of religion wouldn't change a dam thing (and neither would everyone having proof that "God is meta-physical.")
What you are blind to is:
EVERYONE has faith.
Even the atheists.
You have _faith_ that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is "grounded faith". You can't prove it until AFTER the event happens, at which point it becomes FACT.
No, the problem is not grounded-faith, blind-faith, nor belief. The ROOT problem INTOLERANCE. All the idiot fundamentalists of whatever belief smoking the false belief that "MY Way is the ONLY way." _ALL_ Religions, Philosophies, Beliefs, have BOTH strengths and weaknesses. Only the arrogant and ignorant toss the baby out with the bath water generalizing how X, Y, and Z beliefs are no good.
EVERY scripture / bible / "holy book" teaches the same thing: "Respect ALL THINGS."
It is only when people become addicted to power that they twist "good intentions" to suit THEIR wants, desires, and needs.
> So Judaism is blasphemy?
You have _used_ a concordance before right?
Christ is a GREEK TITLE. It is a translation of Hebrew: Messiah.
There were _many_ messiah's mentioned in the Talmud.
So, no.
Judaism just doesn't think that _one_ particular messiah was "The One". And thus they will keep waiting in vain because they are looking for an _external_ savior blind to the _internal_ savior.
Gospel of Thomas 39
Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
Gospel of Thomas 84:
Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die not become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
> In Western theological terms, that's like saying that Christ is an inspirational person with some really interesting teachings, but not the Son of God.
Considering
1. Christ is a GREEK TITLE , not a NAME, (there are 20+ CHRISTS = MESSIAHS in the Old Testament), and
2. He said himself "Why do you call me good? There is no one good except God"
You'd have a point if it weren't for ignorant Christians.
As a mystic you are totally ignorant of the purpose of the Bible and ALL other scriptures / "holy books."
What the Bible is NOT:
Is NOT historical accurate. While it has _some_ basis in history, only an idiot would read it literally.
e.g.
* There are numerous geological and astronomical proof that the earth is a few billion years old.
* Why is every day of the 7 days of creation called good except day 2?
* Why are there two contradictory stories of what day man was made?
* Why would a (sadist) God take 40 days to destroy almost living thing when he could do it in a second?
* How the hell does long hair give you strength?
* If he loves everything why does he tell a certain group of people to "kill every man, woman, and child?"
* As a "parent" why would he kill his son? How does this "magically" transfer and remove consequences for something you haven't even done yet?
The strength of Atheism is that it rejects these stupidities.
In fact, the bible was _intentionally_ designed to be contradictory so that you could NOT read it literally but the mind is forced to go: "Wait a minute! There are 2 creation stories here! What is the _deeper_ meaning behind this?"
What the Bible IS:
It is a (badly written & edited) textbook for spiritual kindergarten. Unfortunately, too many are able to separate the "intent" from the "literalism." and move on to advanced classes.
Let's start with an example.
As a child your parents most likely told you go to bed by a certain time. As you got older you were allowed to stay up later and later. Why? Because as a child you were not a) aware of the consequences of staying up late, b) not responsible, c) didn't have enough experience to exercise good judgment when you should or should not stay up late. As you grew up and as an adult you could decide for yourself "when it was too late" / "time for bed"
The Old Testament contains out-dated concepts such as slavery because AT THAT time, people could not understand radical concepts such as freedom. Hell, look how long it took in America for Blacks to be treated as first class citizens! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
The bible contains _3_ levels of truth. Literal, Allegorical, and Spiritual.
The ignorance of you and Atheism is that it tosses the baby out with the bath water; it assumes that there is only 1 level -- the literal -- and that the rest contains nothing worthwhile.
Whether a _story_ is LITERALLY true or not is completely irrelevantif you grok the MORAL INTENT.
The 10 commandments come almost directly from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Does that mean that the "Do not kill others" is a bad idea and that plagiarized ideas should be rejected? Of course not. Jesus _summarized_ the _entire_ Old Testament with 2 intents:
The modern cliche is
with is just a paraphrase of of
Only by _doing_ the literal can you come to understand the spiritual. THIS is what you are missing.
