Copyright concerns won't kill p2p. Trade secret concerns won't kill p2p. National security concerns probably won't kill p2p. Only one place left to go....
Won't somebody please think of the children?
(Bah... if only I could embed a.wav file into my/. post at least attach one...)
And some service/goods vendors are required to use MS Office - I know people who have several major clients who have developed forms in Word/Excel which will work only with Word/Excel (I've tried OpenOffice, the macros/etc would not work).
What is the difference between "I know Michaelangelo existed because stories of his escapades have been handed down" and "I know god existed because stories of his escapades have been handed down"?
Are you talking about things like near-death and out of body experiences? If so, then that's pretty shoddy evidence.
Partly... an NDE of "I saw my body being worked on" is one thing. But to come back with specific knowledge not previously known and then verified is something else. Interaction is the key - "I saw the ghost of my dead brother" is one thing, "my brother just appeared to me and said that he was just killed and then four hours later I got a phone call confirming the information" is something entirely different.
Also, you're assuming that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time
Not at all. Since we already have the theoretical models of how to create alternate universes, I see no reason to conclude that a consciousness couldn't do the same thing.
You said you were taught? How did your teachers know? And their teachers? Where does this information come from? How can we know whether it's true?
God taught men, and they handed the information down, along with tests to know whether or not it is true.
I'm not as interested in explaining the universe as I am describing it. There is matter. There is energy. There is intelligence. There are wombats. They all lose socks in the dryer and buy buns in pacakges of 8 and hot dogs in packages of 10.
In my model the attributes of consciousness, intelligence, the ability to learn and the ability to apply that knowledge - and act upon matter and energy are key. We mortals already have the theoretical knowledge of how to create life and even how to create alternate universes (the technique I read about involves monopole magnets). In my model, once you are dead you get to expand upon the knowledge you already have. You might even have access to monopoles.
It isn't that the model needs a god, it is just that a conscious entity that has had a really long time to learn things is a natural and logical outcome of the starting premise.
This is like saying "prove that a hurricane is part of nature and not supernatural". Or "prove that wombats are natural". At the moment I have only a working model that is not yet proven - much like string theory or a grand unified theory. I believe in my theory, my observations to date are in line with my model, and I expect that as time goes one I will come up with new ways to test the theory and verify that my predictions are correct. But I'm not the point - yet - where I can do any of this.
The biggest question to answer is this: does consciousness cease with death. If it does (impossible to prove a negative, I know) then question solved. If it doesn't (and you will have to explain away all of the anecdotal evidence) then you would have to come up with a model that shows that consciousness, given infinite time, can't acquire infinite knowledge. I hold that consciousness does continue to exist in some form postmortem (and have plenty of anecdotal evidence to indicate that it is at least a possibility and that given enough time said consciousness can acquire the skills necessary to start with a handful of quarks and stitch them together to build a wombat.
Believe in god, gods, deity... or not. But I've encountered enough anecdotal evidence to convince me that there is something which I just haven't quite grokked yet as opposed to being 100% dead, set, firm, staunchly decided that there is nothing. And if there is something, it makes all of the logical sense in the world that that something can become something else.
It is more like seeing the statue David, seeing the chisel and then denying the existence of sentient plate of spaghetti
...
You've seen David. You've seen the universe. You've seen the chisel. You've seen the laws of nature. You haven't seen either Michaelangelo or God. You believe in the former because you have been told that he existed.
Never asked who created God, nor have I ever been told. However, the possibility that God "grew" or "evolved" or "learned" how to become God is a very real and distinct possibility. The only thing that would be required to do so would be - in theory - an extended period of consciousness. Since there is no proof that there is consciousness is another form after the cessation of biological function, and much anecdotal evidence that suggests that there might be I cannot rule out the possibility.
I've known people who were taught in school that mountains were formed by a shrinking earth. There are readers of/. who were out of school by the time they figured out that barringer crater wasn't formed by a volcano or a steam explosion.
Here's a question that I would love to see answered to any degree of my satisfaction: why is all religion immediately discarded as a logical impossibility because some religious beliefs are illogical and inconsistent?
My religion teaches the following:
God created "the universe" for a variety of reasons, one of which is to give us the opportunity to experience things. There are (probably) other reasons that God didn't feel like sharing for some reason or another.
God did not tell us exactly how he created the universe, but those who want to find an answer to that question are free to explore and reason. (For those who don't really care, they are free to explore and reason other aspects of life. Or sit around and do nothing at all - the choice is really up to them.)
