strong atheism == belief that god(s) don't exist weak atheism == weak agnosticism == undecidedness as to the existance or non-existance of god(s) strong agnosticism == belief that the existance or non-existance of god(s) is unknowable (or unprovable)
I wish there was a specific name for these, as these are very different. Particularly since only one of them isn't a belief system.
1) It leads to an infinite regression. If complex things cannot come to being by themselves, then the creator can't come to be out of nothing either. And so forth. Que the infinite regress of creators.
In other news, human stupidity amazes me every day. At +5 insightful, no less. Go back an learn about cause and effect, then tell me how things that have always existed were somehow caused to exist.
But there are two sides to this. You rightly point out that putting seculars among christians results in the seculars getting beat upon (if only by extrimists). Guess what happens when you place a christian among secular scientists. The results are generally less extreme but more certain.
The refined phrase is: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"We are descended from chemical goo" is an extraordinary claim. Before answering with your extraordinary evidence (which I dare say you don't have, even if you can Google it, as most people believe this only because scientists say so</flame>), I will ask: is it proof if the people you are trying to prove it to don't understand your proof?
Religion: People exist because God wanted there to be people
There is your problem. Religion says, "People exist because God created them." (and this might even follow from your statement when you throw in cause and effect and the meaning of "because") Now, please tell me how you can gracefully reconcile "evolution is true", "god created man", and Occam's Razor. Don't forget Occam's Razor.
The problem with that definition is that then atheism does not appear to be a belief system. However, there are some people who are religiously atheistic (eg the monkeys who think the Bible says pi=3). These already have a name, strong atheist = "with a belief in the non-existance of god or gods", which is a belief system. Thus, the term "atheist" encompasses both a belief system and what is not a belief system. I think this is too broad, and push for separate names.
why do you need to Jesus to have a relationship with god?
Because Jesus is the only way, of course:-)
Why do i need a church? Why do i need a systemic beleif system that profits of the goodwill of its flock?
Because it is more powerful. Because it is easier to contribute. Because it is public. Because not taking your children to church is a bad thing. Because if the church didn't recieve at least enough to survive, it wouldn't. Why do OSS projects need developers rather than only contributers?
I wont claim to know what god wants... but it sure as hell cant be [...]
No comment.
Lets just be nice to each other... i think thats the whole point.
It is, for pretty much every religion. Note that there are minor variations in what "nice" is and who "each other" are.
I'm sure you will be surprised to learn that Lamarkian actually has a grain of truth. There are some plants which can switch on a gene (for protection from caterpillars, IIRC), and the gene will remain on by default in their offspring.
I wonder... how many people here actually love OO? Myself, I haven't touched it in months. Though I'll be the first to cheer any OO advance due to compatibility, linux adaption, and general principle, I really don't care much about it. What do other folk think?
Interesting. Slashdot has about 1/2 the score, except in the "list everything" digg actually outnumbers in coping article with title and all, but still wins by posting more stories. Not that that is any surprise considering how digg works.
Not in this case. It is Trusted Computing, not vaporware. Lots of big businesses are asking for this (for DRM, not anti-virus), and it *will* be offered. Just get ready to give it the proverbial kick in the balls when it comes.
The difference is that a virus can sabotoge the software, anywhere -- even at the kernel. For a sophisticated virus, you need to look for the virus from a trusted (uninfected) system. Also, software DRM can be easily disabled, for various definitions of easy (eg boot to linux and replace the DRM part with return true). I agree with you that the latter is the real deal.
That was my first thought as well. Another question: who was watching them before? How do we know there are no backdoors at the hardware level? *dons tin foil hat*
I'm just pulling this out of my ass, but could you fill someone's disk with this exploit? For your script, this would be a 2.5 Mb file, but is there any limit? Also, a better script would be:
var buffer = "A"; for (var i = 0; i < 40; i++) { buffer += buffer; }
This is quite different. What you want is lim x/y as x,y tend to zero. Like before, along a specific path, this will be defined; however, that is much less likely to be the case than simply dealing with the sign of one number. Instead of two paths (one for each sign), there are an infinite number of paths, the limit of which will be any number you want. On the line y=mx, the limit will be m, and then there are all the curves as well.
You can't just replace something with it's square and expect to get the same answer. so 1/x^2=(1/x)(1/x), which is consistent with what I said. Also, you can replace 1/x^2 with 1/y where y=x^2, but this would be an example where y is non-negative, not non-positive. Like I said, it all depends on whether or not your numbers are non-negative, non-positive, or both.
Slashdot Mirror
Percentage of the U.S. population who self-identify as Christian: %82
Look at me! I'm going to heaven.
Percentage of Senators = 89%
Percentage of Representatives = 90%
Percentage of Presidents = %100
Percentage of Current Governors = 94%
We want the good guys (read: majority of people) to vote for us because we're good guys too!
