Then there's the much more prevalent (or at least more visible) Bad Christian morality, the sort that allows for abortion clinic bombings and poorly thought out bloodbaths on terrar.
Hey, I think you missed the point. The guy was ranting about how stupid and amoral the nation has become. The inclusion of religion just reflects that he's a Christian of some flavor, but otherwise it's a pretty irrelevant part of the post.
Hey, friend, watch the tone. The guy wrote in a calm demeanor, asked a perfectly rational question from the context of a christian. There's no reason to break out the persecuted flamefest. He's not asking for justification, just an explanation as to how an atheist comes to his moral code - an explanation which would have taken exactly as long to write as your pissy little rant.
By the way, fellow atheist here - just check my other posts on this thread, or even the latest two entries on my/. journal. I just feel that the virulence of your post was unnecessary.
As an atheist, I can't really speak for other atheists.
Personally, I usually consider 'right' and 'wrong' in the context of social theory and emotional reaction, the former trumping the latter. E.g.: Stealing is wrong, socially, because it quantifiably reduces the social sum (reduced sense of security for both thief and victim; increased security measures, leading to decreased liberties and thus productivity; a change in fiscal spectrum without corresponding change in wealth, or vice versa; etc).
Mind you, not all of these come to mind instantly, but via rules of thumb. The primary rule is "Avoid causing others harm", 'harm' encompassing the senses that economists and sociologists use, as well as the canonical definition.
Meanwhile, I also consider atheism as naturally extending to the concept of 'rational anarchy', that is, "Yes, you're free to do as you please, but you're will also be responsible for your actions by society. If you're sane, you'll avoid actions with potentially harmful consequences, rather than performing the actions and attempting to avoid culpability." The short of it is that one tries to exist perfectly in an imperfect world, knowing, of course, that failure to do so is inevitable. The result of it is much like most people act without knowing: you follow the laws that aren't too inconvenient to follow, and break the ones that are - convenience being tempered by the degree of punishment for and likelihood of getting caught.
I generally feel that a sensibly synthesized moral code (as is about all an atheist can have, as morals from the traditional sources don't have the same reasoning once you've eliminated a deity from the context) goes rather hand in hand with rational anarchy.
Well, since the pendulum clock was invented around the 13th century, I'm going to guess a sundial, a henge, or just day-counting. By a stretch of logic, you could say that such methods are by proxy controlled by gravity in the form of the earth-sun gravitational relationship.
Seeing as the earth must be angularly decelerating at an excruciatingly slow rate due to tides (IIRC, one sidereal day at 1M BC would be approximately 23hr, 30m long), I somehow doubt the veracity of the GPP's claims.
Meanwhile, the idea that the universal constants are drifting... I'd like to see a citation or something; that's a hell of a claim, and it REALLY makes me doubt the other claims.
Well, those, and the obvious Trollness (Trollocity? Trolly nature? Nothing seems to speak to Firefox's spell check) of the post, with a view that seems very specifically intended to annoy both theists and scientific minds.
Hm. You bring up a good question. Is atheism a religion?
Religion:
"A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one's body." (from Wiktionary)
"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (from dictionary.com)
Atheism only loosely fits the latter definition, and only in the first and second clauses (cause and nature, but not purpose). It doesn't actually follow the former, as it doesn't include belife in a soul, a spirit, a deity, a higher being, or an afterlife.
Taking the term 'religion' down to 'a system of beliefs' - as you appear to have - includes a plethora of other concepts as religions, from public policy to design best-practices. I somehow doubt that such a mangling of definitions to fit in atheism is appropriate. Though, given a form to fill out, I suppose it's easiest to fill in 'atheist' in the religion slot. Or 'none'. I like 'none'.
By the by, you'll find that every atheist has a different system of beliefs associated with their attitude towards life, the only commonality being the conclusion that a god or pantheon of gods is an extremely unlikely concept, and at the very least, one that is intellectually unsatisfying (ie: Why's the sky blue? God made it that way.) This is distinct, at least, from organized religions where there is a good number of beliefs common to the followers thereof.
Wow, but you're a dick. I'm pointing out the differences in what projects that claim to be one, the other, or the new third are. It's not my fault if you can't comprehend a difference in scope.
Well, criticizing WINE is alright, I suppose; they're chasing a moving target, after all, and will never achieve 100% compatibility. The goal is to implement a prioritized list of API groups that applications commonly use - as a result reaching good compatibility with a wide range of apps.