God is natural and operates within the laws of nature - not above them.
One of the key laws of nature is that actions have reactions. Nature demands that if I put my hand on a stove I get burned. The universe just works that way.
The single most important concept is hope: if we can hope that at some point in the future it will get better then things can get better. Maybe not according to what we want or demand, but at some point it will.
So what makes these beliefs impossible, illogical and absolutely and unquestionably false?
Even then I was utterly fascinated by astronomy, and looking at the night sky, especially in Australia, where we actually had a visible star scape, was an experience that filled me not with religious conviction, but with a determination to find explanations for what I saw. 'God did it' was never an option.
Denying God because you understand the tools he uses is like denying Michaelangelo because you once saw a chisel.
I were to use something like Greasemonkey to ROT13 (or even ROT1) the sourcecode as it came down? They only say I can't look at their source (by using the 'view source' function of a browser)...
Ok, prove that ONLY humans are capable - and have ever been capable - of creativity. Finding color smeared on the wall tells you that somebody was able to smear color on the wall - if you want to establish a direct genetic lineage then you need something more.
Grok not successful. Where is the evidence that *these specific tool-users* are genetic ancestors to modern humans? Neanderthals left behind evidence of intelligence, yet they are not genetic ancestors. Ravens are very intelligent, yet are not genetic ancestors. Apes are intelligent, yet are not genetic ancestors. TFA claims that these tools were used by the direct, genetic ancestors of modern humans. Where is the proof?
If you claim a direct genetic pathway from there to here then you'd better come up with something better than chipped rocks. Intelligence is not the question here - the claim is that critters/people that scraped these particular rocks are direct, genetic ancestors to modern human. Where's the evidence?
Once upon a time QWEST absolutely refused to do anything about the unrepentant spammers on their network. I don't care what happens to either QWEST or any of the executives.
Hearing, yes. Waiting 3 1/2 years before the hearing? Absolutely not. This is why public schools don't need any more money - they can afford to keep teachers in the "rubber room" for YEARS without teaching because they are too lazy to follow their own policies and procedures.
Incorrect. As a unionized worker it isn't that there are no clear policies - in fact, the policies and procedures are probably specific down to the letter (and largely ignored). The minor punishment is unquestionably in deference to unionized government employees who are virtually immune from punishment - this is why teachers who are accused of improper sexual contact (or buying plants without the principal's permission? wtf?) with one of the students are given full salary to sit in a room and do nothing for years on end as they wait for "review".
A third party brought in from Ohio's Office of Collective Bargaining investigated the incident and recommended the penalty, in other words this guy is a union employee and therefore essentially immune from almost any significant discipline.
Legal action is disproportionately less expensive when you have an on-staff attorney who isn't billing you by the hour than when you can't afford such a luxury and have to contract out the work.
As for the "potential fallout (ie negative publicity and such)", corporations commonly don't care. Their goal is to WIN the case, pyrrhic victories being not only acceptable but bonus/raise/promotion worthy to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
(Bah... if only I could embed a .wav file into my /. post at least attach one...)
And some service/goods vendors are required to use MS Office - I know people who have several major clients who have developed forms in Word/Excel which will work only with Word/Excel (I've tried OpenOffice, the macros/etc would not work).
What is the difference between "I know Michaelangelo existed because stories of his escapades have been handed down" and "I know god existed because stories of his escapades have been handed down"?
Partly... an NDE of "I saw my body being worked on" is one thing. But to come back with specific knowledge not previously known and then verified is something else. Interaction is the key - "I saw the ghost of my dead brother" is one thing, "my brother just appeared to me and said that he was just killed and then four hours later I got a phone call confirming the information" is something entirely different.
Not at all. Since we already have the theoretical models of how to create alternate universes, I see no reason to conclude that a consciousness couldn't do the same thing.
God taught men, and they handed the information down, along with tests to know whether or not it is true.
Actually, the first letter in the model is "intelligence and consciousness exist".
In my model the attributes of consciousness, intelligence, the ability to learn and the ability to apply that knowledge - and act upon matter and energy are key. We mortals already have the theoretical knowledge of how to create life and even how to create alternate universes (the technique I read about involves monopole magnets). In my model, once you are dead you get to expand upon the knowledge you already have. You might even have access to monopoles.
It isn't that the model needs a god, it is just that a conscious entity that has had a really long time to learn things is a natural and logical outcome of the starting premise.