The christian missionaries, while misguided, are at least living their religion. How are you living yours? By condemning what you don't understand? So what is YOUR philosophy that we can APPLY to make a world a better place?
Awww, another noob who has never listened to $5,000 speakers, and thinks there is no difference between $5 shit ear buds and $100 professional cans.
Personally, I think paying more then $3,000 for a set of nice 5.1 speakers is too much (exponential decreasing returns) but hey, everybody has a hobby. People laugh at the geeks who spend $3k on a computer, at the gear head who spends $20K on a motorcycle, $50k on a car, etc. What's YOUR hobby?
> Yes, frequently you can.
> BTW, $150 is pretty cheap. Depending on the kind of speakers you're trying to buy, there will probably be a noticeable step between there and $500, let alone $5000.
Completely concur! I found the factor to be ~ 5x to 10x with an error margin of +/- 25%
$10 crap ear buds
$100 professional cans
$1,000 bottom end "smart audiophile"
$10,000 over-priced "dumb audiophile"
You can hear noticeably differences between them.
The sweet spot for home speakers seems to be $500 - $2,500 for some reason.
> but they are destroying the Windows brand in a manner that even their worse critics couldn't.
Agreed.
> Similarly, why ruin a perfectly good UI which has been by & large consistent since Windows 95?
Two points:
- Windows is NOT a good UI. While the problem is that every GUI sucks to some extent-- Windows, OSX, and all the various flavors of Window Managers atop X stink -- MS's version is slightly worse then everyone else's. They basically sat on their asses from about 1995 to ~2005 offering no new functionality aside from stupid skinning. Look how long it took them to add basic taskbar shuffle ( http://nerdcave.webs.com/ ) to Vista. Win 7 adds a few new features but compared to other Window Managers it is still a toy.
- Consistent? You ever tried looking at the control panel for each Windows version? MS doesn't understand the first thing about consistency. Go compare Apple's System Preferences between all the various 10.x versions. Microsoft has no holistic vision.
Ha! Best one line summary of the differences between Apple and Microsoft I've read in a while.
Mod up!
I've coined these two, but like your succinct version.
Subject: Viewing Tablets
Microsoft: "Problem! This is going to cannibalize our Desktop/Windows sales! We are cutting into existing markets!"
Apple: "Opportunity! This is going to augment our Desktop/Mac sales! We can grow into new markets!"
or
Microsoft is a software company that doesn't understand hardware
Sony is a hardware company that doesn't understand software
Apple understands hardware + software + user experience
This pic shows a concise summary of what Google did right, and what Yahoo did wrong.
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/443/yahoovsgoogle1996to2005ys4.png
About it...
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/03/in-pursuit-of-simplicity.html
--
Focus isn't about saying yes, but about saying no -- Steve Jobs
> You're new here aren't you ...
Oh wait, you wanted to paint /. with the same brush -- group think.
> Bittorrent software is designed to allow people to download pirate movies and music. Yes, a very small group of IT folks use it for sharing open source, but the average user doesn't. (I'm surprised you even tried this approach...)
Blizzard's World of Warcraft (WOW) has ~ 12 millions subscribers.
Guess what the underlying system they use for updates / patches?
BitTorrent.
See: http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/03/29/027209/isps-war-on-bittorrent-hits-world-of-warcraft
It's not about the protocols. It's about the right to share bits which represent an implementation of ideas.
The basis of any advanced civilization is _founded_ upon sharing. That is, when an artists produces something that other people find to be of value (NOT necessarily monetary ) after a set amount of time, it becomes part of culture for everyone to enjoy, to use, to parody, to build off. Greedy artists would love to have perpetual copyright so that they can earn money ANYTIME someone wants to "access" it. The public wants there to be NO copyright so that anyone can freely access it. American Copyright was a compromise between the two sets of extremes: Greed vs Freedom.
> but I stand fast by my opinion that IP must be protected if we expect to continue to see creative works.
So what did civilization do for the 5,000+ years before the Imaginary Pseudo-Property became law??
> You can replicate the film experience at home, but only if you've got a proper home cinema setup.
Oh please. It's not rocket science.