So, technically you're not wrong - but I still consider it a worthy project, and useful (at least for me) in instances when I need the odd Windows software package. For example, Timeslice, the application one of my current clients prefers for his contracts' work-tracking, is a Windows app that works nigh perfect in WINE. For most things, though, Linux native apps work best for me.
An emulator pretends to do something, in the sense that what its doing doesn't actually occur at a hardware level, merely at a logical one. If you change screen resolution, for example, the window size changes rather than your screen. If you move your mouse, the movement is translated into the logical movement. It may have passthroughs to hardware, but the action is abstracted down to the emulated hardware, then passed onto the real stuff.
The short of it is that an emulator is something that pretends to be hardware.
A compatibility layer works rather directly on the hardware, or at least through the host system's HAL, with as little as possible going on in between the application and the low-level interface.
Of course, you add to the confusion by adding Virtual Machines, which aren't emulators either; They're actually even more direct than a compatibility layer; the rather directly provide managed low-level machine services to a separate operating system, and aim to get as close to the real hardware as possible.
I think the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using the canonical definition of 'emulator', rather than the jargon term that would be appropriate for this discussion.
Fortunately, that's a target that's not yet commonly used.
Anyways, ReactOS is sitting in _alpha_ at this point. Way to criticize the functionality of an unfinished project. I'm sure you can compare a student's quarter-finished thesis to a PhD's two year old peer-reviewed research, too.
Re:Is it more stable than XP/Win2003?
on
ReactOS Revealed
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I was talking about breaking the system by introducing foreign code. ReactOS tries for binary compatibility. That doesn't mean you can go dropping system files between them (like updates from MSFT). You're very likely to break something.
An emulator pretends to perform all the actions given to it, within a virtualized environment, whether it's a machine or an API. A compatibility layer provides real services between a piece of software and the underlying subsystem. The primary differences are speed (emulation is slower) and stability (a maliciously or badly written program, run in a compatibility layer, can do as much damage as a native one. Fortunately, Linux users are less likely to run programs as administrator/root), and compatibility (hardware emulation can achieve 100%, as it's not chasing a moving target).
You may not care about the fundamental difference, but I assure you that your employer (assuming you have a job) would, given the appropriate information and choice.
Wow. Eighty pages of legalese just to say, "Leagally, these jokers have to actually show the court the offending code. Otherwise, Linux is officially and legally non-infringing."
I added in 'These jokers' to reflect phrases like, "Notably, SCO's response to IBM's statement of undisputed facts is largely a frolic and detour into the irrelevant, plainly designed to give the false impression of a fact dispute."
It's not that I don't think IBM is taking SCO's lawyers seriously. That's about as serious as you CAN take the hired hands of a company that thinks they can stay afloat by bringing frivolous claims to court.
Watch your ass, Novell. If you're not careful, Microsoft will drive you to be the next SCO.
Just think: like Linux you could run 'Windows' on your iPod ^_^
Re:Is it more stable than XP/Win2003?
on
ReactOS Revealed
·
· Score: 1
Binary compatibility or not, why would you want to use MS's security patches on a non-MS product? You're far more likely to break it (I get the feeling that the ReactOS team actually bound-checks their code, unlike some Redmond fellows I can think of).
Or, how about this: It's not done yet. Keep your peanuts to yourself.
In this case, the "users" would be "Red Hat, Canonical" not their customers. Ubuntu's customers aren't using Ubuntu when they edit a document; they're using a computer. Computers can also be run from Windows-based systems.
Edited that for you to make just about as much sense as the original.
"Now that is one thing I never understood; not wonting a/. account equates to being a coward."
Um. Slashdot itself refers to you as an 'Anonymous Coward', ostensibly in an effort to incite account registration while allowing anonymous posting.
And I'll admit myself to having a bit of a bias against ACs. Sometimes they're insightful, but most of the time when you see 'Anonymous Coward' in the byline, you can guess you're going to see something stupid or trollish.
So, yeah. Statistically, 'Anonymous Coward' means 'Troll'. Just 'cos you aren't one doesn't change the statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, all Good Christian morality.
Then there's the much more prevalent (or at least more visible) Bad Christian morality, the sort that allows for abortion clinic bombings and poorly thought out bloodbaths on terrar.
Um.
Read through a few chapters of the Bible. I think you'll find the term 'Biblical Principles' is a contradiction by its very nature.
