My 'immortality' will come from the positive (and unfortunately, sometimes negative) changes I bring to others,
And when the universe ends in heat death, what will that mean?
Well that will mean that he met his objectives that he set for himself, and christians wasted their lives running madly after something written by deluded monks as a popular control mechanism just before the dark ages hit.
Pleased to meet you. I'm an atheist with lasting meaning in my life.
I believe that the universe is all there is. That alone has significant meaning. I realise the true nature of life as a function of biological principles, and understand the numinous nature of nature itself. To anyone scientifically literate, this also provides a very rich and comforting framework of "meaning".
The important difference, is that my meaning is based on reproducible and testable evidence.
No, I do not have a problem with the concept that "each individual chooses the morality he will follow." I understand that many people are unwilling to attempt to live up to truly moral standards and therefore choose to define the standards they are willing to live up to as "moral".
That's precisely what the church does. Find a christian who cuts the hair at the sides of their head, and then explain to them that by their own moral standards, they are sinners and an affront to their own God.
But it's convenient to cut the hair at the sides of the head, even though it's forbidden in Leviticus, so christianity morally adjusted to ignore their own doctrine.
What you will find is that of all people, atheists are the ones who change their chosen moral codes least of all.
Most atheists have to actually decide what meaning they will put into their lives, and they craft the meaning for themselves.
It's actually more difficult than being a Christian but also more rewarding.
I disagree. I've found it quite easy. When presented with Christian values, I had a tendency to question them, and when given an unsatisfactory answer, to question further.
The failure of any religious person as I was growing up to provide answers to straightforward and reasonable questions is what put me on the path to atheism, reason, and science.
Best is subjective. If there is no transcendence to the human existence and no purpose behind all that is, then everything is, in the end, of no meaning, of no relative worth; it simply is what it is.
This is a fallacy often used by the unenlightened religious, based on the axiom that the only morality in the world must have been given to humans by the divine. Unfortunately, before you can assert that morality only comes from God, you're going to need to provide direct and concrete evidence of his existence.
Atheist morality is just as artificial as this whole God thing that many people have been brainwashed into believing without any reasonable evidence.
At least when an atheist does something "nice", you know it's not because he's afraid he's going to hell. It's an actual genuine choice, unhindered by iron age myth.
Which, lacking any other qualification, directly asserts that the crime of worshipping any other god before the jewish god is as bad, or slightly worse (due to order of precedence) than committing murder.
Rape on the other hand isn't even on the list, but on the other hand, copyright infringement isn't on the list either.
Which is a shame because if the bible was copyrighted, the world would be a much better place.
If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.
No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.
The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.
New Zealand simply needs a national day of action, where three people place copyright infringement claims against every member of parliament who voted for the three strikes laws. Just to see what happens.
In fact it's probably worth putting in three infringement claims against everyone just to see how long it takes to shut NZ's internet down.
Well, this is more like the government filing charges against the owner of the bank for allowing the crime to occur on their premises, simply by not actively preventing the robber from entering the bank and taking the currency, which is the "property" of the government, in a legal tender kind of sense. The government in this analogy, much like the MPAA, didn't directly lose anything, but something happened to something they have copyright over. It's clearly the banks fault...
It wasn't that bad. It just wasn't... well it sure didn't compare with WoW... you can't release a fantasy MMO today with 2-3 features that WoW doesn't have to make up for the 50 or 60 that WoW does that you're missing.
The game design was a little clunky and limited feeling compared to WoW, too. A good solid MMO must retain that feeling of freedom that a player gets. In WoW, you can go wandering in any direction that you like. The only "railroading" you get is when you wander into an area where the rabbits can bite your head off. That's when you know you need to go back to your newbie area to level a bit.
I use a 32" display, which is large enough to comfortably display two full A4 pages side by side. My older monitors would never allow me to do that. I'm not sure what the OP is complaining about... for the same price as an old 17" CRT 10 years ago, you can buy a much, much larger 32" LCD and see two full pages quite clearly instead of one.
You don't know where you're going unless you know where you've been, as the old proverb goes. And this is a good case of it... looking at console games that are getting released today, it really seems like 90% of new games have much less depth than these ancient texts.
What does this mean for the future? Should we expect console controllers will go back to just having one button?
Very true! But a truly strong economy is diversified, and the building of the NBN will allow all businesses more opportunities, from small businesses leveraging online systems to entirely new corporations that could grow from business models leveraging the NBN.
This is good news for Australia. It will help free us from the chronic dependency we have on primary industry.
Not all of those taxpayers though - only some of them, There will be many people who won't use this new broadband network, Is it fair that they be forced to pay for it without choice? No. It is not.
