You can be an atheist and be extremely "moral," you just have to make certain assumptions along the way that are not "scientific facts." That is all I mean. You don't have to have God as your basis for morality, but since the physical universe is amoral, somewhere you have to assign value to something that has no intrinsic value.
No, you're misunderstanding again. The meaning of "fear of God" is "respect for God". It has NOTHING to do with what you think of as "fear," it's a different meaning of the word "fear."
I believe very strongly that religion is (always has been, always will be) a scape-goat. "Why does the sun go up and down?" can be answered scientifically (we go around it), or religiously "some guy in a chariot pulls it around." The same goes for Ethics "Why can't I hit Billy?" can be answered simply as "You will go to hell if you are bad" or through and actual heart-to-heart talk with your kid about how such things make people feel and making them actual nice people.
Right, because you can deduce ethics from the amoral universe and physical principles.
I have always laughed at the term "God fearing Christian" because it implies that the only reason they are good is because they fear retribution.
I don't think you understand what this term means. It does not mean cowering in fear of being zapped by God; it means respecting God.
A friend's PC died recently, turned out it was the hard drive. So I replaced the hard drive, and re-installed Windows XP. He'd lost his original install discs, so I used a generic OEM XP disc, since his computer case had a license key.
After installing, the audio hardware was unrecognized, and the LAN hardware was unrecognized. So I had to go to Compaq's website on my Mac, download the appropriate driver files, put them on a USB stick, and transfer them to the PC. Then I had to read the README file for each one to figure out how to install it using the Device Manager.
Contrast that with installing OS X on a Mac, where your generic install disc will work with any Mac.
But more significantly, the OS actually works. Personally, I hate it - I intensely dislike the fact that when you get under the covers, it looks like UN*X but it isn't UN*X in a lot of ways that matter. It's essentially NeXT Step, and I hated that, too.
How is OS X which is certified Unix (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html) not Unix?
Yeah, but look how long we've been working on the ABL, and it's still not operational. Although it's certainly possible to pop a blimp with a laser like this, there's no one out there with the capability.
Wait, so not only do you read the summary and the article, but you even click on the author's website link?!
But on a more serious note, if you ignore stories merely because the author (or linker) has some political views you don't agree with and ignore the merits of the story itself, you're likely to miss out on some worthwhile stuff.
One can critically and rationally assess religious doctrine to determine whether it seems to make sense
Yes, one can do that, but that would not be religious belief. Belief, of any kind, implies a voluntary suspension of reason.
I suppose you're contrasting belief and knowledge. But belief is not the absence of reason. The absence of reason would suggest an arbitrary belief, but belief can be based on reason. Saying belief is suspension of reason is akin to saying Evolution is just a theory (not trying to start an Evolution debate here, just saying those are both purely semantic arguments and don't stand up against closer scrutiny).
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought.
Not at all. One can critically and rationally assess religious doctrine to determine whether it seems to make sense. Or do you also think philosophy is the province of the mentally ill?
I'm afraid you're wrong. Theft requires an object to be taken from one person and given to another.
So it's not theft if someone comes into your house, takes away your TV, doesn't give it to someone else, but throws it into the ocean?
In the case of copyright, the "thief" doesn't gain copyright, but deprives the author of being the sole distributor (i.e., the copyright). Consequently, it is a theft.
Since we seem to be going in circles, allow me to summarize my argument:
Upon creation of a work, the author is granted the sole right to reproduce and distribute this work.
Once the work has been distributed by the author, no other individual is physically prevented from further reproducing and distributing the work.
If someone takes advantage of this and begins to further reproduce and distribute the work, the author remains the only one authorized to do so.
Nothing has physically been taken from the author, but the infringer has assumed the production and distribution of the work, which is right of only the author.
I'm not trying to say the infringer has stolen the right in the sense that he now has the right, I'm meaning the infringer has stolen the right in the sense that he has de facto taken that right away from the author by making the author no longer the sole distributor. Legally, the author is still the only person with that right, yes, but someone else is ignoring that and acting as if he had that right.
Either you're grasping at straws to maintain a flawed argument or I should contact some people about selling syndication rights.
B no longer controls production and distribution.
No amount of repeating that will actually make it true.
Nor will repeating this make it not true. If someone else is reproducing and distributing your work, you are, by definition, not in control of production and distribution.
Please note that there is a difference here between simply distribution and legal distribution. You seem to be equating the two.
Once any copyrighted material is released to the public it's could be reproduced digital media or otherwise. The ability of a consumer to reproduce a work is not theft no matter how you spin it.
Not if for their personal use, no, but if they're redistributing it then it is theft.
The author still has sole possession of the copyright and is the only one who can license it's use. I've yet to see someone selling pirated dvd's out of their trunk or a renting one from blockbuster.
Evidently you hang out in the wrong neighborhood... or maybe it's that you don't hang out in the wrong neighborhood.:)
But are you aware that people download stuff off of bittorrent and other places? Or do you think that isn't unlawful duplication and distribution (i.e., theft of the the author's right to be the sole source for distribution)?
