That's irrelevant. The entity demanding such a sacrifice is a psychopath, no matter whether they change their mind or not after. The entity that obliges the psychopath is a nutcase and should be put in jail for his actions.
He could have turned his back on God and that would not be a death sentence.
He should not have turned his back on God, he should have spat God in the face and told him to f#ck off. If God persisted Abraham should have killed God. That was the right thing to do. Abraham did everything wrong. God should have been killed that day. Abraham's God is worse than ISIS.
In a case where "the truth" is pretty much unknowable, that position is itself a belief.
How so? Is the non-belief in a deistic invisible pink unicorn also a belief? How about the non-belief in a theistic green tea pot in orbit around the sun somewhere between 68 and 203 astronomical units from the center of the sun?
Do you understand the difference between a- and anti-. Believing there is no God is non-scientific nonsense, you can't prove a negative. An atheist relates to a divine entity in the same way he relates to all the other (infinite number of) things that is unlikely. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, but I also don't believe in red tea-cups in orbit between 75 and 253 astronomical units from the center of the sun. This lack of belief can not create extremism. If on the other hand I felt that I knew that God doesn't exist (as I mentioned non-scientific nonsense) then I can become extremist. On the other hand, that isn't atheism, that would more correctly be described as anti-theism.
Which is why they form clubs?
Perhaps to try to defend science from the militant Christian nuts?
Communism is just as absurd as Christianity, and for the same reason: neither takes human nature into account
They are as absurd, but not for that reason. The absurdity of Christianity, or most religions and Socialism, Communism and some other political beliefs lie in the fact that they subscribe to "The Truth". This is why it is impossible for Atheism to become extremist. An atheist has no beliefs. Atheism is an ideology in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Many Christians will point to, for example. Communist Stalin for the evils that Atheism can inspire. Since "atheism" and "nothing" are equivalent, the very notion that it can inspire behavior is absurd. Stalin was a murderous bastard because of his religious notions (Communism) not for the absence of such.
that one of the basis of most religions is the freedom to choose
Outside of Buddhism (which isn't really a religion, I can't think of a single religion where this is true. Christianity? Nope. It celebrates that Abraham who, when God demanded Abraham murder his son, obliged blindly, putting his faith in God. Abraham's response, from the point of view of "choosing" was wrong. From the point of view of free will, Abraham should have spat God in the face and told him to go f#ck a goat. Abraham chose badly, he chose blind obedience, and even today his insane, morally reprehensible response is celebrated within Christianity. Islam? Sure as Hell not.
it's difficult to believe that ideological atheism won't lead to irrationality and bloodshed
Actually, it is very difficult to believe atheism would lead to anything, positive or negative. Atheism is the absence of belief, so it can not, on its own, become ideological or extremist. You have to have something in addition. Extremism has to come from the belief in something. Stalin, for example, was not a murderous bastard because of a non-belief, he was a murderous bastard for his belief in Communism, and extremist belief in a political ideology will look similar to strong religious extremism.
Extremism requires the belief in some absolute truth, so in that way, Christianity, Islam and Communism all qualify. Atheism, being the lack of belief, does not. I could imagine someone collecting coins could develop some sort of extremist behavior related to the concept of "collecting coins", for example hating everybody who "mistreated" coins. Someone who doesn't collect stamps could not develop some sort of extremist notion related to the fact that he is not collecting stamps.
What Hogan writes is pure rubbish. Serious photographers, even the ones using Adobe CC, knows full well that there is no such thing as The Cloud when it comes to professional photography. I am just a cheerful enthusiast who have longs since letting my 5D, 6D and GH4 blast though pictures. I try to make them, not fire and forget. Still, my Lightroom library is the neighborhood og 500GB these days. That's not going into the cloud and onto "all my devices.
Hogan should stop gulping down the cool aid and realize that Apple is slowly abandoning the market that once saved them, the creative professionals. Look at FCP. Look at Aperture. Creative professionals trusting their livelihood to Apple these days are suicidal nuts.Except for hardware of course. Apple knows hardware-
And yeah, Apple has never been particularly friendly towards the enterprise
They have not. What they used to be friendly towards was the creative professional though. With FCP X and now Aperture, they are stating loud and clear that they are no longer interested in supporting the creative professionals, but would rather cater to the mass-market dummy. That isn't a bad business decision as such. Clearly FCP X is easier to use than previous versions of FCP, and it is priced accordingly. It is also probably going to sell tons more than did the original FCP. Mass-market at the expense of the ones that used to keep Apple alive, the creative professional.
