'Atheism' is just another word that's been so bandied around that it has the modern consistance of an overboiled linguini. It 'fits' any argument that's trying to use it, and is much abused. In its original (and neutral) sense, Athiest means 'without god' - 'a' meaning simply 'without', 'thiest' meaning 'diety' (with attribution).
In an honest discussion, rather than seeking to define 'the meaning of a word', why not just outline the argument you wish to make before you even thought of using that word? A "Denier of God" is not "One who doesn't know if there is a god". These positions are different, distinct and clear.
Hm. I can understand religion denying the existence of life on other planets: the worth of objects decreases exponentially as they move away from what many religions consider to be the centre of the universe - the collection plate.
Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason. There, fixed that.
I can understand an invesment site appreciating a company who's skyrocketing stock prices are a result of the popularity of something the company actually makes and sells. Selling air and derivitives seems to be the trend these days - less overhead costs equals more profit!
Well, your argument could apply if the music company didn't have the music to sell anymore - but here we are talking about a product that can be duplicated ad infinitum.
Thanks for pointing out the Flagged Revisions aspect of this story - this tool has done a lot to improve German Wikipedia - this I understand not only from its logic of conception, but because of a friend of mine working on some of the leading/most controversial German Wikipedia articles.
I really don't understand why English Wikipedia hasn't adopted this tool; perhaps it is because the weight of Status Quo (hesitancy to think about/try something new) seems to be much heavier there, and people there seem to be more concerned about their contributor role ('this is what I contributed, therefore what I contributed I am') than the quality of what they write. There also seems to be a rampant resistance to any rules that allow anyone 'more knowledgable' to judge contributions, and there is even resistance to define what 'more knowledgeable' is.
In short, German Wikipedia is more mature than its English counterpart.
Religion ~is~ politics. A lone shaman sought for his mystic mumbo-jumbo is one thing, but should that shaman begin to impose certain views and customs upon his following - a set 'morals' protected and enforced by laws - it becomes a religion. What is a country's 'politics'? A set of morals protected and enforced by laws - and guns.
I really think the EU is missing the point in this "anti-trust" case: the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice in what OS comes with his computer doesn't bother anyone?
The problem with most of this discussion is that we're all talking about a single person. Shouldn't the "on-call" service be... a team?
I mean really, how can a company expect ~one person~ to be on call 24/7? Instead, they should have at least two people, better three, working fixed-hour shifts. That would both improve service and end all argument.
If the company in question is going to forward "but we can't afford it!" argument, they should be hiring an external monitoring service, or something of the like.
The best advice I can find for the worst-case "one web guy covers all" scenario is make two different rates: One for the hours you work "normally", and one (much higher) for any other situation that requires immediate - not pre-planned - attention.
"Damage" implies intended destruction through ungentlemanly means. As long as everyone plays by the rules without trying anything underhanded, no-one can complain.
Really. Google has never wanted to damage Microsoft, but they sure want to take every step possible to make sure that they 'play nice'. Yes, I suppose that this could be 'damaging' to MS's usual business methods.
Already Microsoft is swinging deals behind the scenes to better promote their new search engine (ref: Murdoch/MS search exclusions). I say let's get rid of the 'behind the scenes' deals - for both of them.
What's most fascinating is how most of the earth's "elements" are a mix of a few base elements in varied densities and forms, and one has only to study the "work" nature does to recreate them. Clay, for example, is a result of carbonic acid 'weathering' (dissolving) silica (sand) based minerals... so if clay is rare and sand is abundant, why not do all the "work" ourselves?
We have the chemical composition of most everything on this planet mapped - as a layman, I don't at all understand why we don't have the technology to simply re-create a chemical mix, and bonding, at will.
Petrol, for example... oh, wait, if we made it ourselves it would be worthless.
Once "place" is really a short cut to say "in storage media which are all subject to one point of failure".
Yes. If a cloud storage system is to have any reasonable level of security, not only does the data it manages have to be replicated throughout several locations, but the management data itself must be replicated; if you lose all the info on where the data is stored, you lose everything. This is what probably happened to T-Mobile.
I think it's fear of the "bottom line" as you say. Norton owes its fortune to Window's weaknesses: not only is Windows one of the most insecure (if not THE most insecure) OS on the planet, it is the most widely-used one. Should Microsoft actually fix their OS, Norton's client base could dry up overnight.
