My English teacher said it was one of her favorite books, I read it, and I hated it. Science fiction isn't made great by the LSD-trip imagery or how removed from reality it can be, and Childhood's End is sure pretty unrealistic. No characters behave humanly, and the premises the book is based on are in no way a metaphor for anything in the real world. At least I couldn't see anything. Read Asimov instead, he had a bigger ego but he wrote better books.
The textbook definition of an atheist is someone who believes that it can be *proven*
I don't know what textbook you're reading, but I suspect it's in yer head. Break the work apart: a- = no/absence of (as opposed to mono- or poly- ); -theist = believer. An athiest is anyone who doesn't believe in god(s). [not capitalized]. Belief in god(s) is a direct belief; in whether it can be proven is more abstract.
that God doesn't exist. Just what god are you referring to when you capitalize that word? The Christian Jehovah is just one god of many; while this in itself is a semantic mistake it looks like you have a bit of a narrow perspective.
Agnostics on the other hand... The only agnostic I know just didn't want to argue about religion. Most people believe that it's impossible to prove anything, including some very strongly believing people, and anyone who believes it's possible to prove anything that they can't think of a way to prove is a little confused. I'd say the people who point to faith healers as the proof of their god don't know what the word god means, so they don't count. Just about everyone is an agnostic, by your standard.
Skeptics, w/ a 'k', don't seem to care much in your definition. Skeptics are people who don't trust things that they hear.
Sorry to yell at you, but if yer gonna go around bothering people about their religious beliefs you should at least be enlightened enough to understand the answer. If you're so curious about religion, read a book.
Are you saying there isn't anything on the internet that you find disgusting? I think some things might give the kiddies nightmares. This might lead to inhibitions or something later on.
There's enough violent sexism in the world already, why give the very impressionable 10-to-16 (and sometimes older, in this immature day and age) year-olds material that shows 'unacceptable behaviors' in such a good light? To "sustain" this "attack", you have to be mature enough to totally discount the realism of something, and experienced enough to know that pornography is not real.
Censorship can go as far as blank newspaper pages, but not because of the religious forces that fuel American censorship. The religious right-wingers will go as far as they can until they run out of fuel (or the rest of America finally finds its religious identity, not too likely).
I don't think it's in our best interests for censorship to grow. If I were a parent, and if, like most American parents, I would do everything in my power to take responsibility for my children out of my own hands, I would probably support it.
So if the only thing holding this technology back is the lackof a way to wreck it with commercialization, why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Do you want RealNetworks controlling the wavelet business, or do you want it distributed free with every OS out there?
Jes read back to my comment, you attacked Hinduism but I nominated Buddha! In fact, you didn't argue any of what I said about Buddhism's superiority! You have some 'spainin' to do! That is, if you wanna have a bigger discussion about this. I'd like to argue religion w/ someone actually trained in theology, hard to come by for me. My sister's boyfreind's father (my future semi in-law, probably) is a minister, but he's an atheist too, or so I've heard;v). Never met him anyway.
And: Ada Lovelace better make the Top 10 list, even if Siddharta don't.
Compared to other religions, Christianity rose with a lot of gov't support (prior to the fourth c, too). There were other competing religions that could have made it. The Catholic Church had its own doctrines, not necessarily based on the Bible. Is that counted as part of Christianity?
I'll bet I can produce a half-dozen people, or at least fake their existence:v) (not to say the saints were faked, but I could). If I had a lot of charisma, I could get real people to believe me.
Faith in someone doesn't have to be someone special/holy; to turn an alcoholic into a missionary (in my view, being a missionary/preacher is "sinful", but I'll overlook that) only takes hope and effort on the alcoholic's part.
To say that Jesus had saints is giving Him a lot of credit; there are a lot of forgotten good Christians but there are even more forgotten good people who didn't need their religion (in the sense that Christianity is a religion) to inspire them.
The Bible declares non-christians to be heathens and therefore not part of mankind, ya can't deny the persecution of peaceful races by crusaders/overzealous missionaries. I believe a person's "soul" (to the extent that I believe in the idea of "soul", don't twist my words) consists mainly of that person's beliefs, values, and ideals. To preach to them and try to change that without some _really_ good justification (e.g., to prevent occuring harm to others) is to violate their soul. I don't know that much about Christian doctrine, I admit, but there are a lot out there who'd rather hate non-Christians than love everybody and convert the non-Christians. Is it part of the doctrine to hate those who refuse to be converted? And to dislike someone's values, in my view, is to dislike their soul, so to love them enough to change them is a paradox.
I dunno where yer getting the Popes being self-disciplined... but you say you've "seen where self-discipline goes" (w/ your own two eyes) but I assume you've only read about the saints. There is a kind of dark side to self-discipline, which is self-loathing. It's all done for self-improvement, and a motivation is always needed for that. I suppose in that light the degree to which it's voluntary is arguable.
