I am sorry if I am being rude but what kind of bullshit is that? Are you seriously comparing things like the results of racial discrimination to how the users of a fucking consumer product feel?
Yeah, you are being rude but it's okay, I sort of expected that reaction--it was a risky analogy. In fact, I'm kind of surprised I only got one post like yours. If you'll re-read my post, however, you'll notice that I was careful to point out that I wasn't equating Mac marginalization with the serious nature of racial discrimination, I was only illustrating how discrimination will often make those who have been discriminated against develop a sense of community pride. And in the case of Mac users, perhaps an overly-reactive one.
Hah, yeah, no doubt: the Gnome fans hate me for using the K desktop, the Windows fans hate me for using Linux and the Gnome, K and Mac fans all hate me for being a traitor and using XP. Makes me glad I gave up on the OS wars when I got out of the IT business years ago but I have to admit to still getting a certain sense of Schadenfreude whenever I read a story about things not going well for Microsoft.
black*, foreign [...] and (arguably) gay people are born the way they are; they cannot change that
No argument there, I wasn't equating Mac marginalization with the discrimination that blacks and gays have experienced (and was careful to point that out in my post), I was just making a comparison to illustrate how minorities will often develop a sense of community pride in order to band together in the face of discrimination.
The second mistake I see is that the Free and/or Open Source (internal feuds do exist; let them sort themselves out) Software fanboys are even more plentiful than Apple ones.
That may very well be true--reading Slashdot regularly certainly suggests it--but it's not really relevant to the topic presented here.
That PC crap hits my nerves; I'm black, but I was born in Brazil; I'm not a fucking African-American, I'm BLACK, thank you very much!
While understand your point of view on this, I live in the U.S. and purposely chose "African-American" not to be PC but because of the history of vicious racism we have here. If I had used "black," that might have been construed to include residents of other countries where race hatred is not nearly so virulent.
The real reason Mac fans tend to be overly defensive is that they've felt marginalized by software and hardware vendors for years due to Microsoft's dominance in the desktop computing arena. I'm not blaming the vendors, sometimes fiscal reality precludes making a version of their product for a relatively small market, but it can be frustrating to Mac users who are convinced that their platform is superior to what Microsoft has to offer but still have to wait months or years, if ever, to get their hands on a desirable product.
It's not unlike other minorities--African-Americans, gays etc., (not that Mac marginalization has anywhere near the same significance as the often violent discrimination that gays and blacks have experienced in their lifetimes)--who react to discrimination by the majority by developing a sense community "pride."
Granted, though, many of Apple's fans go way overboard in it's defense. This, BTW, is from a long-time Mac user and recovering "rabid" fanboy who converted from Microsoft way back in DOS days who now uses OS X, Kubuntu and Windows XP interchangeably as necessary.
it can be assumed that any planet in the earth region of a system will be made up with similar metals to earth. So no planet is going to need our resources
Not our natural resources, perhaps--which is probably a good thing, seeing how we need them here--but who knows what we might have here in abundance that might be scarce and of great value on another planet? I once read a story in which the commander of a fleet of alien ships visiting Earth discovered that we had a nearly inexhaustible supply of highly-concentrated fuel for their spaceships. It was called "cat shit" here.
While seriously I doubt that particular scenario would actually happen, it's a good illustration of the possibilities interstellar trade. We may have some product or service that could be in huge demand elsewhere in the galaxy.
Assuming they don't just find us humans to be good eatin'...
the Brits will happily take the Euro as soon as the US starts using the metric system
We already are, it's just not official yet. The metric system has been introduced here incrementally and by stealth. For example, my family has two cars, both built by Ford in the U.S. for the U.S. market, both designed completely to the metric system standard. GM cars are metric as well.
I can't even remember the last time I used my imperial measurement wrenches on a car.
Nothing lasts very long. Not stainless steel, not titanium, and certainly not any kind of mechanism. Constant maintenance and replacement is required in a marine environment
As a maintenance guy working for a company that extracts salt from sea water via solar evaporation, I can confirm this one hundred per cent. We have a saying: "at the salt works, everything rusts." As a result, we frequently resort to low-tech solutions straight out of the 19th century, such as wooden bearings, and yet can still barely keep up with the disintegration of the plant.
you are cherry-picking entries from your dictionary and then using it to support your claim.
What claim are you referring to here? I think that the only thing I've claimed in response to your post is that the word "atheist" means "without god," which I supported with etymology from the Oxford American Dictionary. The full text of the OAD's definition was "the theory or belief (italics mine) that God does not exist." If you have an argument with that, perhaps you should take it up with them. I will admit that I failed stated my source in that post, for which I apologize.
let's assume you are right about all of your silly definitions. so an atheist is "without god." what does that have to do with either belief, disbelief, or lack of belief? what does that have to do with atheism claiming "there is no god" (your words)?