With this new Apple attitude,if you are a creative professional, investing in Apple hardware or software would seem moronic and (professionally) suicidal.
my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format
When you "edit in" whatever it might be, Lightroom creates a TIFF file to edit, so RAW or no support for your camera is not an issue. You are covered, both on this issue and on the "cloud" issue.
I sometimes work in the field where there is no interne
I suggest you read the information about Photoshop CC again. Seriously. You are worried about something you need not worry about. That is, unless you're you "work in the field" with no internet connection for more than a month. Not a lot of us do.
Contrary to popular myth, the Adobe CC offering is a fantastic offering for most of Adobe's customers.
Just a slight correction: watching a movie at the theater will generally not give you better quality than Blu-Ray. In fact, when Bladerunner was released on BR it was probably the best quality it had ever been possible to watch it in.
You are right. Mum and dad cares about quality. Kids these days do not. They are happy with "HD" streaming (or ripped) at such terrible quality it makes dads eyes bleed. The young can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p. Well, FUCK YOU ALL! Now the rest of us are going to have to be content with that shitty quality too. Just because kids today are too lazy to care about quality. Sorry morons, streaming HD and ripped HD is not HD. Not even close!
Good point, bad wording, but it was in the context of the idea of a benevolent creator or a nicely designed place for us to be, believed in general by the people subscribing to the most common religions and also by many environuts of the "Gaia is sacred" kind.
Slashdot Mirror
Abraham was stopped at the last moment
That's irrelevant. The entity demanding such a sacrifice is a psychopath, no matter whether they change their mind or not after. The entity that obliges the psychopath is a nutcase and should be put in jail for his actions.
He could have turned his back on God and that would not be a death sentence.
He should not have turned his back on God, he should have spat God in the face and told him to f#ck off. If God persisted Abraham should have killed God. That was the right thing to do. Abraham did everything wrong. God should have been killed that day. Abraham's God is worse than ISIS.
In a case where "the truth" is pretty much unknowable, that position is itself a belief.
How so? Is the non-belief in a deistic invisible pink unicorn also a belief? How about the non-belief in a theistic green tea pot in orbit around the sun somewhere between 68 and 203 astronomical units from the center of the sun?
Impossible? Hardly.
Do you understand the difference between a- and anti-. Believing there is no God is non-scientific nonsense, you can't prove a negative. An atheist relates to a divine entity in the same way he relates to all the other (infinite number of) things that is unlikely. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, but I also don't believe in red tea-cups in orbit between 75 and 253 astronomical units from the center of the sun. This lack of belief can not create extremism. If on the other hand I felt that I knew that God doesn't exist (as I mentioned non-scientific nonsense) then I can become extremist. On the other hand, that isn't atheism, that would more correctly be described as anti-theism.
Which is why they form clubs?
Perhaps to try to defend science from the militant Christian nuts?
Corporate apps and products coming out TODAY require IE 8 and MS specific hacks just to run
Then the people in your procurement division are morons. Why would they buy shit like that?
how long Microsoft will continue improving Internet Explorer for Windows 7
For as long as Google will continue to update Chrome version 7. Why do you ask?
Communism is just as absurd as Christianity, and for the same reason: neither takes human nature into account
They are as absurd, but not for that reason. The absurdity of Christianity, or most religions and Socialism, Communism and some other political beliefs lie in the fact that they subscribe to "The Truth". This is why it is impossible for Atheism to become extremist. An atheist has no beliefs. Atheism is an ideology in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Many Christians will point to, for example. Communist Stalin for the evils that Atheism can inspire. Since "atheism" and "nothing" are equivalent, the very notion that it can inspire behavior is absurd. Stalin was a murderous bastard because of his religious notions (Communism) not for the absence of such.
that one of the basis of most religions is the freedom to choose
Outside of Buddhism (which isn't really a religion, I can't think of a single religion where this is true. Christianity? Nope. It celebrates that Abraham who, when God demanded Abraham murder his son, obliged blindly, putting his faith in God. Abraham's response, from the point of view of "choosing" was wrong. From the point of view of free will, Abraham should have spat God in the face and told him to go f#ck a goat. Abraham chose badly, he chose blind obedience, and even today his insane, morally reprehensible response is celebrated within Christianity. Islam? Sure as Hell not.
it's difficult to believe that ideological atheism won't lead to irrationality and bloodshed
Actually, it is very difficult to believe atheism would lead to anything, positive or negative. Atheism is the absence of belief, so it can not, on its own, become ideological or extremist. You have to have something in addition. Extremism has to come from the belief in something. Stalin, for example, was not a murderous bastard because of a non-belief, he was a murderous bastard for his belief in Communism, and extremist belief in a political ideology will look similar to strong religious extremism.
Extremism requires the belief in some absolute truth, so in that way, Christianity, Islam and Communism all qualify. Atheism, being the lack of belief, does not. I could imagine someone collecting coins could develop some sort of extremist behavior related to the concept of "collecting coins", for example hating everybody who "mistreated" coins. Someone who doesn't collect stamps could not develop some sort of extremist notion related to the fact that he is not collecting stamps.
There is a "stopped" missing above...
What Hogan writes is pure rubbish. Serious photographers, even the ones using Adobe CC, knows full well that there is no such thing as The Cloud when it comes to professional photography. I am just a cheerful enthusiast who have longs since letting my 5D, 6D and GH4 blast though pictures. I try to make them, not fire and forget. Still, my Lightroom library is the neighborhood og 500GB these days. That's not going into the cloud and onto "all my devices.
Hogan should stop gulping down the cool aid and realize that Apple is slowly abandoning the market that once saved them, the creative professionals. Look at FCP. Look at Aperture. Creative professionals trusting their livelihood to Apple these days are suicidal nuts.Except for hardware of course. Apple knows hardware-
And yeah, Apple has never been particularly friendly towards the enterprise
They have not. What they used to be friendly towards was the creative professional though. With FCP X and now Aperture, they are stating loud and clear that they are no longer interested in supporting the creative professionals, but would rather cater to the mass-market dummy. That isn't a bad business decision as such. Clearly FCP X is easier to use than previous versions of FCP, and it is priced accordingly. It is also probably going to sell tons more than did the original FCP. Mass-market at the expense of the ones that used to keep Apple alive, the creative professional.
With this new Apple attitude,if you are a creative professional, investing in Apple hardware or software would seem moronic and (professionally) suicidal.
Like .. Flex, the entire Creative Suite
Time for you meds again
my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format
When you "edit in" whatever it might be, Lightroom creates a TIFF file to edit, so RAW or no support for your camera is not an issue. You are covered, both on this issue and on the "cloud" issue.
I sometimes work in the field where there is no interne
I suggest you read the information about Photoshop CC again. Seriously. You are worried about something you need not worry about. That is, unless you're you "work in the field" with no internet connection for more than a month. Not a lot of us do.
Contrary to popular myth, the Adobe CC offering is a fantastic offering for most of Adobe's customers.
You need to see an optometrist.
Christ you are clueless.
Bullshit.
Just a slight correction: watching a movie at the theater will generally not give you better quality than Blu-Ray. In fact, when Bladerunner was released on BR it was probably the best quality it had ever been possible to watch it in.
You are right. Mum and dad cares about quality. Kids these days do not. They are happy with "HD" streaming (or ripped) at such terrible quality it makes dads eyes bleed. The young can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p. Well, FUCK YOU ALL! Now the rest of us are going to have to be content with that shitty quality too. Just because kids today are too lazy to care about quality. Sorry morons, streaming HD and ripped HD is not HD. Not even close!
No. Who's he and what's his relevance?
And you read /.? Seriously? Wow. Here, let me...
Why?
Read my first sentence once more.
their mental prowess is unlikely to have extended far enough for abstract thought
Man you have a seriously literal mind. You wouldn't be Sheldon Cooper by any chance? Read some books not about geology or physics, perhaps a novel :-)
It's not designed to do anything
Good point, bad wording, but it was in the context of the idea of a benevolent creator or a nicely designed place for us to be, believed in general by the people subscribing to the most common religions and also by many environuts of the "Gaia is sacred" kind.
Yes, but that is not what happened. We discovered there was a lot more sand that we hadn't discovered.
I never ate caviar even
Which means you as an individual is not worth saving, but humanity as such, on a scale of millions, I'd say saving those is a worth while goal.
Got out of the bed on the wrong side today? Then stepped on a Lego? What specifically was inaccurate and why?