I'm not a fervent anti-Christian; I haven't been paying attention to the popes. I prefer not to judge any religion by its figures, just its people. The ends [the people] reflect the means so much that they justify them.
There are a lot of voluntary converts to Islam, too.
Religions can change after they've been introduced; there are a lot of peoples who wouldn't have accepted Christianity unless conquerors had already ripped their past culture to shreds. The conquerors killed with Christianity as their moral excuse; as a larger picture one side of Christianity destroyed the culture and another side replaced it. In the sense of the word "religion" that I use, these are two different religions. The side of Christianity that you argue for does do a good thing in this picture, it would make a good argument whether the two sides are inseparable. But that isn't really the kind of thing I care about.
I know next to nothing about real Eastern religions, I should admit that now. Buddhism: I call myself atheist-Buddhist because I started with athiesm, and now I agree with every Buddhist I meet. The beliefs and values that I hold most closely match to Buddhism, of the religions that most people (read: I) know about. Hinduism: I read some good things about this a while ago; I can't be completely against any religion that stresses grace and, above all, enlightenment over ignorance. But, I don't know the relationship between the religion and the caste system, etc. I know there's strife between some factions, don't know much more.
Oh! Just read back in yer comment, you said I think the gospel is worthless. I'm open to all suggestions; my religion is incomplete. Please write back!
This is my first actual theological discussion; forgive me if this's all improper form.
I don't think he's doubting Jesus' historical existence, just J's followers' ability to prove it all amounts to anything. I'm God (or at least his son, violating some laws of monotheism), prove I'm not.
IMHO, religion is the operating system of the mind and doesn't need to be based on truth/logic. Mebbe it doesn't matter if I'm not God, if it works for me (OK, bad example). IMHO, eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) are far superior in morals, consistency, and logic to Christianity, which (as a historical fact) rose as a result of (as a Roman-government-backed way to prevent) declining morals. While this is not a bad way for a religion to rise, it's a lot less holy than I'd fall for.
Having religion doesn't require you to believe in god(s), by the way-I consider myself an atheistic Buddhist. In fact, the concept of god is the most variable between religions.
As a final note, I will similarly nominate Siddharta Guatama, also known as the Buddha. His religion, based on careful consideration, has survived far longer than Christianity, spreads only thru peace (not bigotry and savage conquering), and all makes sense w/o the mythological gobbledygook that the Christian Church was always falling back on. What's more, he left a lot more behind - unlike the after-the-fact compilations that make the New Testament, the important Buddhist writings were from his time. Buddhism is based on voluntary self-discipline, self-improvement, and universal love; Christianity is based on fear and love of only other Christians.
Now I'mgonna take a lot of heat for this... unless/.ers respect free speech.
Ada invented the concept of the programmable computer, then worked out the rules for computer programming. W/o her, we'd all be punching on nonprogrammable calculators.
Blaise Pascal made a machine that subtracted, one that added, one that multiplied, and one that divided. Put them together and what do you get?
Truly. One of the great unsung inventors, this guy invented television in his attic, from cardboard and broken junk (trust me, there are photos of the rig), and proceeded to perfect it so it could work clearly across an ocean. The big companies wanted to take credit for the coveted title of television's inventor, so he kept on getting screwed over. Why do you think you never hear of the inventor of TV?
Last year's version number just makes software seem more obsolete faster. Who wants to hold on to an OS with a chintzy title like "Windows 2000", in 2001? Soon we'll see 2003.2, and after February it's outdated. It's planned obsolescence.
As soon as they make a decent compile for anything other than x86, I'll be happy. Unlikely for MSFT, and RealNetworks has proven w/ the DVD fiasco that they can't program worth shit either.
I can't believe they still say "in the news more recently for sentencing hackers to death." Even if that were valid (as the discussion then proved it wasn't) it wouldn't be valid now.
Slashdot Mirror
Just don't hit the magnetic strip too hard...
...half a hundred complaints...
Isn't that much, and
Interviews: CEO of Corel
[or something similar]
Any way you look at it, maybe this shouldn't've been posted...
Yeah, all xcept cds and minidisks are solid-state.
My English teacher said it was one of her favorite books, I read it, and I hated it. Science fiction isn't made great by the LSD-trip imagery or how removed from reality it can be, and Childhood's End is sure pretty unrealistic. No characters behave humanly, and the premises the book is based on are in no way a metaphor for anything in the real world. At least I couldn't see anything. Read Asimov instead, he had a bigger ego but he wrote better books.
Just my angry 2 cents.
What version are you using? It's always worked pretty fine for me. A few glitches (killing the program kills the IDE) but never corrupts anything.