How about the following, a direct copy-and-paste from the Wikipedia article to which you provided the link:
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[10] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"
That seems pretty clear-cut to me.
I really doubt that there are very many people who are strong atheists. I'd love to see some evidence either way.
I'd say the guy to whom my initial post was aimed is certainly one. Check back on some of his replies to my post and I think you'll agree. In any case, what you're saying about strong atheists vs weak atheists is really pretty much what I was trying to get at in the first place when I responded to the guy's.sig that bashed agnostics. I was just tweaking him a bit, pointing out that his form of strong atheism was just as much a belief system (hence my italics in the OAD definition) as any religion. I'm a bit dismayed that the whole thing has gotten out of hand.
you're very sure of yourself, but, perhaps instead of assuming you know what you're talking about, you should put some weight into the thoughts of others, and do some research, as well.
As a matter of fact, I didn't assume anything. To be sure I was right, I looked it up in the nearest dictionary at hand, the Oxford American Dictionary.
it's also rather evident your 'definition' which supposedly "fact" is blatantly wrong.
Wrong? Damn, those guys at Oxford are gonna be pissed...
you might define it like that, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to understand you when you try to use words in your own special way.
What's so special about the way I used it? You're doing nothing but splitting semantical hairs here in an attempt to support a point of view that's unsupportable.
it means disbelief in god or gods. that's nothing to do with belief that gods don't exist.
Boy, talk about using words in a special way. That seems totally self-contradictory to me.
I'm not sure how "without god" says anything conclusively about that.
Seems plain enough--an atheist is "without god." If you don't get that, then that's your problem.
What I believe is that you should feel free to do what is good for you and others, by your own free will and not because some asshat said if you don't, you'll go to hell.
No argument with you there. Otherwise, though, methinks you protest too much.
you claim gravity is science and deduction that there is no god based on observable evidence is not?
Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I'm an agnostic--a doubter, not a believer. I'm not arguing for the existence of god, only that it's something that, by it's very nature, can be neither proved or disproved and that to proclaim either possibility is a fact is nothing more than a belief system. In science, absence of proof can't be taken for proof of absence. For a long time, there was no evidence available that atoms existed so, naturally their existence was denied. That didn't make them any less real, of course.
god is a myth so people sleep well at night
Personally, I suspect that god is a myth so people feel better about dying.
That's science, buddy. There's no irrefutable evidence of how gravity works, but we all pretty much trust that it works.
No, it's exactly the opposite of science, which is the point I was trying to make. There may be no irrefutable evidence of how gravity works but there's a pretty damn good theory thanks to the Dr. Einstein who's equation you mentioned. Atheism, on the other hand, has nothing going for it other than a certain amount of anectdotal evidence. To believe with certainty in something that can't be proven is a matter of faith, just like a religion.
Are you still going to claim religion is provably true?
I challange you to re-read my post and point out where I made any such claim. Of course religion is not provably true, it's a matter of faith. But in the absence of irrefutable proof of the non-existance of god, so is atheism.
You should at least consider if there is any evidence for this imaginary friend in the sky you claim to have.
Once again, I challenge you to point out where I made any claim to having an "imaginary friend." As a matter of fact, I am an agnostic. I doubt the existence of a god but I can't actually prove that one does not exist. And neither can you. You may believe that to be the case but then it becomes just that--a matter of belief in something that can't be proven.
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. Agnosticism is the absence of decisiveness.
Atheism is a religion because it hinges on something that can't be proven, ie: that there is no god. In the absence of irrefutable evidence, to declare decisively that god does not exist is just as much a matter of faith as claiming that there is one.
I was completely amazed on how high-tech the trucks are these days. It seemed every physical switch had some sort of digital representation through the CAN bus.
Yeah, the old days of trucks being as primitive as a hammer are long gone (which is maybe more than you can say for us people who drive 'em...).
It's interesting to watch all the instruments run through their self-test routines whenever you boot--I mean, start--the engine. About the only old-fashioned mechanical gauges left are the ones that monitor the air pressure in the brake systems. I'm sure that's for reliability reasons but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that they have some sort of digital connection that sends info to the main computer as well.
It's probably the most boring drive anyone could ever experience in Texas.
It is pretty dull and a couple of the little towns you go through are downright depressing but, personally, I'd rather drive that route than Interstate 10 between El Paso and Midland.
Better have a diesel engine in this case. Nothing electric to be hacked.
Actually, modern diesels are as computer-driven as gasoline engines. Maybe even more so in the case of large trucks--on every 18-wheeler I've driven in the past ten years, there was no physical linkage between the accelerator pedal ("the hammer," in trucker's lingo) and the engine. Instead, there was a digital position sensor and a multi-conductor cable that fed data to the ECU. All the gauges on the instrument panel were computer-controlled as well.
