Makes for some fun (and mind-bending) RPGs. A good plot device is to have the PCs be a team of researchers searching out hitherto unknown IP, but the Bad Guys want to stop them, or get it first, or are the IP in question. Throw in some corrupt officials, conspiracies, and plot twists, and you're good to go.
1. Outsource IT department to India.
2. Department computers siezed by Indian government containing US customer info.
3. Indian government now has full access to the detailed financial, demographic and medical information of US citizens.
B.C Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis says the USA Patriot Act violates provincial privacy laws, because it can order American companies to hand over information on British Columbians in secret.
Shortly after his report, the povincial government contracted out almost all of it's information services, accounting, payroll, health billing, family services information, drivers licenses, car licences, etc, mostly to american companies or subsidiaries of american companies.
This is a false statement and a common argumentative fallacy called "Shifting the burden.".
No, it is neither. On whether It is a false statement, I refer you to the definitions of Atheism and Agnostic. Athiesm is the statement "there is no god" (which is a statement of faith). Agnosticism is the statement "One cannot know if there are gods" (a statement of faith) or "I do not know if there is a god" (a statement of non-faith) or "I've seen no proof of god"(a statement of reason).
As for whether it is "shifting the burden, I refer you to this which says:
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantiam, means putting the burden of proof on the anyone who denies or questions the assertion being made.
I have not asked you to prove anything. You said you have no faith in the existance of god, not "there is no god". This is the definition of agnostic.
Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in a diety.
On this point you are mistaken. Atheism is the belief in the non-existance of a deity. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the existance or non-existance of a deity.
You have written:
Within the group of people called "atheists", there are negative atheists and positive atheists. Those who lack any belief are "negative" while those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety are "positive".
This is incorrect. "Those who lack any belief" are agnostics, and "those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety" are atheists. The only reason that both are sometimes called atheists is that many people do not understand what agnostic means.
Further, you write:
The agnostic is simply that person who refuses to reach a conclusion on the subject (like my father, who hopes there is a God but won't make an assertion one way or the other).
Agnostics also include others who either have no faith in the existence of any deity but do not believe that none exists, and those who believe that one cannot know if any deity exists.
Then you conclude erroneously:
Your definitions are flawed as you exclude a group which actually contains most of the set. I am an atheist, and most of the atheists I know are similar in basic beliefs to me.
Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".
(I see from another post you have written that you believe that no deity exists, which would mean you are atheist)
No, I'm agnostic. He said he lacks faith in god, not has faith in the non-existance of god. This is the definition of agnostic.
As your neice post points out, Athiesm is a statement of faith just as much as Thieism is a statement of faith. Agnosicism is a statement of non-faith.
We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.
Further to that, If someone "donates" to charity because someone else is holding a gun to their head, is the donation a good act? What if someone leads a blameless life out of fear of Temporal or Spiritual punishment, or desire for Temporal or Spiritual rewards?
If someone who has no belief in any reward or punishment after death leads a blameless life including service to the needy, are their acts not that much "better"?
Yes, I am an athiest. No, I'm not hostile to Christianity or Christians: I just stopped accepting that there was a need for God and lost interest (except as a hobby of studying myth in literature and culture).
Are they going to send one of the astronauts on an EVA walkaround inspection before re-entering this time? Truckers check their brakes before a big hill, why don't astronauts check the heat shield?
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha!
Makes for some fun (and mind-bending) RPGs. A good plot device is to have the PCs be a team of researchers searching out hitherto unknown IP, but the Bad Guys want to stop them, or get it first, or are the IP in question. Throw in some corrupt officials, conspiracies, and plot twists, and you're good to go.
They do if they're talking about Telus.
What's "legacy VA memory layout" and "exec-shield" is that some trademarkey way of saying you have an Athlon64?
Does prelinking have to be off for the whole system, or just the game executables?
Also, the conspicuous absence of Shichinin no Samurai.
They do have some good ones like dark city and 12 monkeys (but no "la Jetee"?). I think they have only American films (other than Akira).
what changes?
Doesn't sound jaded to me... it just sounds like a good business plan (needs some fleshing out).
Did you install under linux, or did you have to dual-boot to get it installed?
No, It'll make little kernels. Soon you'll have a HURD.
Whatever it was, they now appear to have pointed the camera at the big dipper.
Actually, They bough 3 busted british subs, and one of them caught fire on the way back to Canada.
There are lots of Islands in the arctic (most of them in Canada)
Or know of a remote vulnerability in an unprivileged service.
Shortly after his report, the povincial government contracted out almost all of it's information services, accounting, payroll, health billing, family services information, drivers licenses, car licences, etc, mostly to american companies or subsidiaries of american companies.
This case was in Canada.
No, it is neither. On whether It is a false statement, I refer you to the definitions of Atheism and Agnostic. Athiesm is the statement "there is no god" (which is a statement of faith). Agnosticism is the statement "One cannot know if there are gods" (a statement of faith) or "I do not know if there is a god" (a statement of non-faith) or "I've seen no proof of god"(a statement of reason).
As for whether it is "shifting the burden, I refer you to this which says:
I have not asked you to prove anything. You said you have no faith in the existance of god, not "there is no god". This is the definition of agnostic.
On this point you are mistaken. Atheism is the belief in the non-existance of a deity. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the existance or non-existance of a deity.
You have written:
This is incorrect. "Those who lack any belief" are agnostics, and "those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety" are atheists. The only reason that both are sometimes called atheists is that many people do not understand what agnostic means.
Further, you write:
Agnostics also include others who either have no faith in the existence of any deity but do not believe that none exists, and those who believe that one cannot know if any deity exists.
Then you conclude erroneously:
Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".
(I see from another post you have written that you believe that no deity exists, which would mean you are atheist)
note: not "reject as unproven"
No, I'm agnostic. He said he lacks faith in god, not has faith in the non-existance of god. This is the definition of agnostic.
As your neice post points out, Athiesm is a statement of faith just as much as Thieism is a statement of faith. Agnosicism is a statement of non-faith.
Further to that, If someone "donates" to charity because someone else is holding a gun to their head, is the donation a good act? What if someone leads a blameless life out of fear of Temporal or Spiritual punishment, or desire for Temporal or Spiritual rewards?
If someone who has no belief in any reward or punishment after death leads a blameless life including service to the needy, are their acts not that much "better"?
Sounds more agnostic than athiest.
Repeatedly.
Spare tiles? Soyutz? take your pick.
Are they going to send one of the astronauts on an EVA walkaround inspection before re-entering this time? Truckers check their brakes before a big hill, why don't astronauts check the heat shield?
I dated a scottish woman for a while... The scots (or at least her) do say snog, but it refers something more active than just kissing.
You are both logically incorrect.