I wonder how much those bumpkin lawyers are being paid to spout such nonsense. One of the biggest faults in their "rationale" is their definition of "losses" - losses are not a hypothetical "money we 'could have' made' (if we had full control of the market and consumer habits)". Consumers will form their habits around the tools available to them (today, internet; in the past, radio, cassette, etc.) and the market just has to adapt to the same. If the record industry refuses to change their habits (most likely because of their 1990's record profits from CD sales - they want that 'working formula' to remain the same), TFB for them.
If I buy a CD, I am buying the rights to listen to that particular recording and paying a share of all the work that went into it. I am perfectly free to transfer that recording to any format or device as long as it's for my personal pleasure - at no extra charge. If the recording that is on my iPod is exactly the same as the one in my iTunes library, why should I pay for it again? What's more, the only additional 'work' in having multiple copies is mine - there is no improvement or service by the record industry at all - so again, what justification is there for asking for additional payment?
IMHO, the flailing 'fat man' record industry thinks government 'obligatory tax' involvement, and the possibility of the record industry benefiting directly from the millions collected from everyone, is the fastest way back to the front of the marathon.
Hmmm - should we compare fox "news" to "the Onion" then? I must admit that I do grin at the parallel between the two, but the ruling in the case, guided by the Fox lawyers, conveniently gleaned over the intent of the misleading. The Onion misinforms to generate a "wtf?" cognition reaction in its audience, whereas Fox's intent is to purposely feed selective information to the largest customer base of its corporate sponsors and allies.
(meeting chairman) - "Google has a functional, viable and popular product, and we don't." (second voice, Boston drawl) - "Whadda we gonna do aboud' it?"
Slashdot Mirror
'Atheism' is just another word that's been so bandied around that it has the modern consistance of an overboiled linguini. It 'fits' any argument that's trying to use it, and is much abused. In its original (and neutral) sense, Athiest means 'without god' - 'a' meaning simply 'without', 'thiest' meaning 'diety' (with attribution).
In an honest discussion, rather than seeking to define 'the meaning of a word', why not just outline the argument you wish to make before you even thought of using that word? A "Denier of God" is not "One who doesn't know if there is a god". These positions are different, distinct and clear.
The universe works quite well on its own without our 'understanding' of it.
Hm. I can understand religion denying the existence of life on other planets: the worth of objects decreases exponentially as they move away from what many religions consider to be the centre of the universe - the collection plate.
Dot on. Ignorance is a damn hard thing to protect, and that is why so many take fright at any whiff of danger to it.
Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason. There, fixed that.
I'm saying that profit on popular substance is a surer bet ; )
I can understand an invesment site appreciating a company who's skyrocketing stock prices are a result of the popularity of something the company actually makes and sells. Selling air and derivitives seems to be the trend these days - less overhead costs equals more profit!
Well, your argument could apply if the music company didn't have the music to sell anymore - but here we are talking about a product that can be duplicated ad infinitum.
Doh! 'money we think we could have made' is not equal to 'lost profit'.
Yes, but about their "percieved losses": "money we could have made" 'lost revenues'.
Thanks for pointing out the Flagged Revisions aspect of this story - this tool has done a lot to improve German Wikipedia - this I understand not only from its logic of conception, but because of a friend of mine working on some of the leading/most controversial German Wikipedia articles.
I really don't understand why English Wikipedia hasn't adopted this tool; perhaps it is because the weight of Status Quo (hesitancy to think about/try something new) seems to be much heavier there, and people there seem to be more concerned about their contributor role ('this is what I contributed, therefore what I contributed I am') than the quality of what they write. There also seems to be a rampant resistance to any rules that allow anyone 'more knowledgable' to judge contributions, and there is even resistance to define what 'more knowledgeable' is.
In short, German Wikipedia is more mature than its English counterpart.
Religion ~is~ politics. A lone shaman sought for his mystic mumbo-jumbo is one thing, but should that shaman begin to impose certain views and customs upon his following - a set 'morals' protected and enforced by laws - it becomes a religion. What is a country's 'politics'? A set of morals protected and enforced by laws - and guns.
A religion is a country without borders.
I really think the EU is missing the point in this "anti-trust" case: the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice in what OS comes with his computer doesn't bother anyone?