You _do_ realize that the viewing angle for THX is:
This tells you the optimal distance from screen to seats to replicate the EXACT viewing feeling.
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
> I haven't, and I don't have the spare space to make one.
Even a shitty little 42" screen CAN replicate the film experience -- why don't you actually try defining the exact nature of what the problem is before blowing it off.
> (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home
Which is what exactly? To be entertained? I don't go to a movie theater to watch a documentary.
Methinks you can take your grainy & choppy 24 Hz "film" and keep it. I'll stick with my 120 Hz plasma with its vivid colors and hope someday movies grow beyond shitty 24 FPS.
Some people film, some like DLP, some like LED/OLED, some like Plasma. They all suck -- its about which Picture Quality (PQ) compromises are you willing to make.
> You'd obviously have to abolish corporate ownership of corporations while you were at it. ...
Originally that was true. Then people got greedy
I would argue that places "natural" limits on how big a company can grow, and that is a good thing.
> Since corporations are people, that's slavery anyway.
Shhh, the corporations want their cake and to eat it too. Don't confuse them with semantics =)
> I mean fuck, we wound up hand-rewriting the stupid "black text on dark fucking red" sheets from games like Zak McCracken in the old days,
SimCity (the original) had the same copy protection.
A friend of mine ran each successive copy through a fax machine until it was readable.
Me, I just "kracked" the protection all together. That was more fun doing that then playing the game. =)
Actually that quote is mis-quoted. The ONLY sentence that is accurate is: "It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have." The rest is paraphrased and made up.
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Chapter_2_-_The_State
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Mein_Kampf
> Forbidding corporations from growing larger than 50 people would clearly solve this problem.
Ugh, I don't think you thought this through ...
i.e.
Company wants 60 people.
All it does is re-organize -->
Company S = shell, owning Company A and Company B
Company A = 50 people
Company B = 10 people
The legal structure doesn't imply an operational structure.
> "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO ..
> "[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's.
Agreed. So Eric Schmidt has no problem sharing his SSN, his PIN, his Phone #, etc. ??
The problem is NOT with the information per se, but with its misuse, namely the PEOPLE who are _irresponsible_.
This is one reason we have privacy.
You are extremely ignorant
a) of laws in other countries.
In Canada is is perfectly _legal_ to download copyrighted material.
b) of the breakdown of /. and their 3 camps ...
i) The small minority who say abolish this nonsensical artificial "right". _Publishers_ invented copyright because they didn't want _other_ publishers from printing & making money.
ii) The majority who say copyright is reasonable, but its current duration is absurd.
iii) The extremely minority who think the current duration is just fine.
> You are stealing from artists who created content.
You keep using this word 'stealing.' I don't thin it means what you think it means.
How am I "stealing" when I share a number?? Who's property have I deprived??
> No system can work in which nobody gets compensated for their work.
And your proof is where again?
> You're not contributing anything back when you pirate something.
So if I buy a DVD/Bluray and let my family watch, are they "leeching"?
What if I invite 50 of my friends over? Are they leeching?
Why am I not allowed to share with strangers?
What about libraries? They sure as hell share content with many, many people, yet the original artist never receives compensation. With your logic libraries should be illegal.
--
AC = Arrogant Cunt
> Ok, please name one other way to acquire Truth.* I'm having trouble thinking of one.
How can I put this politely ...
Well, you're assuming:
i) The Way has a name; a label is not an answer.
ii) That you would even accept the answer when you are still wondering about the question.
However, I will provide a starting point:
- What is consciousness?
- Who am "I"
- What is gnosis? (Not the shitty definition found on Wikipedia.)
Unless you are going to invest 7+ years in serious meditation, I would let the question go.
> Science does not give truth, it only gives the best known approximation. There is no way to get truth.
And your _proof_ is where again?
No, Science is applied philosophy, aka the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. It is _one_ way to acquire Truth. And like any process, it works well with certain types of inputs, and completely fails at others.
But it is NOT the _only_ process; however it happens to work well, and handle many inputs.
Many people ignore the fact that it is an _incomplete_ process. Ignoring the weaknesses of any system is the height of arrogance.