Former long-haul Big Truck driver here, too (I still drive one locally on occasion), and I often carried high-value loads. One time I hauled a load of cell phones from Texas to California and Motorola paid to have a pair of former FBI agents in a black Lincoln Towncar tail me the entire way. I was driving as part of a team then so there were no stops except for fuel. I was put off by the idea it at first--what, you don't trust me?--but after a while, it made me feel safe. That long stretch of two-lane between Ft. Worth and Amarillo seems pretty remote at 0200...
Meanwhile, the Macbooks look sleek and well designed...
A bit of advice: be sure to buy the MacBook Pro, not the consumer-level MacBook as I did.
I've been buying and using Macs since the late Eighties and until I got my MacBook, I rarely had a problem with any of them, let alone one that I couldn't fix myself. But even though it's a very nice, speedy little unit when it's working well, it's been uncharacteristically problematic with three (count 'em) trips back to Apple for repairs. About the only part of it that's original now is the case.
On the other hand, I've heard nothing but good things about the MacBook Pro, so spend the extra bucks and save yourself some headaches.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you are being rude but it's okay, I sort of expected that reaction--it was a risky analogy. In fact, I'm kind of surprised I only got one post like yours. If you'll re-read my post, however, you'll notice that I was careful to point out that I wasn't equating Mac marginalization with the serious nature of racial discrimination, I was only illustrating how discrimination will often make those who have been discriminated against develop a sense of community pride. And in the case of Mac users, perhaps an overly-reactive one.
Hah, yeah, no doubt: the Gnome fans hate me for using the K desktop, the Windows fans hate me for using Linux and the Gnome, K and Mac fans all hate me for being a traitor and using XP. Makes me glad I gave up on the OS wars when I got out of the IT business years ago but I have to admit to still getting a certain sense of Schadenfreude whenever I read a story about things not going well for Microsoft.
No argument there, I wasn't equating Mac marginalization with the discrimination that blacks and gays have experienced (and was careful to point that out in my post), I was just making a comparison to illustrate how minorities will often develop a sense of community pride in order to band together in the face of discrimination.
That may very well be true--reading Slashdot regularly certainly suggests it--but it's not really relevant to the topic presented here.
While understand your point of view on this, I live in the U.S. and purposely chose "African-American" not to be PC but because of the history of vicious racism we have here. If I had used "black," that might have been construed to include residents of other countries where race hatred is not nearly so virulent.
The real reason Mac fans tend to be overly defensive is that they've felt marginalized by software and hardware vendors for years due to Microsoft's dominance in the desktop computing arena. I'm not blaming the vendors, sometimes fiscal reality precludes making a version of their product for a relatively small market, but it can be frustrating to Mac users who are convinced that their platform is superior to what Microsoft has to offer but still have to wait months or years, if ever, to get their hands on a desirable product.
It's not unlike other minorities--African-Americans, gays etc., (not that Mac marginalization has anywhere near the same significance as the often violent discrimination that gays and blacks have experienced in their lifetimes)--who react to discrimination by the majority by developing a sense community "pride."
Granted, though, many of Apple's fans go way overboard in it's defense. This, BTW, is from a long-time Mac user and recovering "rabid" fanboy who converted from Microsoft way back in DOS days who now uses OS X, Kubuntu and Windows XP interchangeably as necessary.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Not our natural resources, perhaps--which is probably a good thing, seeing how we need them here--but who knows what we might have here in abundance that might be scarce and of great value on another planet? I once read a story in which the commander of a fleet of alien ships visiting Earth discovered that we had a nearly inexhaustible supply of highly-concentrated fuel for their spaceships. It was called "cat shit" here.
While seriously I doubt that particular scenario would actually happen, it's a good illustration of the possibilities interstellar trade. We may have some product or service that could be in huge demand elsewhere in the galaxy.
Assuming they don't just find us humans to be good eatin'...
We already are, it's just not official yet. The metric system has been introduced here incrementally and by stealth. For example, my family has two cars, both built by Ford in the U.S. for the U.S. market, both designed completely to the metric system standard. GM cars are metric as well.
I can't even remember the last time I used my imperial measurement wrenches on a car.
As a maintenance guy working for a company that extracts salt from sea water via solar evaporation, I can confirm this one hundred per cent. We have a saying: "at the salt works, everything rusts." As a result, we frequently resort to low-tech solutions straight out of the 19th century, such as wooden bearings, and yet can still barely keep up with the disintegration of the plant.
I think you got that backwards...
I can imagine. But it would be hard to use without bringing down, uh, Imperial interference, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, exactly what I was thinking. The optics in that thing must be amazing.