The problem with most of this discussion is that we're all talking about a single person. Shouldn't the "on-call" service be... a team?
I mean really, how can a company expect ~one person~ to be on call 24/7? Instead, they should have at least two people, better three, working fixed-hour shifts. That would both improve service and end all argument.
If the company in question is going to forward "but we can't afford it!" argument, they should be hiring an external monitoring service, or something of the like.
The best advice I can find for the worst-case "one web guy covers all" scenario is make two different rates: One for the hours you work "normally", and one (much higher) for any other situation that requires immediate - not pre-planned - attention.
"Damage" implies intended destruction through ungentlemanly means. As long as everyone plays by the rules without trying anything underhanded, no-one can complain.
Really. Google has never wanted to damage Microsoft, but they sure want to take every step possible to make sure that they 'play nice'. Yes, I suppose that this could be 'damaging' to MS's usual business methods.
Already Microsoft is swinging deals behind the scenes to better promote their new search engine (ref: Murdoch/MS search exclusions). I say let's get rid of the 'behind the scenes' deals - for both of them.
In fact, I'd say that time is just a matter of perspective - or "direction" if you will. Rather than elaborate here, I wrote this a week ago...
What's most fascinating is how most of the earth's "elements" are a mix of a few base elements in varied densities and forms, and one has only to study the "work" nature does to recreate them. Clay, for example, is a result of carbonic acid 'weathering' (dissolving) silica (sand) based minerals... so if clay is rare and sand is abundant, why not do all the "work" ourselves?
We have the chemical composition of most everything on this planet mapped - as a layman, I don't at all understand why we don't have the technology to simply re-create a chemical mix, and bonding, at will.
Petrol, for example... oh, wait, if we made it ourselves it would be worthless.
Once "place" is really a short cut to say "in storage media which are all subject to one point of failure".
Yes. If a cloud storage system is to have any reasonable level of security, not only does the data it manages have to be replicated throughout several locations, but the management data itself must be replicated; if you lose all the info on where the data is stored, you lose everything. This is what probably happened to T-Mobile.
I think it's fear of the "bottom line" as you say. Norton owes its fortune to Window's weaknesses: not only is Windows one of the most insecure (if not THE most insecure) OS on the planet, it is the most widely-used one. Should Microsoft actually fix their OS, Norton's client base could dry up overnight.
Maybe they can make a radar system for disabled people that warns them when they are standing in front of an approaching car-sized object.
So they would also be warned at every approach of my mother-in-law.
I wonder how much those bumpkin lawyers are being paid to spout such nonsense. One of the biggest faults in their "rationale" is their definition of "losses" - losses are not a hypothetical "money we 'could have' made' (if we had full control of the market and consumer habits)". Consumers will form their habits around the tools available to them (today, internet; in the past, radio, cassette, etc.) and the market just has to adapt to the same. If the record industry refuses to change their habits (most likely because of their 1990's record profits from CD sales - they want that 'working formula' to remain the same), TFB for them.
If I buy a CD, I am buying the rights to listen to that particular recording and paying a share of all the work that went into it. I am perfectly free to transfer that recording to any format or device as long as it's for my personal pleasure - at no extra charge. If the recording that is on my iPod is exactly the same as the one in my iTunes library, why should I pay for it again? What's more, the only additional 'work' in having multiple copies is mine - there is no improvement or service by the record industry at all - so again, what justification is there for asking for additional payment?
IMHO, the flailing 'fat man' record industry thinks government 'obligatory tax' involvement, and the possibility of the record industry benefiting directly from the millions collected from everyone, is the fastest way back to the front of the marathon.
Insert any chain of expletives here.
That's Leo, pard.
Hmmm - should we compare fox "news" to "the Onion" then? I must admit that I do grin at the parallel between the two, but the ruling in the case, guided by the Fox lawyers, conveniently gleaned over the intent of the misleading. The Onion misinforms to generate a "wtf?" cognition reaction in its audience, whereas Fox's intent is to purposely feed selective information to the largest customer base of its corporate sponsors and allies.
Fox news: Keep 'em dumb; keep 'em buying.
(meeting chairman) - "Google has a functional, viable and popular product, and we don't."
(second voice, Boston drawl) - "Whadda we gonna do aboud' it?"