Hey, I think you missed the point. The guy was ranting about how stupid and amoral the nation has become. The inclusion of religion just reflects that he's a Christian of some flavor, but otherwise it's a pretty irrelevant part of the post.
Hey, friend, watch the tone. The guy wrote in a calm demeanor, asked a perfectly rational question from the context of a christian. There's no reason to break out the persecuted flamefest. He's not asking for justification, just an explanation as to how an atheist comes to his moral code - an explanation which would have taken exactly as long to write as your pissy little rant.
/. journal. I just feel that the virulence of your post was unnecessary.
By the way, fellow atheist here - just check my other posts on this thread, or even the latest two entries on my
As an atheist, I can't really speak for other atheists.
Personally, I usually consider 'right' and 'wrong' in the context of social theory and emotional reaction, the former trumping the latter. E.g.: Stealing is wrong, socially, because it quantifiably reduces the social sum (reduced sense of security for both thief and victim; increased security measures, leading to decreased liberties and thus productivity; a change in fiscal spectrum without corresponding change in wealth, or vice versa; etc).
Mind you, not all of these come to mind instantly, but via rules of thumb. The primary rule is "Avoid causing others harm", 'harm' encompassing the senses that economists and sociologists use, as well as the canonical definition.
Meanwhile, I also consider atheism as naturally extending to the concept of 'rational anarchy', that is, "Yes, you're free to do as you please, but you're will also be responsible for your actions by society. If you're sane, you'll avoid actions with potentially harmful consequences, rather than performing the actions and attempting to avoid culpability." The short of it is that one tries to exist perfectly in an imperfect world, knowing, of course, that failure to do so is inevitable. The result of it is much like most people act without knowing: you follow the laws that aren't too inconvenient to follow, and break the ones that are - convenience being tempered by the degree of punishment for and likelihood of getting caught.
I generally feel that a sensibly synthesized moral code (as is about all an atheist can have, as morals from the traditional sources don't have the same reasoning once you've eliminated a deity from the context) goes rather hand in hand with rational anarchy.
Well, since the pendulum clock was invented around the 13th century, I'm going to guess a sundial, a henge, or just day-counting. By a stretch of logic, you could say that such methods are by proxy controlled by gravity in the form of the earth-sun gravitational relationship.
Seeing as the earth must be angularly decelerating at an excruciatingly slow rate due to tides (IIRC, one sidereal day at 1M BC would be approximately 23hr, 30m long), I somehow doubt the veracity of the GPP's claims.
Meanwhile, the idea that the universal constants are drifting... I'd like to see a citation or something; that's a hell of a claim, and it REALLY makes me doubt the other claims.
Well, those, and the obvious Trollness (Trollocity? Trolly nature? Nothing seems to speak to Firefox's spell check) of the post, with a view that seems very specifically intended to annoy both theists and scientific minds.
Hm. You bring up a good question. Is atheism a religion?
Religion:
"A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one's body." (from Wiktionary)
"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (from dictionary.com)
Atheism only loosely fits the latter definition, and only in the first and second clauses (cause and nature, but not purpose). It doesn't actually follow the former, as it doesn't include belife in a soul, a spirit, a deity, a higher being, or an afterlife.
Taking the term 'religion' down to 'a system of beliefs' - as you appear to have - includes a plethora of other concepts as religions, from public policy to design best-practices. I somehow doubt that such a mangling of definitions to fit in atheism is appropriate. Though, given a form to fill out, I suppose it's easiest to fill in 'atheist' in the religion slot. Or 'none'. I like 'none'.
By the by, you'll find that every atheist has a different system of beliefs associated with their attitude towards life, the only commonality being the conclusion that a god or pantheon of gods is an extremely unlikely concept, and at the very least, one that is intellectually unsatisfying (ie: Why's the sky blue? God made it that way.) This is distinct, at least, from organized religions where there is a good number of beliefs common to the followers thereof.
Wow. An entire cleverly written logical argument about the improbability of God and you concentrate on a single, out of context, peripheral argument.
I don't need to guess what brand of theist you are.
Wow, but you're a dick. I'm pointing out the differences in what projects that claim to be one, the other, or the new third are. It's not my fault if you can't comprehend a difference in scope.
Funny, I initially read it as 'Orgasm Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex'.
Well, criticizing WINE is alright, I suppose; they're chasing a moving target, after all, and will never achieve 100% compatibility. The goal is to implement a prioritized list of API groups that applications commonly use - as a result reaching good compatibility with a wide range of apps.