See, here's where you went wrong. Jobs wears black mock turtlenecks and blue jeans.
No way you're gonna pass for an Apple Fanboy if you can't get those two basic things right ;-)
What claim are you referring to here? I think that the only thing I've claimed in response to your post is that the word "atheist" means "without god," which I supported with etymology from the Oxford American Dictionary. The full text of the OAD's definition was "the theory or belief (italics mine) that God does not exist." If you have an argument with that, perhaps you should take it up with them. I will admit that I failed stated my source in that post, for which I apologize.
How about the following, a direct copy-and-paste from the Wikipedia article to which you provided the link:That seems pretty clear-cut to me.I'd say the guy to whom my initial post was aimed is certainly one. Check back on some of his replies to my post and I think you'll agree. In any case, what you're saying about strong atheists vs weak atheists is really pretty much what I was trying to get at in the first place when I responded to the guy's .sig that bashed agnostics. I was just tweaking him a bit, pointing out that his form of strong atheism was just as much a belief system (hence my italics in the OAD definition) as any religion. I'm a bit dismayed that the whole thing has gotten out of hand.
As a matter of fact, I didn't assume anything. To be sure I was right, I looked it up in the nearest dictionary at hand, the Oxford American Dictionary.
Wrong? Damn, those guys at Oxford are gonna be pissed...
What's so special about the way I used it? You're doing nothing but splitting semantical hairs here in an attempt to support a point of view that's unsupportable.
Boy, talk about using words in a special way. That seems totally self-contradictory to me.
Seems plain enough--an atheist is "without god." If you don't get that, then that's your problem.
No argument with you there. Otherwise, though, methinks you protest too much.
Personally, I suspect that god is a myth so people feel better about dying.
In fact, the very word means "without god." It's from the Greek atheos, from a-, 'without' + theos, 'god'.
No, it's exactly the opposite of science, which is the point I was trying to make. There may be no irrefutable evidence of how gravity works but there's a pretty damn good theory thanks to the Dr. Einstein who's equation you mentioned. Atheism, on the other hand, has nothing going for it other than a certain amount of anectdotal evidence. To believe with certainty in something that can't be proven is a matter of faith, just like a religion.
I challange you to re-read my post and point out where I made any such claim. Of course religion is not provably true, it's a matter of faith. But in the absence of irrefutable proof of the non-existance of god, so is atheism.
Once again, I challenge you to point out where I made any claim to having an "imaginary friend." As a matter of fact, I am an agnostic. I doubt the existence of a god but I can't actually prove that one does not exist. And neither can you. You may believe that to be the case but then it becomes just that--a matter of belief in something that can't be proven.
In other words, a religion.
Atheism is a religion because it hinges on something that can't be proven, ie: that there is no god. In the absence of irrefutable evidence, to declare decisively that god does not exist is just as much a matter of faith as claiming that there is one.
Yeah, the old days of trucks being as primitive as a hammer are long gone (which is maybe more than you can say for us people who drive 'em...).
It's interesting to watch all the instruments run through their self-test routines whenever you boot--I mean, start--the engine. About the only old-fashioned mechanical gauges left are the ones that monitor the air pressure in the brake systems. I'm sure that's for reliability reasons but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that they have some sort of digital connection that sends info to the main computer as well.
It is pretty dull and a couple of the little towns you go through are downright depressing but, personally, I'd rather drive that route than Interstate 10 between El Paso and Midland.
Actually, modern diesels are as computer-driven as gasoline engines. Maybe even more so in the case of large trucks--on every 18-wheeler I've driven in the past ten years, there was no physical linkage between the accelerator pedal ("the hammer," in trucker's lingo) and the engine. Instead, there was a digital position sensor and a multi-conductor cable that fed data to the ECU. All the gauges on the instrument panel were computer-controlled as well.
Former long-haul Big Truck driver here, too (I still drive one locally on occasion), and I often carried high-value loads. One time I hauled a load of cell phones from Texas to California and Motorola paid to have a pair of former FBI agents in a black Lincoln Towncar tail me the entire way. I was driving as part of a team then so there were no stops except for fuel. I was put off by the idea it at first--what, you don't trust me?--but after a while, it made me feel safe. That long stretch of two-lane between Ft. Worth and Amarillo seems pretty remote at 0200...
A bit of advice: be sure to buy the MacBook Pro, not the consumer-level MacBook as I did.
I've been buying and using Macs since the late Eighties and until I got my MacBook, I rarely had a problem with any of them, let alone one that I couldn't fix myself. But even though it's a very nice, speedy little unit when it's working well, it's been uncharacteristically problematic with three (count 'em) trips back to Apple for repairs. About the only part of it that's original now is the case.
On the other hand, I've heard nothing but good things about the MacBook Pro, so spend the extra bucks and save yourself some headaches.