Is it fair that people have to pay for the road network in the country if they don't own a car? To pay for hospitals if they currently aren't sick? The answer is clearly yes, because that infrastructure, even if it has little personal value, has tremendous value to the nation. This isn't the USA, we're actually not too worried if someone gets something without paying for it personally. Investment in infrastructure will bring about new business, new wealth, and an overall improvement in the quality of life for the average Australian. I know and understand that my success and health as an individual is related to the success and health of the nation and the people in it. For that reason, I am keenly interested in the success of this project and the opportunities it will provide to all Australians.
Also you presume everyone needs roads..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Fixed that for you.
Also you presume everyone needs electricity..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Fixed that for you again.
Also you presume everyone needs telephones..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Fixed that for you again.
Also you presume everyone needs piped water..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Or maybe, just maybe, Australia does have a need for social infrastructure to enable us to take full advantage of the future, to enable entirely new business models that currently are unimaginable thanks to the stranglehold Telstra has had over the digital landscape of this country.
10 years ago, youtube simply wouldn't be possible over 56k modems. The provisioning of high speed internet around the world has enabled this new technology to become a household name. I think Australia should be in a position to reap the benefits of the next generation of technology. In the meantime, please disconnect your power, break up your driveway, and turn off your water mains. After a week with no showers, no power and no access to roads, you might start to understand the value of infrastructure.
Ohh I didn't realise that if you patent troll an illegal oligopoly, it's no longer patent trolling, it is in fact awesome patenting for great justice?
No, patent trolls are patent trolls.
I didn't know Rambus employees were able to get onto slashdot to post as AC's, though, I thought the RAM in their desktops was too slow to allow them to log on.
Those are the guys! It was many years ago. They apparently sat on some big RAM council board, took a bunch of notes, and sprinted to the patent office as soon as the meeting was over. BAM! Patent infringement lawsuits all over the place.
Unlike other patent trolls, however, they did manage to release a horrible implementation of a quasi-serial memory bus that had atrocious real world performance. And managed to persuade Intel to get in bed with them, which for many was a big reason that AMD was doing so well at the time.
Ah, but the people in the ICP would tell you that the rainbow is "natural" and the scientific explanation, if presented by a scientist, is a lie, and makes them angry. If your girlfriend tells you that she agrees the rainbow is pretty, in your example, then as an avid Juggalo and in supporting their arguments, you should become "pissed" and tell her it is a lie.
Also, swear at magnets and ask how they work, but do not accept any actual scientific explanation or attempt any research. It is a "miracle".
You must also remember that the privatised Telstra, sitting on a monopoly of copper access and making huge margins from all of it, had no interest in allowing Australians access to cheap, high speed internet access, because this may in turn lead to the widespread use and adoption of VOIP, which in turn would devalue their copper monopoly.
It makes solid business sense for Telstra to do everything they can to keep Australia on 56k modems.
You do realise that the CSIRO is a government organisation, therefore, is the Australian Government, and you are accusing the Australian Government of being unable to produce anything of value?
I suppose that you can argue that they don't (see: Senator Conroy, Internet Villian of the Year 2009).
On the flipside I don't believe governments really fit into the narrow scope of a patent troll. How about, Australian taxpayers invested in researching technology that may otherwise never be developed. US corporations rip that technology off despite knowing full well that it was patented. I advocate that the corporations need to pay up. You advocate that corporations, some of whom actually are patent trolls, should be able to ignore patents if they are held by the Australian taxpayer's organisation for scientific and industrial research, to prevent that organisation from developing more technologies?
In this unusual circumstance, the assertion that "At some level, this will mostly harm end users." isn't really correct at all.
Without the invention of these technologies, the telco's wouldn't have a product to sell. These technologies were funded by the Australian taxpayer. A patent was placed to ensure the invested cost of research could be recovered. US industry saw the technology, liked it, and used it without permission.
Should the CSIRO win the case, they will use the money to develop more useful technology, which in turn will enrich the lives of consumers everywhere. This will mostly benefit end users. Should the CSIRO lose, the corporates will spend the money on more backroom deals, enforcement of oligopoly, DRM, lobbying, gold plated executive bathrooms and so on. This will mostly harm end users.
Slashdot Mirror
My 'immortality' will come from the positive (and unfortunately, sometimes negative) changes I bring to others,
And when the universe ends in heat death, what will that mean?
Well that will mean that he met his objectives that he set for himself, and christians wasted their lives running madly after something written by deluded monks as a popular control mechanism just before the dark ages hit.
Pleased to meet you. I'm an atheist with lasting meaning in my life.
I believe that the universe is all there is. That alone has significant meaning. I realise the true nature of life as a function of biological principles, and understand the numinous nature of nature itself. To anyone scientifically literate, this also provides a very rich and comforting framework of "meaning".