The textbook definition of an atheist is someone who believes that it can be *proven*
I don't know what textbook you're reading, but I suspect it's in yer head. Break the work apart: a- = no/absence of (as opposed to mono- or poly- ); -theist = believer. An athiest is anyone who doesn't believe in god(s). [not capitalized]. Belief in god(s) is a direct belief; in whether it can be proven is more abstract.
that God doesn't exist.
Just what god are you referring to when you capitalize that word? The Christian Jehovah is just one god of many; while this in itself is a semantic mistake it looks like you have a bit of a narrow perspective.
Agnostics on the other hand...
The only agnostic I know just didn't want to argue about religion. Most people believe that it's impossible to prove anything, including some very strongly believing people, and anyone who believes it's possible to prove anything that they can't think of a way to prove is a little confused. I'd say the people who point to faith healers as the proof of their god don't know what the word god means, so they don't count. Just about everyone is an agnostic, by your standard.
Skeptics, w/ a 'k', don't seem to care much in your definition. Skeptics are people who don't trust things that they hear.
Sorry to yell at you, but if yer gonna go around bothering people about their religious beliefs you should at least be enlightened enough to understand the answer. If you're so curious about religion, read a book.
Are you saying there isn't anything on the internet that you find disgusting? I think some things might give the kiddies nightmares. This might lead to inhibitions or something later on.
There's enough violent sexism in the world already, why give the very impressionable 10-to-16 (and sometimes older, in this immature day and age) year-olds material that shows 'unacceptable behaviors' in such a good light?
To "sustain" this "attack", you have to be mature enough to totally discount the realism of something, and experienced enough to know that pornography is not real.
Censorship can go as far as blank newspaper pages, but not because of the religious forces that fuel American censorship. The religious right-wingers will go as far as they can until they run out of fuel (or the rest of America finally finds its religious identity, not too likely).
I don't think it's in our best interests for censorship to grow. If I were a parent, and if, like most American parents, I would do everything in my power to take responsibility for my children out of my own hands, I would probably support it.
So if the only thing holding this technology back is the lackof a way to wreck it with commercialization, why isn't anyone doing anything about it?
Do you want RealNetworks controlling the wavelet business, or do you want it distributed free with every OS out there?
International standards don't have trademark names; what is there to name them after but their year?
The ISO isn't doing this for marketing reasons, if that's what yer thinking. Comets are named after the year they're discovered, too.
Jes read back to my comment, you attacked Hinduism but I nominated Buddha! In fact, you didn't argue any of what I said about Buddhism's superiority! You have some 'spainin' to do! That is, if you wanna have a bigger discussion about this. ;v). Never met him anyway.
I'd like to argue religion w/ someone actually trained in theology, hard to come by for me. My sister's boyfreind's father (my future semi in-law, probably) is a minister, but he's an atheist too, or so I've heard
And: Ada Lovelace better make the Top 10 list, even if Siddharta don't.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Compared to other religions, Christianity rose with a lot of gov't support (prior to the fourth c, too). There were other competing religions that could have made it. The Catholic Church had its own doctrines, not necessarily based on the Bible. Is that counted as part of Christianity?
:v) (not to say the saints were faked, but I could). If I had a lot of charisma, I could get real people to believe me.
I'll bet I can produce a half-dozen people, or at least fake their existence
Faith in someone doesn't have to be someone special/holy; to turn an alcoholic into a missionary (in my view, being a missionary/preacher is "sinful", but I'll overlook that) only takes hope and effort on the alcoholic's part.
To say that Jesus had saints is giving Him a lot of credit; there are a lot of forgotten good Christians but there are even more forgotten good people who didn't need their religion (in the sense that Christianity is a religion) to inspire them.
The Bible declares non-christians to be heathens and therefore not part of mankind, ya can't deny the persecution of peaceful races by crusaders/overzealous missionaries. I believe a person's "soul" (to the extent that I believe in the idea of "soul", don't twist my words) consists mainly of that person's beliefs, values, and ideals. To preach to them and try to change that without some _really_ good justification (e.g., to prevent occuring harm to others) is to violate their soul.
I don't know that much about Christian doctrine, I admit, but there are a lot out there who'd rather hate non-Christians than love everybody and convert the non-Christians. Is it part of the doctrine to hate those who refuse to be converted?
And to dislike someone's values, in my view, is to dislike their soul, so to love them enough to change them is a paradox.
I dunno where yer getting the Popes being self-disciplined... but you say you've "seen where self-discipline goes" (w/ your own two eyes) but I assume you've only read about the saints.
There is a kind of dark side to self-discipline, which is self-loathing. It's all done for self-improvement, and a motivation is always needed for that. I suppose in that light the degree to which it's voluntary is arguable.
