Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, Hitler didn't pick Jews arbitrarily and they weren't the only ones he picked. But he also decided he wanted to conquer every other nation. That is more along the lines of what I was specifically referring to... if Islamic wackos want to have an Islamic world then they aren't going to settle for being nice to us just because they can't find something to blame us for. Human beings are amazingly adept at making up things or skewing things so that they can blame it on someone else. It happens all the time in politics in the US; I can't imagine it's a trait/skill that only happens in the "white West."
In general, that was actually my "point." I just didn't want to really specifically target Muslims, because it does not only apply to them. Currently? Yes, IMO, it does. But it seems to be a problem with humans, not a problem with only humans who believe this one particular thing for at any time in history (i.e., other belief sets have raised these sorts of fanatical we-hate-everyone-else-who-disagrees-with-us people).
then address the real reasons for hating your society
That depends on what they hate you for. Some people do indeed hate people for their ideology. It's happened quite often in history. You think the Jews' problem was something other than what Hitler believed, not what the Jews believed? Or France, for that matter?
Pulling out the "terrorists just hate the US because of what the US has done" should be based on what the said terrorist has said, not based on what we think the US does wrong. Do I think the US does things wrong? Oh, definitely. But I don't think we can assume terrorists would stop hating the US if the US fixed things they did wrong. And it hasn't worked that way for a long time. Russia appeared to hate the US for a time because it saw the US as an obstruction to what Russia wanted (world communism). Hitler hated everybody because they stood in the way of what he wanted (a German/Arian world)...
But I do agree with most of your last paragraph... I wouldn't mind finding a non-tax-cheating Congress member, a "good person" politician, etc. And I'm all for lowering power abuse and crime.
I know there are inherent differences in NTFS and FAT filesystem security locally. That makes little difference when you run as administrator, of course. And I specifically said online security... if I run a virus or trojan as administrator it makes little difference that I'm using FAT...
Anyways. Moot point. Main idea is that's Microsoft's job to fix that. The user doesn't need to know that. The user needs to know about online security, recognizing phishing, etc... that's more what they'll run into than FAT vs. NTFS...
I didn't say it doesn't matter if they don't know anything about how their system is set up. I said they didn't have to know if they are using FAT or NTFS. Tell me... let's say they have a FAT32 based installation for some strange reason. What difference to online security does that make? What practical difference does it make? Sure, if they want to CHANGE their system it might make a difference, but most people pay people to do that, not do it themselves. They don't have the time to learn how and they don't have the time to do it. That's why IT exists.
I agree with you about evidence, at any rate, so far... I think people can agree on the definition and yet disagree about what is really evidence for or against a particular idea based on their own biases or presuppositions.
I don't see anything wrong with a reasonable amount of self-pride - it's narcissism that causes problems.
This again goes back to definitions... something significantly less than a narcissistic pride can create huge problems quite easily. Like not being willing to admit you were wrong or something like that...
I thought you were doing the typical "fixing Windows is easy, just install Linux!" joke... which appeared to fail based on the first hit, since it was how to install Windows;)
As for FAT vs. NTFS, how many people know the difference between disc and drum brakes? I don't know if knowing about filesystems is a requirement for using a computer - or that it even should be. If you want people to switch to Linux (hey, I think it's a good idea too, most of the time:) ), requiring them to read about filesystems is going to be a problem. They don't care... and don't WANT to know, it is a waste of their time.
Which is why "defaults" are important. Even when I install Linux I'm ok with either reiserfs or ext3 (or ext4). The average user doesn't care if it's a journaled filesystem or not. The average user doesn't care about how the hard drive is partitioned. The average user probably has no idea what "partitioning" means. And why should they care anyways? I don't know half of what my mechanic talks to me about either... I'm glad he knows, but at the end of the day I just want my car to keep working and be a good car...
The problem with Windows users is not that they don't know about NTFS, FAT, partitioning, disk drives, SATA vs. PATA, or what-have-you. The problem with Windows users would be more along the lines of not being able to tell - or not caring to? - what a phishing attack is... thinking downloading and installing programs from who knows where is a good idea... thinking backups are for "important" people and they don't need to back things up - or if they do it's really just software that causes problems, not hardware [ha. I just had a 2 year old SATA drive die on me])...
If we are going to educate users, I can think of many other things I'd rather tell them, hehe. Incidentally, I usually start with explaining how exactly folders and files work. Most people could not explain how to find their "desktop" folder certainly could not explain how the folder/file hierarchy works. Once people understand that, it makes them soooo much more independent and not asking "I downloaded a picture but I can't find it, where did it go?" every other day:)
Uhhh, did you look at the first hit? Might want to proofread your Google links before using it to make a point...