The important difference, is that my meaning is based on reproducible and testable evidence.
No, I do not have a problem with the concept that "each individual chooses the morality he will follow." I understand that many people are unwilling to attempt to live up to truly moral standards and therefore choose to define the standards they are willing to live up to as "moral".
That's precisely what the church does. Find a christian who cuts the hair at the sides of their head, and then explain to them that by their own moral standards, they are sinners and an affront to their own God.
But it's convenient to cut the hair at the sides of the head, even though it's forbidden in Leviticus, so christianity morally adjusted to ignore their own doctrine.
What you will find is that of all people, atheists are the ones who change their chosen moral codes least of all.
Most atheists have to actually decide what meaning they will put into their lives, and they craft the meaning for themselves.
It's actually more difficult than being a Christian but also more rewarding.
I disagree. I've found it quite easy. When presented with Christian values, I had a tendency to question them, and when given an unsatisfactory answer, to question further.
The failure of any religious person as I was growing up to provide answers to straightforward and reasonable questions is what put me on the path to atheism, reason, and science.
Yes it is. It's just as meaningful and valuable as teaching people how to reason, so they may put aside dangerous myths and superstitions.
Best is subjective. If there is no transcendence to the human existence and no purpose behind all that is, then everything is, in the end, of no meaning, of no relative worth; it simply is what it is.
This is a fallacy often used by the unenlightened religious, based on the axiom that the only morality in the world must have been given to humans by the divine. Unfortunately, before you can assert that morality only comes from God, you're going to need to provide direct and concrete evidence of his existence.
Atheist morality is just as artificial as this whole God thing that many people have been brainwashed into believing without any reasonable evidence.
At least when an atheist does something "nice", you know it's not because he's afraid he's going to hell. It's an actual genuine choice, unhindered by iron age myth.
Which, lacking any other qualification, directly asserts that the crime of worshipping any other god before the jewish god is as bad, or slightly worse (due to order of precedence) than committing murder.
Rape on the other hand isn't even on the list, but on the other hand, copyright infringement isn't on the list either.
Which is a shame because if the bible was copyrighted, the world would be a much better place.
If one person who legally posses a CD/DVD with copyrighted material loans it to another person that is quite different than some other person who makes an entire library of music available to everyone over an internet connection. The three strikes law seems to apply to file sharing sharing only, not copyright violation in general. Its not even certain there is a copyright violation in this case.
No, actually it's copyright infringement in both cases. They are exactly the same. The only difference is in the number of infringements.
What you're saying is that murdering one person is very different from murdering 5 or 6 people. It's not, it's the same, just different numbers.
The difference here is that you don't need to be found guilty of murder, I can just accuse you of it. Three accusations and you're off to jail.
New Zealand simply needs a national day of action, where three people place copyright infringement claims against every member of parliament who voted for the three strikes laws. Just to see what happens.
In fact it's probably worth putting in three infringement claims against everyone just to see how long it takes to shut NZ's internet down.
Well, this is more like the government filing charges against the owner of the bank for allowing the crime to occur on their premises, simply by not actively preventing the robber from entering the bank and taking the currency, which is the "property" of the government, in a legal tender kind of sense. The government in this analogy, much like the MPAA, didn't directly lose anything, but something happened to something they have copyright over. It's clearly the banks fault...
I don't think we should confuse the notorious Victorian Police with the West Australian Police. Very different organisations.
I can just imagine the press release now.
This... is.... SPATHI!!!!
Welcome to the console era of gaming.
It wasn't that bad. It just wasn't... well it sure didn't compare with WoW... you can't release a fantasy MMO today with 2-3 features that WoW doesn't have to make up for the 50 or 60 that WoW does that you're missing.
The game design was a little clunky and limited feeling compared to WoW, too. A good solid MMO must retain that feeling of freedom that a player gets. In WoW, you can go wandering in any direction that you like. The only "railroading" you get is when you wander into an area where the rabbits can bite your head off. That's when you know you need to go back to your newbie area to level a bit.
I use a 32" display, which is large enough to comfortably display two full A4 pages side by side. My older monitors would never allow me to do that. I'm not sure what the OP is complaining about... for the same price as an old 17" CRT 10 years ago, you can buy a much, much larger 32" LCD and see two full pages quite clearly instead of one.
You don't know where you're going unless you know where you've been, as the old proverb goes. And this is a good case of it... looking at console games that are getting released today, it really seems like 90% of new games have much less depth than these ancient texts.
What does this mean for the future? Should we expect console controllers will go back to just having one button?