I'm not a fervent anti-Christian; I haven't been paying attention to the popes. I prefer not to judge any religion by its figures, just its people. The ends [the people] reflect the means so much that they justify them.
There are a lot of voluntary converts to Islam, too.
Religions can change after they've been introduced; there are a lot of peoples who wouldn't have accepted Christianity unless conquerors had already ripped their past culture to shreds. The conquerors killed with Christianity as their moral excuse; as a larger picture one side of Christianity destroyed the culture and another side replaced it. In the sense of the word "religion" that I use, these are two different religions. The side of Christianity that you argue for does do a good thing in this picture, it would make a good argument whether the two sides are inseparable. But that isn't really the kind of thing I care about.
I know next to nothing about real Eastern religions, I should admit that now.
Buddhism: I call myself atheist-Buddhist because I started with athiesm, and now I agree with every Buddhist I meet. The beliefs and values that I hold most closely match to Buddhism, of the religions that most people (read: I) know about.
Hinduism: I read some good things about this a while ago; I can't be completely against any religion that stresses grace and, above all, enlightenment over ignorance. But, I don't know the relationship between the religion and the caste system, etc. I know there's strife between some factions, don't know much more.
Oh! Just read back in yer comment, you said I think the gospel is worthless. I'm open to all suggestions; my religion is incomplete. Please write back!
This is my first actual theological discussion; forgive me if this's all improper form.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
I don't think he's doubting Jesus' historical existence, just J's followers' ability to prove it all amounts to anything. I'm God (or at least his son, violating some laws of monotheism), prove I'm not.
/.ers respect free speech.
IMHO, religion is the operating system of the mind and doesn't need to be based on truth/logic. Mebbe it doesn't matter if I'm not God, if it works for me (OK, bad example).
IMHO, eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) are far superior in morals, consistency, and logic to Christianity, which (as a historical fact) rose as a result of (as a Roman-government-backed way to prevent) declining morals. While this is not a bad way for a religion to rise, it's a lot less holy than I'd fall for.
Having religion doesn't require you to believe in god(s), by the way-I consider myself an atheistic Buddhist. In fact, the concept of god is the most variable between religions.
As a final note, I will similarly nominate Siddharta Guatama, also known as the Buddha. His religion, based on careful consideration, has survived far longer than Christianity, spreads only thru peace (not bigotry and savage conquering), and all makes sense w/o the mythological gobbledygook that the Christian Church was always falling back on. What's more, he left a lot more behind - unlike the after-the-fact compilations that make the New Testament, the important Buddhist writings were from his time.
Buddhism is based on voluntary self-discipline, self-improvement, and universal love; Christianity is based on fear and love of only other Christians.
Now I'mgonna take a lot of heat for this... unless
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
I should mention that she's also known as Ada Byron. Some posts below refer as that, it affects the tally...
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Ada invented the concept of the programmable computer, then worked out the rules for computer programming. W/o her, we'd all be punching on nonprogrammable calculators.
Blaise Pascal made a machine that subtracted, one that added, one that multiplied, and one that divided. Put them together and what do you get?
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
It's Wernher von Braun, I dunno if being the inventor of the V2 should earn him too much.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Truly. One of the great unsung inventors, this guy invented television in his attic, from cardboard and broken junk (trust me, there are photos of the rig), and proceeded to perfect it so it could work clearly across an ocean. The big companies wanted to take credit for the coveted title of television's inventor, so he kept on getting screwed over.
Why do you think you never hear of the inventor of TV?
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Some guy posts, flames himselfas an Eurotrash idiot, and starts off a fight between American and British anonymous cowards.
Huh?
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
It's all about the soundproofing. Put foam around any vibrating parts to quiet it down, if yer courageous...
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Woops! I was thinking binary! That's
v0x0 001 800000000000 == v3.0,
v0x0 001 C00000000000 == v3.5.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Do it in hexadecimal double-precision floating-point, make'em cry. v0x0 001 100000000000 == v3.0 .
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Let me just boot MacOS X vII.V.IX. Then I'll start MS Office MM revIV.XXIII.
Good thing my CPU is CDXL MHz!
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Last year's version number just makes software seem more obsolete faster. Who wants to hold on to an OS with a chintzy title like "Windows 2000", in 2001? Soon we'll see 2003.2, and after February it's outdated.
It's planned obsolescence.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Dude, don't thinkabout what this'll do to the public in $$, think of the shattered faith in M$!
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
As soon as they make a decent compile for anything other than x86, I'll be happy. Unlikely for MSFT, and RealNetworks has proven w/ the DVD fiasco that they can't program worth shit either.
QT4 is great, just no content.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
I can't believe they still say "in the news more recently for sentencing hackers to death." Even if that were valid (as the discussion then proved it wasn't) it wouldn't be valid now.
First post?
Work together for the Common Geek Good: