I like my DX for casual reading. It's nice to carry a large number of books in a small package. I can easily convert text online to PRC files to read later without printing stuff out all the time. I like having a built in dictionary and text search, plus the wireless connection to Wikipedia is useful. The E-ink display is not as good as real paper of course, but I can read it for a long time and forget about the device, which is something I can't do on a back lit LCD.
But, I find it hard to use for school. I don't really make a lot of notes in the margins or highlight stuff so that loss doesn't bother me. I just miss the ease of flipping pages. When I study I constantly refer back to preceding pages to look at diagrams or to reread things. I jump around a lot. This is very annoying to do on the Kindle, especially if you are viewing a large PDF when turning pages becomes impossible to do quickly. I'm sure devices in the future will solve this problem.
So for straight reading, especially fiction or web essays/articles I love it. For study, no thanks.
BCGlorfindel, I don't disagree with you. I would like to use new terms. I think that's what the Wiki article is getting at with the terms weak and strong atheist.
Spazmania, what is this "God" you keep talking about? Please define the term. Somebody once said asking questions about God(s) is as intelligible as asking, "what color is Saturday"? Which leads to my favorite new term in this topic: "ignosticism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I don't think the term "agnostic" is a pejorative. At the deepest level I'm an agnostic about everything. I don't even know if you exist. (I might be a brain in a vat, etc.) Again it all depends on who's asking me about God and what they think it means. If some deep thinkers like Einstein or the Dalai Lama were asking me I would certainly be an agnostic with no shame regarding a lack of conviction. If a fundamentalist Christian, who believed Jesus was coming back in the body any moment now, was asking me about their God, I would certainly be an atheist. So as I said in the beginning I am both an atheist and an agnostic.
But you are right about the spin Spazmania. I don't see it as a bad thing though. Especially when the second definition of atheism in the American Heritage dictionary includes the word "immorality". So I think some positive or maybe philosophical spin is needed for a word used for a much reviled minority. (Some tried to make up a new word, "bright (n.)", but that didn't work out for obvious reasons.)
I find these topics fascinating, so if you want to continue the discussion feel free to e-mail me at my username at gmail.com
Maybe so, but I think the common definitions are inadequate since they don't accurately describe non-theists. I agree that dictionaries should be descriptive and not prescriptive, but by those common definitions I'm not a theist, atheist, or agnostic.
I guess it's like the word "theory". There's the definition used by the public at large (and creationists) and there's the definition used by scientists. If you're going to get into a philosophical discussion on the meaning and existence of god(s) it's important to define all the terms accurately.
The definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" are hotly debated. The common definition of atheism being the denial of the existence of gods is inadequate for most people who call themselves atheists. Basically "atheist" should mean the person is a non-theist. In that sense there is no middle ground. Since Gates doesn't have a belief in a particular deity, by that definition he is an atheist. (It's like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't). "Agnosticism" is about knowledge, not belief, so Gates could be both an agnostic and an atheist, just like you could be an agnostic and a theist. What most people think "atheist" means is actually the definition of "strong atheism." I think most people who call themselves "agnostics" by the common definition, are actually "weak atheists". Wikipedia has plenty of information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Speaking of teleportation, one of the best SF novels about someone who could teleport is "Jumper" by Stephen Gould. It's presently out of print, but won't be much longer once the movie comes out next year. Try to read it before the movie will probably ruin it. Review here:
http://www.lostbooks.org/guestreviews/2001-07-06-2 .html
It's not just you. From Wikipedia's entry on the Singularity:
"Ken MacLeod describes the Singularity as "the Rapture for nerds" in his 1998 novel The Cassini Division."
In a recent episode of "How It's Made" on the Science channel they showed how they make a Play-Doh like product called Tutti-Frutti. This clay has various scents added to so it can smell like candy or fruit. It is made by: http://www.bojeux.com/ANG/Products/section/tutti.h tml
The science fiction author Greg Egan has explored this idea in many of his works. I recommend his story, "Learning to Be Me":
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/
Slashdot Mirror
I like my DX for casual reading. It's nice to carry a large number of books in a small package. I can easily convert text online to PRC files to read later without printing stuff out all the time. I like having a built in dictionary and text search, plus the wireless connection to Wikipedia is useful. The E-ink display is not as good as real paper of course, but I can read it for a long time and forget about the device, which is something I can't do on a back lit LCD. But, I find it hard to use for school. I don't really make a lot of notes in the margins or highlight stuff so that loss doesn't bother me. I just miss the ease of flipping pages. When I study I constantly refer back to preceding pages to look at diagrams or to reread things. I jump around a lot. This is very annoying to do on the Kindle, especially if you are viewing a large PDF when turning pages becomes impossible to do quickly. I'm sure devices in the future will solve this problem. So for straight reading, especially fiction or web essays/articles I love it. For study, no thanks.
I had weird bars and icons all over the place, until I told NoScript to allow fsdn.net. Now things look OK. The FAQ says it's their image server.
BCGlorfindel, I don't disagree with you. I would like to use new terms. I think that's what the Wiki article is getting at with the terms weak and strong atheist.
Spazmania, what is this "God" you keep talking about? Please define the term. Somebody once said asking questions about God(s) is as intelligible as asking, "what color is Saturday"? Which leads to my favorite new term in this topic: "ignosticism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I don't think the term "agnostic" is a pejorative. At the deepest level I'm an agnostic about everything. I don't even know if you exist. (I might be a brain in a vat, etc.) Again it all depends on who's asking me about God and what they think it means. If some deep thinkers like Einstein or the Dalai Lama were asking me I would certainly be an agnostic with no shame regarding a lack of conviction. If a fundamentalist Christian, who believed Jesus was coming back in the body any moment now, was asking me about their God, I would certainly be an atheist. So as I said in the beginning I am both an atheist and an agnostic.
But you are right about the spin Spazmania. I don't see it as a bad thing though. Especially when the second definition of atheism in the American Heritage dictionary includes the word "immorality". So I think some positive or maybe philosophical spin is needed for a word used for a much reviled minority. (Some tried to make up a new word, "bright (n.)", but that didn't work out for obvious reasons.)
I find these topics fascinating, so if you want to continue the discussion feel free to e-mail me at my username at gmail.com
Maybe so, but I think the common definitions are inadequate since they don't accurately describe non-theists. I agree that dictionaries should be descriptive and not prescriptive, but by those common definitions I'm not a theist, atheist, or agnostic. I guess it's like the word "theory". There's the definition used by the public at large (and creationists) and there's the definition used by scientists. If you're going to get into a philosophical discussion on the meaning and existence of god(s) it's important to define all the terms accurately.
The definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" are hotly debated. The common definition of atheism being the denial of the existence of gods is inadequate for most people who call themselves atheists. Basically "atheist" should mean the person is a non-theist. In that sense there is no middle ground. Since Gates doesn't have a belief in a particular deity, by that definition he is an atheist. (It's like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't). "Agnosticism" is about knowledge, not belief, so Gates could be both an agnostic and an atheist, just like you could be an agnostic and a theist. What most people think "atheist" means is actually the definition of "strong atheism." I think most people who call themselves "agnostics" by the common definition, are actually "weak atheists". Wikipedia has plenty of information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
o ught_tagteam_wrestling.php
And PZ Myers had a good discussion on the issue in a recent blog post: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/freeth
Speaking of teleportation, one of the best SF novels about someone who could teleport is "Jumper" by Stephen Gould. It's presently out of print, but won't be much longer once the movie comes out next year. Try to read it before the movie will probably ruin it. Review here: http://www.lostbooks.org/guestreviews/2001-07-06-2 .html
It's not just you. From Wikipedia's entry on the Singularity: "Ken MacLeod describes the Singularity as "the Rapture for nerds" in his 1998 novel The Cassini Division."
Interesting. What about blimps?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the best uses for Play-Doh, the game Claydonia from Dragon magazine. Details:m l
h tml
http://www.lclark.edu/~gamesoc/games/claydonia.ht
In a recent episode of "How It's Made" on the Science channel they showed how they make a Play-Doh like product called Tutti-Frutti. This clay has various scents added to so it can smell like candy or fruit. It is made by:
http://www.bojeux.com/ANG/Products/section/tutti.
They don't say what it tastes like though.
In Japan paperbacks are smaller and thinner than American versions. Perhaps this is to make them easier to read on the packed trains? For example, LOTR is published on in 3, but 10 volumes: http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/456602373 7/qid%3D1136925516/250-7285753-9795433
The essays in "The Mind's I" edited by Douglas Hofstadter are also of interest: http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/people/homepages/hofst adter.html