How to Upgrade Linux to Windows XP | eHow.com
How to Upgrade Linux to Windows XP. Since Linux operating systems use different file systems than Windows, the hard drive must be formatted with either...
www.ehow.com Computers Operating Systems Windows - Cached - Similar -
Fire away, I'm not sure the definition you are referring to, hehe...
Ideology should not be a basis for accepting or rejecting evidence.
I quite agree. I see that on both sides of most arguments. Probably because it seems to be human nature to be stupid and think one is far more important than one actually is... aka "proud," but "pride" seems to get thrown around as good and bad, depending on the culture and times and whatever. Let me rephrase that: your own pride tends to get thrown around as good or bad. Other people's pride seems to always be bad when it grates against your own...
We can argue back and forth about who has evidence, since the tendency is to simply dismiss the other side's evidence as non-evidence... with any debate, that's the case. Just look at the AGW debate.
I understand the difference between the two apparent definitions of atheism... and dictionaries tend to list both, so it's difficult to know what someone means when they simply say they are atheist.
It is not, however, an acceptance of the opposite claim.
completely different country. In other words, many of our words seem to have gotten quite broad in meaning... seems atheis* words are that way. As well as "Christian" for that matter, heh... used to be a description of how someone acted - Little Christs - now it's just a belief set that encompasses people who act nothing like a little Christ...
That may be so, however, you've got a bit of a selection bias there. First of all, a large percentage of people who self-identify as "agnostic" are technically atheists. Second of all, you're intentionally selecting a subset of atheists who are more likely to hold the belief you're looking for.
That is true, I looked for and found a subset of atheists.
would be usurper that fortunately also suffered from bad balance and/or poor spacial awareness/maneuvering skills.
Well, not really... apparently he just lost it in the *cough* heat *cough* of the moment. Gollum was quite physically adept and quite aware of his surroundings.
No, it's illegal no matter what. You only get government/society-imposed consequences if you get caught. An act does not become illegal because you were found out.
I don't argue that it can't be proven. I argue that compelling arguments can be made based on evidence, but that is a far cry from proven. Give me some even somewhat rational evidence of Xenu on the edge of the solar system. I doubt you have too much.
Atheism is a belief. It is a belief that there are no deities/gods/whatever. Have you proven that there aren't? No. Have you proven there are? No. So at best, you can simply say you don't know. So either your belief is misnamed "atheism" or atheism is a belief.
Or my definition of atheism is wrong. I have found that most "atheists" that are outspoken truly believe there are no such things as deities or gods, not simply reject the belief in it. It's hard to remain neutral on things.
So I guess natural selection is failing in your eyes, since we still have "Religious Neanderthals." And you seem to put atheism as a tenant and pillar of intelligence.
Pretty interesting. Some of the darkest moments in history, it seems, were when a culture or country put emphasis on single belief systems as determining whether someone was "good enough" to live... or at least, live at the same standard as those "privileged" people. Atheism is a belief, since God has not been disproven. Sure, you can argue it's more or less logically sound, makes more or less sense, but when it come down to it - since God is not something you can taste, see, feel, touch, etc., it's hard to be proven or disproven by science.
And yet it seems you would consider atheism to be a mark of intelligence and higher thinking/learning... hum.
Mormon theology is a lot different from "mainstream" Christianity than just being non-Trinitarian. Of course, mainstream Christianity isn't exactly Biblical either, for the most part...
We have not managed to create life, yet... let me know when that happens. Until then, we are at best copying what is already existing, and usually copying it worse than it originally was. Example: flight. Birds fly way better and way more efficiently than we do still, it would seem.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, Hitler didn't pick Jews arbitrarily and they weren't the only ones he picked. But he also decided he wanted to conquer every other nation. That is more along the lines of what I was specifically referring to... if Islamic wackos want to have an Islamic world then they aren't going to settle for being nice to us just because they can't find something to blame us for. Human beings are amazingly adept at making up things or skewing things so that they can blame it on someone else. It happens all the time in politics in the US; I can't imagine it's a trait/skill that only happens in the "white West."
In general, that was actually my "point." I just didn't want to really specifically target Muslims, because it does not only apply to them. Currently? Yes, IMO, it does. But it seems to be a problem with humans, not a problem with only humans who believe this one particular thing for at any time in history (i.e., other belief sets have raised these sorts of fanatical we-hate-everyone-else-who-disagrees-with-us people).
then address the real reasons for hating your society
That depends on what they hate you for. Some people do indeed hate people for their ideology. It's happened quite often in history. You think the Jews' problem was something other than what Hitler believed, not what the Jews believed? Or France, for that matter?