Percentage of Supreme Court Justices = %78
Look, we're less biased than the rest of you
Christmas = Federal Holiday
Christmas = pagan winter solstice ritual stolen by Catholicism = xmas = best day for sales, evar
strong atheism == belief that god(s) don't exist
weak atheism == weak agnosticism == undecidedness as to the existance or non-existance of god(s)
strong agnosticism == belief that the existance or non-existance of god(s) is unknowable (or unprovable)
I wish there was a specific name for these, as these are very different. Particularly since only one of them isn't a belief system.
1) It leads to an infinite regression. If complex things cannot come to being by themselves, then the creator can't come to be out of nothing either. And so forth. Que the infinite regress of creators.
In other news, human stupidity amazes me every day. At +5 insightful, no less. Go back an learn about cause and effect, then tell me how things that have always existed were somehow caused to exist.
But there are two sides to this. You rightly point out that putting seculars among christians results in the seculars getting beat upon (if only by extrimists). Guess what happens when you place a christian among secular scientists. The results are generally less extreme but more certain.
although it does believe in evolution guided by God
Two words: Occam's Razor
The refined phrase is: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"We are descended from chemical goo" is an extraordinary claim. Before answering with your extraordinary evidence (which I dare say you don't have, even if you can Google it, as most people believe this only because scientists say so</flame>), I will ask: is it proof if the people you are trying to prove it to don't understand your proof?
Religion: People exist because God wanted there to be people
There is your problem. Religion says, "People exist because God created them." (and this might even follow from your statement when you throw in cause and effect and the meaning of "because") Now, please tell me how you can gracefully reconcile "evolution is true", "god created man", and Occam's Razor. Don't forget Occam's Razor.
a-theism = "without belief in a god or gods"
The problem with that definition is that then atheism does not appear to be a belief system. However, there are some people who are religiously atheistic (eg the monkeys who think the Bible says pi=3). These already have a name, strong atheist = "with a belief in the non-existance of god or gods", which is a belief system. Thus, the term "atheist" encompasses both a belief system and what is not a belief system. I think this is too broad, and push for separate names.
why do you need to Jesus to have a relationship with god?
:-)
Because Jesus is the only way, of course
Why do i need a church? Why do i need a systemic beleif system that profits of the goodwill of its flock?
Because it is more powerful. Because it is easier to contribute. Because it is public. Because not taking your children to church is a bad thing. Because if the church didn't recieve at least enough to survive, it wouldn't. Why do OSS projects need developers rather than only contributers?
I wont claim to know what god wants... but it sure as hell cant be [...]
No comment.
Lets just be nice to each other... i think thats the whole point.
It is, for pretty much every religion. Note that there are minor variations in what "nice" is and who "each other" are.
I'm sure you will be surprised to learn that Lamarkian actually has a grain of truth. There are some plants which can switch on a gene (for protection from caterpillars, IIRC), and the gene will remain on by default in their offspring.
I wonder ... how many people here actually love OO? Myself, I haven't touched it in months. Though I'll be the first to cheer any OO advance due to compatibility, linux adaption, and general principle, I really don't care much about it. What do other folk think?
I think that would be more like taking the website, and when the Sober worm goes to check for instructions, send it a self-delete code.
PS: When can we expect the Drunk worm?
Because:
a) For some reason I had already installed flash
b) About once a month, I find a website that uses flash for legitimate reasons.
Everything is flash -- if it's an advertisement. F*ing retards. Thank god for flashblock.
Interesting. Slashdot has about 1/2 the score, except in the "list everything" digg actually outnumbers in coping article with title and all, but still wins by posting more stories. Not that that is any surprise considering how digg works.
Not in this case. It is Trusted Computing, not vaporware. Lots of big businesses are asking for this (for DRM, not anti-virus), and it *will* be offered. Just get ready to give it the proverbial kick in the balls when it comes.
The difference is that a virus can sabotoge the software, anywhere -- even at the kernel. For a sophisticated virus, you need to look for the virus from a trusted (uninfected) system. Also, software DRM can be easily disabled, for various definitions of easy (eg boot to linux and replace the DRM part with return true). I agree with you that the latter is the real deal.
That was my first thought as well. Another question: who was watching them before? How do we know there are no backdoors at the hardware level? *dons tin foil hat*
This is quite different. What you want is lim x/y as x,y tend to zero. Like before, along a specific path, this will be defined; however, that is much less likely to be the case than simply dealing with the sign of one number. Instead of two paths (one for each sign), there are an infinite number of paths, the limit of which will be any number you want. On the line y=mx, the limit will be m, and then there are all the curves as well.
I might check if I still have access and then tell them to revoke it. Then if something happens, I'm not a "disgruntled ex-employee with root access"
I don't know ... certainly they have some way of telling who you should pay royalties to, even if they have the same name.
But at least they can still ensure that patents aren't in conflict with each other, or with prior art.
You can't just replace something with it's square and expect to get the same answer. so 1/x^2=(1/x)(1/x), which is consistent with what I said. Also, you can replace 1/x^2 with 1/y where y=x^2, but this would be an example where y is non-negative, not non-positive. Like I said, it all depends on whether or not your numbers are non-negative, non-positive, or both.