Um, no. If Wallmart were actually robbing their own custumers illegaly, they would take a lot of backlash, probably enought to wipe them out. At the very least they need to keep up an appearance of being nice and trustworthy.
Customers don't take lightly to getting srewed over. Personally I think that this news story coming out is worse for Wallmart than if they had let customers who were screwed over keep their money.
What the fuck are gift cards for, anyways? Me, I like cold hard cash (or cache).
Yea, now I have an RFID chip from the Swarthmore College CS department. I don't need to wear it, but it allows me to unlock the lab doors. One of my friends complained about it, so I told him he should stick it to his right hand or forehead:-)
Yea, RFID is handy, but I know it will be abused some day. I know I will be scared when RFID replaces credit/debit cards.
I'll explain that better for everyone's benefit. Since GPS was a millitary technology, it was designed to allow you to find your position without yelling "I am here" to all your enemies. Now there is a difference between GPS tracking and cell phone tracking. Cell phones constantly communicate with the towers, which can triangulate and thus find the location of the cell phone, in this case it is the towers that are more passive (you could set up three recievers and track cell phones without sending out signals).
So, that is why GPS is cool, and cell phone GPS-wannabe isn't.
That's exactly what you are supposed to do. Just don't start with preconceptions, and go with whatever is simplest. It just really annoys me when people say that atheism is acceptable without proof, as it does make a factual claim, whereas agnosticism doesn't.
Oh, and you must be living under a rock if you have never heard of an attempt to prove the existance of some $DEITY. AnswersInGenesis.org is one example that attempts to prove the existance of the christian god using science, and you will find millions of others attempts elsewhere.
You can also have a look at my journal for more discussion.
What about agnostics who have a tendancy to believe in a centain religion, that is, they think $RELIGION is likelier than atheism but are not sure? Or are those called $RELIGIONists of weak faith?
Atheism cannot be a "religious" stance by definition:
religious - 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
Yada yada yada. Boo hoo hoo. I did not like what you said so I will bash you with a different definition than the one you used. For your information, religion also means
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. and "religious" means having to do with religion.
Note particularly that the link is to reference.com, just like yours. Please read all the definitions before you choose one for me.
If you reply to this post and insist that you're going to change the definition of the term religious or atheist to suit your needs, that does nothing to convince others of your point; though they may even choose to adopt your non-standard definitions, there's no way of ascertaining whether they've grasped your underlying point. The hope in most semantic attacks is that the change in wording will simply find its way into the subtext of future conversations and change people's minds that way. Sort of an underhanded approach, which is why I personally detest such attacks by language.
Point taken:-) Please don't use such evil tactics, people. Look, someone asked me to clarify what I meant by atheism and I did.
Someone who will disregard any possibility of there being a god, even if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist.
This statement is absurd.
Which is exactly why I said scientists shouldn't hold this position.
It is silly to judge what someone would do or think in the presence of a condition that is simply impossible. In this case, "if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist" is the impossible condition. No one who has done any study of philosophy or religion would accept this as something that could actually come to pass[snip]
Actually I have studied philosophy and learned a logical system where such arguments are valid. It's called implication and is quite often what people mean when they say "if". A implies B would mean, breifly, that in every possible world where A is true, B would also be true. I did not use the type of if where "if the moon is made of geen cheese, then you are stupid" would be true regardless of your intelligince level.
An as for saying that a proof for god's existance is impossible, you are totally wrong. God could, for example decide to prove his own existance (to a certain probability, like any other scientific proof). The thing that is impossible to proove is that $ITEM does not exist (unless $ITEM causes a contradition); this is called universal negation.
Finally, I will bitch about whatever mods modded me troll, even modding up people who are insulting me. My posts should be there given the context.
It's in the basic definition: atheism. It's not a belief in 0 gods, it is a lack of belief in gods.
So, what is the definition of agnosticism? I was pretty sure that agnostics have not formed an opinion as to what gods there are, whereas atheists quite clearly believe that there are no gods. (Or if you prefer, atheists have a lack of belief in gods but not a lack of belief in the absence of gods).
You can't accept that people don't have this belief
What I can't accept is scientist-wanabes that decide how the world is before going out to look.
You don't need a belief system to not believe in something.
Oh yea, then if I don't believe a word you said, I don't need to justify myself? Because disbelieving something is in fact a belief that requires justification. You don't seem to make a distinction between not believing and disbelieving. Look at it this way, you can convert disbelief in $BELIEF into belief in (NOT $BELIEF), whereas undecidedness is not a belief.
Now that I am done ranting, it seems to me that we are saying the same thing, except that I call undecidedness about gods agnosticism while you call it atheism.
I regard atheism as a religious belief that there is no god. Someone who will disregard any possibility of there being a god, even if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist. That is what Wikipedia would call strong atheism, or what I would call religious atheism.
As for agnosticism, it would require the agnostic not to start with any preconceptions but he can have leanings toward the $RELIGION that he believes most likely.
I would also argue against those who say atheism is not a religion. It is a religion, and has the set of gods {} (the empty set), whereas agnosticism does not define the set of gods.
That is pretty much my own view. I follow most of the "good things" that the Bible teaches on how to treat others, and I would do so whether I believed in God or not. Sadly, the theory of evolution does not offer much in the way of morality.
Tell me again why we would need a new law for this? Because I can tell you right now that they won't make a new law just for this. And just as well, because we don't need one: 1) Patents cannot be applied to existing internet standards, because of prior art 2) *We* are the ones who choose whether or not to accept a patent encumbored standard. Now go with Apache and Debian, and shout "We won't accept this!" for all to hear.
Or, it might say "We are really committed to security! Fuck all the FOSS, they can't use our patent even if that would increase security and compatibility!"
It seems my sig has generated a bit of commentary, so I will explain (for everyone, flacco seems to have gotten the point). It annoys me to great extent how some people say that atheism is the official view of science. It might be the most accepted, but it is certainly not "official".
Scientists aren't allowed to call their preconceptions of how the world is/should be "science", although they can use it as a part of a hypothesis or a guideline into what research is likely to be worthwhile. So to be scientific, one must start with agnosticism (ie, not saying whether or not there is a god, nor what type). Then they use Occam's Razor, which says to go with the simplest explanation. If the theory of evolution is true, then atheism would be the simplest view because it would not require any new laws ore strange supernatural beings.
PS: I have not done a mathematical analysis of the theory of evolution because I don't know enough statistics nor what error margin is allowed in DNA, so I can't say anything for or against it, other than point my finger at other people who have.
PPS: Also, lots of scientists get annoyed when people say "God did it" and accept that as a scientific explanation, without considering that there might be new science there to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. If Wallmart were actually robbing their own custumers illegaly, they would take a lot of backlash, probably enought to wipe them out. At the very least they need to keep up an appearance of being nice and trustworthy.
Customers don't take lightly to getting srewed over. Personally I think that this news story coming out is worse for Wallmart than if they had let customers who were screwed over keep their money.
What the fuck are gift cards for, anyways? Me, I like cold hard cash (or cache).
Yea, now I have an RFID chip from the Swarthmore College CS department. I don't need to wear it, but it allows me to unlock the lab doors. One of my friends complained about it, so I told him he should stick it to his right hand or forehead :-)
Yea, RFID is handy, but I know it will be abused some day. I know I will be scared when RFID replaces credit/debit cards.
Whereas girls won't let the geek go "the last 6 inches" :-)
Onstar?
GPS receivers are completely passive
I'll explain that better for everyone's benefit. Since GPS was a millitary technology, it was designed to allow you to find your position without yelling "I am here" to all your enemies. Now there is a difference between GPS tracking and cell phone tracking. Cell phones constantly communicate with the towers, which can triangulate and thus find the location of the cell phone, in this case it is the towers that are more passive (you could set up three recievers and track cell phones without sending out signals).
So, that is why GPS is cool, and cell phone GPS-wannabe isn't.
1) Find a stalker
2) Remove tracking system; sell motion sensor and cell phone
3) Profit!
That's exactly what you are supposed to do. Just don't start with preconceptions, and go with whatever is simplest. It just really annoys me when people say that atheism is acceptable without proof, as it does make a factual claim, whereas agnosticism doesn't.
Oh, and you must be living under a rock if you have never heard of an attempt to prove the existance of some $DEITY. AnswersInGenesis.org is one example that attempts to prove the existance of the christian god using science, and you will find millions of others attempts elsewhere.
You can also have a look at my journal for more discussion.
What about agnostics who have a tendancy to believe in a centain religion, that is, they think $RELIGION is likelier than atheism but are not sure? Or are those called $RELIGIONists of weak faith?
religious - 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
Yada yada yada. Boo hoo hoo. I did not like what you said so I will bash you with a different definition than the one you used. For your information, religion also means
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
and "religious" means having to do with religion.
Note particularly that the link is to reference.com, just like yours. Please read all the definitions before you choose one for me.
If you reply to this post and insist that you're going to change the definition of the term religious or atheist to suit your needs, that does nothing to convince others of your point; though they may even choose to adopt your non-standard definitions, there's no way of ascertaining whether they've grasped your underlying point. The hope in most semantic attacks is that the change in wording will simply find its way into the subtext of future conversations and change people's minds that way. Sort of an underhanded approach, which is why I personally detest such attacks by language.
Point taken
This statement is absurd.
Which is exactly why I said scientists shouldn't hold this position.
It is silly to judge what someone would do or think in the presence of a condition that is simply impossible. In this case, "if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist" is the impossible condition. No one who has done any study of philosophy or religion would accept this as something that could actually come to pass[snip]
Actually I have studied philosophy and learned a logical system where such arguments are valid. It's called implication and is quite often what people mean when they say "if". A implies B would mean, breifly, that in every possible world where A is true, B would also be true. I did not use the type of if where "if the moon is made of geen cheese, then you are stupid" would be true regardless of your intelligince level.
An as for saying that a proof for god's existance is impossible, you are totally wrong. God could, for example decide to prove his own existance (to a certain probability, like any other scientific proof). The thing that is impossible to proove is that $ITEM does not exist (unless $ITEM causes a contradition); this is called universal negation.
Finally, I will bitch about whatever mods modded me troll, even modding up people who are insulting me. My posts should be there given the context.
8010 products beneath your current threshold.
lighter == less dense,
when referring to material as opposed to a discreet object.
Which is in fact true because a good CPU will run slower when it overheats.
Atheism is a subset of agnosticism :-P
(weak atheism) == (weak agnosticism)
It's in the basic definition: atheism. It's not a belief in 0 gods, it is a lack of belief in gods.
So, what is the definition of agnosticism? I was pretty sure that agnostics have not formed an opinion as to what gods there are, whereas atheists quite clearly believe that there are no gods. (Or if you prefer, atheists have a lack of belief in gods but not a lack of belief in the absence of gods).
You can't accept that people don't have this belief
What I can't accept is scientist-wanabes that decide how the world is before going out to look.
You don't need a belief system to not believe in something.
Oh yea, then if I don't believe a word you said, I don't need to justify myself? Because disbelieving something is in fact a belief that requires justification. You don't seem to make a distinction between not believing and disbelieving. Look at it this way, you can convert disbelief in $BELIEF into belief in (NOT $BELIEF), whereas undecidedness is not a belief.
Now that I am done ranting, it seems to me that we are saying the same thing, except that I call undecidedness about gods agnosticism while you call it atheism.
I regard atheism as a religious belief that there is no god. Someone who will disregard any possibility of there being a god, even if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist. That is what Wikipedia would call strong atheism, or what I would call religious atheism.
As for agnosticism, it would require the agnostic not to start with any preconceptions but he can have leanings toward the $RELIGION that he believes most likely.
I would also argue against those who say atheism is not a religion. It is a religion, and has the set of gods {} (the empty set), whereas agnosticism does not define the set of gods.
That is pretty much my own view. I follow most of the "good things" that the Bible teaches on how to treat others, and I would do so whether I believed in God or not. Sadly, the theory of evolution does not offer much in the way of morality.
I did not say that the scientific view was agnosticism, I said agnosticism and simplicity (also known as Occam's Razor). Draw your own conclusions.
You'll find a rather sketchy description, if compared to a traditional ecyclopaedia, like the Britannica.
So, what exactly are you waiting for to improve the article?
Or perhaps you simply didin't care about it that much to begin with?
Maybe he should have tried changing this article.
I bet he would have been caught within the day.
The meaning of life is left as an exercise to the reader.
Which is quickly found by doing a google search.
All "Redundant" mods will be meta-modded "Unfair" until the mods can prove they know what "redundant" means.
:-P
You mean,
All "Redundant" meta-modded "Un" 'til mods prove know what means.
It's still legible, and has less words! Less repetitive redundancy!
Tell me again why we would need a new law for this? Because I can tell you right now that they won't make a new law just for this. And just as well, because we don't need one:
1) Patents cannot be applied to existing internet standards, because of prior art
2) *We* are the ones who choose whether or not to accept a patent encumbored standard. Now go with Apache and Debian, and shout "We won't accept this!" for all to hear.
Or, it might say "We are really committed to security! Fuck all the FOSS, they can't use our patent even if that would increase security and compatibility!"
It seems my sig has generated a bit of commentary, so I will explain (for everyone, flacco seems to have gotten the point). It annoys me to great extent how some people say that atheism is the official view of science. It might be the most accepted, but it is certainly not "official".
Scientists aren't allowed to call their preconceptions of how the world is/should be "science", although they can use it as a part of a hypothesis or a guideline into what research is likely to be worthwhile. So to be scientific, one must start with agnosticism (ie, not saying whether or not there is a god, nor what type). Then they use Occam's Razor, which says to go with the simplest explanation. If the theory of evolution is true, then atheism would be the simplest view because it would not require any new laws ore strange supernatural beings.
PS: I have not done a mathematical analysis of the theory of evolution because I don't know enough statistics nor what error margin is allowed in DNA, so I can't say anything for or against it, other than point my finger at other people who have.
PPS: Also, lots of scientists get annoyed when people say "God did it" and accept that as a scientific explanation, without considering that there might be new science there to learn.