Very true! But a truly strong economy is diversified, and the building of the NBN will allow all businesses more opportunities, from small businesses leveraging online systems to entirely new corporations that could grow from business models leveraging the NBN.
This is good news for Australia. It will help free us from the chronic dependency we have on primary industry.
Not all of those taxpayers though - only some of them, There will be many people who won't use this new broadband network, Is it fair that they be forced to pay for it without choice? No. It is not.
Is it fair that people have to pay for the road network in the country if they don't own a car? To pay for hospitals if they currently aren't sick? The answer is clearly yes, because that infrastructure, even if it has little personal value, has tremendous value to the nation. This isn't the USA, we're actually not too worried if someone gets something without paying for it personally. Investment in infrastructure will bring about new business, new wealth, and an overall improvement in the quality of life for the average Australian. I know and understand that my success and health as an individual is related to the success and health of the nation and the people in it. For that reason, I am keenly interested in the success of this project and the opportunities it will provide to all Australians.
Also you presume everyone needs roads..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Fixed that for you.
Also you presume everyone needs electricity..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Fixed that for you again.
Also you presume everyone needs telephones..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Fixed that for you again.
Also you presume everyone needs piped water..... that's like presuming everyone needs homes made of gold walls. Nice luxury to have but not really necessary. It's really just a waste.
Or maybe, just maybe, Australia does have a need for social infrastructure to enable us to take full advantage of the future, to enable entirely new business models that currently are unimaginable thanks to the stranglehold Telstra has had over the digital landscape of this country.
10 years ago, youtube simply wouldn't be possible over 56k modems. The provisioning of high speed internet around the world has enabled this new technology to become a household name. I think Australia should be in a position to reap the benefits of the next generation of technology. In the meantime, please disconnect your power, break up your driveway, and turn off your water mains. After a week with no showers, no power and no access to roads, you might start to understand the value of infrastructure.
Ohh I didn't realise that if you patent troll an illegal oligopoly, it's no longer patent trolling, it is in fact awesome patenting for great justice?
No, patent trolls are patent trolls.
I didn't know Rambus employees were able to get onto slashdot to post as AC's, though, I thought the RAM in their desktops was too slow to allow them to log on.
Those are the guys! It was many years ago. They apparently sat on some big RAM council board, took a bunch of notes, and sprinted to the patent office as soon as the meeting was over. BAM! Patent infringement lawsuits all over the place.
Unlike other patent trolls, however, they did manage to release a horrible implementation of a quasi-serial memory bus that had atrocious real world performance. And managed to persuade Intel to get in bed with them, which for many was a big reason that AMD was doing so well at the time.
Ah, but the people in the ICP would tell you that the rainbow is "natural" and the scientific explanation, if presented by a scientist, is a lie, and makes them angry. If your girlfriend tells you that she agrees the rainbow is pretty, in your example, then as an avid Juggalo and in supporting their arguments, you should become "pissed" and tell her it is a lie.
Also, swear at magnets and ask how they work, but do not accept any actual scientific explanation or attempt any research. It is a "miracle".
You must also remember that the privatised Telstra, sitting on a monopoly of copper access and making huge margins from all of it, had no interest in allowing Australians access to cheap, high speed internet access, because this may in turn lead to the widespread use and adoption of VOIP, which in turn would devalue their copper monopoly.
It makes solid business sense for Telstra to do everything they can to keep Australia on 56k modems.
You do realise that the CSIRO is a government organisation, therefore, is the Australian Government, and you are accusing the Australian Government of being unable to produce anything of value?
I suppose that you can argue that they don't (see: Senator Conroy, Internet Villian of the Year 2009).
On the flipside I don't believe governments really fit into the narrow scope of a patent troll. How about, Australian taxpayers invested in researching technology that may otherwise never be developed. US corporations rip that technology off despite knowing full well that it was patented. I advocate that the corporations need to pay up. You advocate that corporations, some of whom actually are patent trolls, should be able to ignore patents if they are held by the Australian taxpayer's organisation for scientific and industrial research, to prevent that organisation from developing more technologies?
In this unusual circumstance, the assertion that "At some level, this will mostly harm end users." isn't really correct at all.
Without the invention of these technologies, the telco's wouldn't have a product to sell. These technologies were funded by the Australian taxpayer. A patent was placed to ensure the invested cost of research could be recovered. US industry saw the technology, liked it, and used it without permission.
Should the CSIRO win the case, they will use the money to develop more useful technology, which in turn will enrich the lives of consumers everywhere. This will mostly benefit end users. Should the CSIRO lose, the corporates will spend the money on more backroom deals, enforcement of oligopoly, DRM, lobbying, gold plated executive bathrooms and so on. This will mostly harm end users.