Pulling out the "terrorists just hate the US because of what the US has done" should be based on what the said terrorist has said, not based on what we think the US does wrong. Do I think the US does things wrong? Oh, definitely. But I don't think we can assume terrorists would stop hating the US if the US fixed things they did wrong. And it hasn't worked that way for a long time. Russia appeared to hate the US for a time because it saw the US as an obstruction to what Russia wanted (world communism). Hitler hated everybody because they stood in the way of what he wanted (a German/Arian world)...
But I do agree with most of your last paragraph... I wouldn't mind finding a non-tax-cheating Congress member, a "good person" politician, etc. And I'm all for lowering power abuse and crime.
If that's really Red Star, then it doesn't look terribly much like Windows. Similar, yes.
mentions that the browser "my country" is actually a fork of FF
I know there are inherent differences in NTFS and FAT filesystem security locally. That makes little difference when you run as administrator, of course. And I specifically said online security... if I run a virus or trojan as administrator it makes little difference that I'm using FAT...
Anyways. Moot point. Main idea is that's Microsoft's job to fix that. The user doesn't need to know that. The user needs to know about online security, recognizing phishing, etc... that's more what they'll run into than FAT vs. NTFS...
I didn't say it doesn't matter if they don't know anything about how their system is set up. I said they didn't have to know if they are using FAT or NTFS. Tell me... let's say they have a FAT32 based installation for some strange reason. What difference to online security does that make? What practical difference does it make? Sure, if they want to CHANGE their system it might make a difference, but most people pay people to do that, not do it themselves. They don't have the time to learn how and they don't have the time to do it. That's why IT exists.
Granted. It sounded like you were giving him chronic bad balance as a character trait... :)
Another note to self: don't inherit a ring that everyone else wants and will kill you for... oh, and if an eagle flies by, ALWAYS GET ON IT. ;)
I agree with you about evidence, at any rate, so far... I think people can agree on the definition and yet disagree about what is really evidence for or against a particular idea based on their own biases or presuppositions.
I don't see anything wrong with a reasonable amount of self-pride - it's narcissism that causes problems.
This again goes back to definitions... something significantly less than a narcissistic pride can create huge problems quite easily. Like not being willing to admit you were wrong or something like that...
I thought you were doing the typical "fixing Windows is easy, just install Linux!" joke... which appeared to fail based on the first hit, since it was how to install Windows ;)
As for FAT vs. NTFS, how many people know the difference between disc and drum brakes? I don't know if knowing about filesystems is a requirement for using a computer - or that it even should be. If you want people to switch to Linux (hey, I think it's a good idea too, most of the time :) ), requiring them to read about filesystems is going to be a problem. They don't care... and don't WANT to know, it is a waste of their time.
Which is why "defaults" are important. Even when I install Linux I'm ok with either reiserfs or ext3 (or ext4). The average user doesn't care if it's a journaled filesystem or not. The average user doesn't care about how the hard drive is partitioned. The average user probably has no idea what "partitioning" means. And why should they care anyways? I don't know half of what my mechanic talks to me about either... I'm glad he knows, but at the end of the day I just want my car to keep working and be a good car...
The problem with Windows users is not that they don't know about NTFS, FAT, partitioning, disk drives, SATA vs. PATA, or what-have-you. The problem with Windows users would be more along the lines of not being able to tell - or not caring to? - what a phishing attack is... thinking downloading and installing programs from who knows where is a good idea... thinking backups are for "important" people and they don't need to back things up - or if they do it's really just software that causes problems, not hardware [ha. I just had a 2 year old SATA drive die on me])...
If we are going to educate users, I can think of many other things I'd rather tell them, hehe. Incidentally, I usually start with explaining how exactly folders and files work. Most people could not explain how to find their "desktop" folder certainly could not explain how the folder/file hierarchy works. Once people understand that, it makes them soooo much more independent and not asking "I downloaded a picture but I can't find it, where did it go?" every other day :)
Uhhh, did you look at the first hit? Might want to proofread your Google links before using it to make a point...
How to Upgrade Linux to Windows XP | eHow.com ...
How to Upgrade Linux to Windows XP. Since Linux operating systems use different file systems than Windows, the hard drive must be formatted with either
www.ehow.com Computers Operating Systems Windows - Cached - Similar -
The word "evidence" has a pretty clear meaning.