This is like saying "prove that a hurricane is part of nature and not supernatural". Or "prove that wombats are natural". At the moment I have only a working model that is not yet proven - much like string theory or a grand unified theory. I believe in my theory, my observations to date are in line with my model, and I expect that as time goes one I will come up with new ways to test the theory and verify that my predictions are correct. But I'm not the point - yet - where I can do any of this.
Believe in god, gods, deity... or not. But I've encountered enough anecdotal evidence to convince me that there is something which I just haven't quite grokked yet as opposed to being 100% dead, set, firm, staunchly decided that there is nothing. And if there is something, it makes all of the logical sense in the world that that something can become something else.
I don't propose a god that does nothing. I propose a god that winds the clock and makes the occasional adjustment.
You've seen David. You've seen the universe. You've seen the chisel. You've seen the laws of nature. You haven't seen either Michaelangelo or God. You believe in the former because you have been told that he existed.
I've known people who were taught in school that mountains were formed by a shrinking earth. There are readers of /. who were out of school by the time they figured out that barringer crater wasn't formed by a volcano or a steam explosion.
My religion teaches the following:
- God created "the universe" for a variety of reasons, one of which is to give us the opportunity to experience things. There are (probably) other reasons that God didn't feel like sharing for some reason or another.
- God did not tell us exactly how he created the universe, but those who want to find an answer to that question are free to explore and reason. (For those who don't really care, they are free to explore and reason other aspects of life. Or sit around and do nothing at all - the choice is really up to them.)
- God is natural and operates within the laws of nature - not above them.
- One of the key laws of nature is that actions have reactions. Nature demands that if I put my hand on a stove I get burned. The universe just works that way.
- The single most important concept is hope: if we can hope that at some point in the future it will get better then things can get better. Maybe not according to what we want or demand, but at some point it will.
So what makes these beliefs impossible, illogical and absolutely and unquestionably false?Denying God because you understand the tools he uses is like denying Michaelangelo because you once saw a chisel.
I were to use something like Greasemonkey to ROT13 (or even ROT1) the sourcecode as it came down? They only say I can't look at their source (by using the 'view source' function of a browser)...
Ok, prove that ONLY humans are capable - and have ever been capable - of creativity. Finding color smeared on the wall tells you that somebody was able to smear color on the wall - if you want to establish a direct genetic lineage then you need something more.
Grok not successful. Where is the evidence that *these specific tool-users* are genetic ancestors to modern humans? Neanderthals left behind evidence of intelligence, yet they are not genetic ancestors. Ravens are very intelligent, yet are not genetic ancestors. Apes are intelligent, yet are not genetic ancestors. TFA claims that these tools were used by the direct, genetic ancestors of modern humans. Where is the proof?
If you claim a direct genetic pathway from there to here then you'd better come up with something better than chipped rocks. Intelligence is not the question here - the claim is that critters/people that scraped these particular rocks are direct, genetic ancestors to modern human. Where's the evidence?
Yay science!
If the bogus orders were "the people inside the house just shot a cop!" then unquestionably the trigger fingers would have been quite a bit happier.
Once upon a time QWEST absolutely refused to do anything about the unrepentant spammers on their network. I don't care what happens to either QWEST or any of the executives.
Hearing, yes. Waiting 3 1/2 years before the hearing? Absolutely not. This is why public schools don't need any more money - they can afford to keep teachers in the "rubber room" for YEARS without teaching because they are too lazy to follow their own policies and procedures.
Incorrect. As a unionized worker it isn't that there are no clear policies - in fact, the policies and procedures are probably specific down to the letter (and largely ignored). The minor punishment is unquestionably in deference to unionized government employees who are virtually immune from punishment - this is why teachers who are accused of improper sexual contact (or buying plants without the principal's permission? wtf?) with one of the students are given full salary to sit in a room and do nothing for years on end as they wait for "review".
A third party brought in from Ohio's Office of Collective Bargaining investigated the incident and recommended the penalty, in other words this guy is a union employee and therefore essentially immune from almost any significant discipline.
When dealing with some of these companies will the phone encourage you to train for the shot put?
Legal action is disproportionately less expensive when you have an on-staff attorney who isn't billing you by the hour than when you can't afford such a luxury and have to contract out the work.
As for the "potential fallout (ie negative publicity and such)", corporations commonly don't care. Their goal is to WIN the case, pyrrhic victories being not only acceptable but bonus/raise/promotion worthy to boot.