So, technically you're not wrong - but I still consider it a worthy project, and useful (at least for me) in instances when I need the odd Windows software package. For example, Timeslice, the application one of my current clients prefers for his contracts' work-tracking, is a Windows app that works nigh perfect in WINE. For most things, though, Linux native apps work best for me.
An emulator pretends to do something, in the sense that what its doing doesn't actually occur at a hardware level, merely at a logical one. If you change screen resolution, for example, the window size changes rather than your screen. If you move your mouse, the movement is translated into the logical movement. It may have passthroughs to hardware, but the action is abstracted down to the emulated hardware, then passed onto the real stuff.
The short of it is that an emulator is something that pretends to be hardware.
A compatibility layer works rather directly on the hardware, or at least through the host system's HAL, with as little as possible going on in between the application and the low-level interface.
Of course, you add to the confusion by adding Virtual Machines, which aren't emulators either; They're actually even more direct than a compatibility layer; the rather directly provide managed low-level machine services to a separate operating system, and aim to get as close to the real hardware as possible.
I think the confusion here comes from the fact that you're using the canonical definition of 'emulator', rather than the jargon term that would be appropriate for this discussion.
Fortunately, that's a target that's not yet commonly used.
Anyways, ReactOS is sitting in _alpha_ at this point. Way to criticize the functionality of an unfinished project. I'm sure you can compare a student's quarter-finished thesis to a PhD's two year old peer-reviewed research, too.
Actually, I was talking about breaking the system by introducing foreign code. ReactOS tries for binary compatibility. That doesn't mean you can go dropping system files between them (like updates from MSFT). You're very likely to break something.
You have a bit of a skewed view there.
An emulator pretends to perform all the actions given to it, within a virtualized environment, whether it's a machine or an API. A compatibility layer provides real services between a piece of software and the underlying subsystem. The primary differences are speed (emulation is slower) and stability (a maliciously or badly written program, run in a compatibility layer, can do as much damage as a native one. Fortunately, Linux users are less likely to run programs as administrator/root), and compatibility (hardware emulation can achieve 100%, as it's not chasing a moving target).
You may not care about the fundamental difference, but I assure you that your employer (assuming you have a job) would, given the appropriate information and choice.
Wow. Eighty pages of legalese just to say, "Leagally, these jokers have to actually show the court the offending code. Otherwise, Linux is officially and legally non-infringing."
I added in 'These jokers' to reflect phrases like, "Notably, SCO's response to IBM's statement of undisputed facts is largely a frolic and detour into the irrelevant, plainly designed to give the false impression of a fact dispute."
It's not that I don't think IBM is taking SCO's lawyers seriously. That's about as serious as you CAN take the hired hands of a company that thinks they can stay afloat by bringing frivolous claims to court.
Watch your ass, Novell. If you're not careful, Microsoft will drive you to be the next SCO.
Just think: like Linux you could run 'Windows' on your iPod ^_^
Binary compatibility or not, why would you want to use MS's security patches on a non-MS product? You're far more likely to break it (I get the feeling that the ReactOS team actually bound-checks their code, unlike some Redmond fellows I can think of).
Or, how about this: It's not done yet. Keep your peanuts to yourself.
Ah, WINE (rather specifically) Is Not an Emulator. It's a compatibility layer, as are all its derivatives.
OMG! Whatever is Linux to Do?!
You, my friend, fall into the one category that Microsoft can't actually get to buy their shit: The Rational Consumer.
There's only a few of us, unfortunately.
In this case, the "users" would be "Red Hat, Canonical" not their customers. Ubuntu's customers aren't using Ubuntu when they edit a document; they're using a computer. Computers can also be run from Windows-based systems.
Edited that for you to make just about as much sense as the original.
"Now that is one thing I never understood; not wonting a /. account equates to being a coward."
Um. Slashdot itself refers to you as an 'Anonymous Coward', ostensibly in an effort to incite account registration while allowing anonymous posting.
And I'll admit myself to having a bit of a bias against ACs. Sometimes they're insightful, but most of the time when you see 'Anonymous Coward' in the byline, you can guess you're going to see something stupid or trollish.
So, yeah. Statistically, 'Anonymous Coward' means 'Troll'. Just 'cos you aren't one doesn't change the statistics.
http://www.g-loaded.eu/2006/12/08/more-data-recove ry-tools/
Nothing to see here, folks. Just another dude who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law.