Fire away, I'm not sure the definition you are referring to, hehe...
Ideology should not be a basis for accepting or rejecting evidence.
I quite agree. I see that on both sides of most arguments. Probably because it seems to be human nature to be stupid and think one is far more important than one actually is... aka "proud," but "pride" seems to get thrown around as good and bad, depending on the culture and times and whatever. Let me rephrase that: your own pride tends to get thrown around as good or bad. Other people's pride seems to always be bad when it grates against your own...
Fixed that for you.
We can argue back and forth about who has evidence, since the tendency is to simply dismiss the other side's evidence as non-evidence... with any debate, that's the case. Just look at the AGW debate.
I understand the difference between the two apparent definitions of atheism... and dictionaries tend to list both, so it's difficult to know what someone means when they simply say they are atheist.
It is not, however, an acceptance of the opposite claim.
completely different country. In other words, many of our words seem to have gotten quite broad in meaning... seems atheis* words are that way. As well as "Christian" for that matter, heh... used to be a description of how someone acted - Little Christs - now it's just a belief set that encompasses people who act nothing like a little Christ...
That may be so, however, you've got a bit of a selection bias there. First of all, a large percentage of people who self-identify as "agnostic" are technically atheists. Second of all, you're intentionally selecting a subset of atheists who are more likely to hold the belief you're looking for.
That is true, I looked for and found a subset of atheists.
would be usurper that fortunately also suffered from bad balance and/or poor spacial awareness/maneuvering skills.
Well, not really... apparently he just lost it in the *cough* heat *cough* of the moment. Gollum was quite physically adept and quite aware of his surroundings.
No, it's illegal no matter what. You only get government/society-imposed consequences if you get caught. An act does not become illegal because you were found out.
I don't argue that it can't be proven. I argue that compelling arguments can be made based on evidence, but that is a far cry from proven. Give me some even somewhat rational evidence of Xenu on the edge of the solar system. I doubt you have too much.
Atheism is a belief. It is a belief that there are no deities/gods/whatever. Have you proven that there aren't? No. Have you proven there are? No. So at best, you can simply say you don't know. So either your belief is misnamed "atheism" or atheism is a belief.
Or my definition of atheism is wrong. I have found that most "atheists" that are outspoken truly believe there are no such things as deities or gods, not simply reject the belief in it. It's hard to remain neutral on things.
Hehe... so I did.
Atheism paying rent to intelligence is an awfully funny philosophical picture though...
So I guess natural selection is failing in your eyes, since we still have "Religious Neanderthals." And you seem to put atheism as a tenant and pillar of intelligence.
Pretty interesting. Some of the darkest moments in history, it seems, were when a culture or country put emphasis on single belief systems as determining whether someone was "good enough" to live... or at least, live at the same standard as those "privileged" people. Atheism is a belief, since God has not been disproven. Sure, you can argue it's more or less logically sound, makes more or less sense, but when it come down to it - since God is not something you can taste, see, feel, touch, etc., it's hard to be proven or disproven by science.
And yet it seems you would consider atheism to be a mark of intelligence and higher thinking/learning... hum.
Mod away - i have karma to burn.
A new study has been released that shows burning karma produces greenhouse gases! You should be ashamed.
Mormon theology is a lot different from "mainstream" Christianity than just being non-Trinitarian. Of course, mainstream Christianity isn't exactly Biblical either, for the most part...
early 00s with nostalgia.
Erm, what happened to the late 00s? We're already in 2010...
If he couldn't afford to live without his $28/hr job, I doubt he can afford to buy a $20k airplane anytime soon.
You mean addresses and stuff like this? From Amazon's site?
Amazon.com's Copyright Agent for notice of claims of copyright infringement on its site can be reached as follows:
Copyright Agent
Amazon.com Legal Department
P.O. Box 81226
Seattle, WA 98108
phone: (206) 266-4064
fax: (206) 266-7010
e-mail: copyright@amazon.com
Courier address:
Copyright Agent
Amazon.com Legal Department
1200 12th Avenue South, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98144-2734
USA
Took me 5 seconds to find that one. Not sure about generic customer service, execs, or something like that...
Quite true. But speed is not the pinnacle of engineering, is it?
How about something as controllable as, say, a hummingbird's flight? And as small.
through whom such grandiose works are created
We have not managed to create life, yet... let me know when that happens. Until then, we are at best copying what is already existing, and usually copying it worse than it originally was. Example: flight. Birds fly way better and way more efficiently than we do still, it would seem.