Certainly, B still has the sole legal copyright, but this right has been de facto rendered meaningless because A has become an unauthorized distributor. B no longer controls production and distribution. So this was stolen from B.
What's "stolen" is B's sole right to produce copies.
Yeah, if you use the word "theft" (or "stolen") to mean something completely different, then you can say the copyright infringement is theft. But using this method you can also claim that piracy is "robbery", "treason", "rape" and "murder". So how is "theft" different?
Theft is unlawfully depriving someone of something that they own. Obviously in the case of information duplication you aren't depriving them of anything physical. But you are depriving them of their legal right to be the sole source to produce copies. Hence, theft.
And yes, I would say "piracy" is "robbery." Oh wait, by "piracy" did you mean copyright infringement? Well, either way...
But you'd have to stretch pretty far to claim copyright infringement is betrayal of one's country, forced sexual intercourse, or killing someone...
I agree that the RIAA are ripping off the artists, but because the artists have entered legally binding contracts, if you download their songs without paying you're not just hurting the RIAA, but the artists, too, because they can't offer their music any other way. Although, you may speed the change toward a new model that will serve the artists better, who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're logging in from a different computer every day, you can have it remember you.
I hoof to give it to you, that single post was enough to give me my filly of puns for the day.
You can be an atheist and be extremely "moral," you just have to make certain assumptions along the way that are not "scientific facts." That is all I mean. You don't have to have God as your basis for morality, but since the physical universe is amoral, somewhere you have to assign value to something that has no intrinsic value.
No, you're misunderstanding again. The meaning of "fear of God" is "respect for God". It has NOTHING to do with what you think of as "fear," it's a different meaning of the word "fear."
I believe very strongly that religion is (always has been, always will be) a scape-goat. "Why does the sun go up and down?" can be answered scientifically (we go around it), or religiously "some guy in a chariot pulls it around." The same goes for Ethics "Why can't I hit Billy?" can be answered simply as "You will go to hell if you are bad" or through and actual heart-to-heart talk with your kid about how such things make people feel and making them actual nice people.
Right, because you can deduce ethics from the amoral universe and physical principles.
I have always laughed at the term "God fearing Christian" because it implies that the only reason they are good is because they fear retribution.
I don't think you understand what this term means. It does not mean cowering in fear of being zapped by God; it means respecting God.
Ah, yeah, that one gets launched from /Library/LaunchDaemons/
So I think the complete list of directories you would need to search to find anything that's autolaunched is:
~/Library/LaunchAgents/
/Library/LaunchAgents/
/Library/LaunchDaemons/
/System/Library/LaunchAgents/
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/
~/Library/LaunchDaemons/
It's just broken up into per-user, all-users, and OS X-supplied.
How much am I paying exactly for all those "Built for Windows" stickers I've had to scrape off?
I always assumed the stickers helped subsidize the cost of the laptop... but maybe the analogy to NASCAR doesn't go quite that far.
Very true.
A friend's PC died recently, turned out it was the hard drive. So I replaced the hard drive, and re-installed Windows XP. He'd lost his original install discs, so I used a generic OEM XP disc, since his computer case had a license key.
After installing, the audio hardware was unrecognized, and the LAN hardware was unrecognized. So I had to go to Compaq's website on my Mac, download the appropriate driver files, put them on a USB stick, and transfer them to the PC. Then I had to read the README file for each one to figure out how to install it using the Device Manager.
Contrast that with installing OS X on a Mac, where your generic install disc will work with any Mac.
How is OS X which is certified Unix (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html) not Unix?
ls -l /etc/init.d/
ls -l /System/Library/LaunchAgents/
Apparently the octopus is the pinnacle of evolution! I for one welcome our new multipodal overlords!
Yeah, but look how long we've been working on the ABL, and it's still not operational. Although it's certainly possible to pop a blimp with a laser like this, there's no one out there with the capability.
I could be wrong, but I don't think radar would be a very effective means of spying on the general populace...
Wait, so not only do you read the summary and the article, but you even click on the author's website link?!
But on a more serious note, if you ignore stories merely because the author (or linker) has some political views you don't agree with and ignore the merits of the story itself, you're likely to miss out on some worthwhile stuff.
What's wrong with the sentence is that it's ambiguous. It makes perfect sense when interpreted in multiple ways.
Does XP count as a modern OS? Cause I don't have experience with Vista, but OS X sure boots faster than XP on the same hardware (dual-boot MacBook).
One can critically and rationally assess religious doctrine to determine whether it seems to make sense
Yes, one can do that, but that would not be religious belief. Belief, of any kind, implies a voluntary suspension of reason.
I suppose you're contrasting belief and knowledge. But belief is not the absence of reason. The absence of reason would suggest an arbitrary belief, but belief can be based on reason. Saying belief is suspension of reason is akin to saying Evolution is just a theory (not trying to start an Evolution debate here, just saying those are both purely semantic arguments and don't stand up against closer scrutiny).
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought.
Not at all. One can critically and rationally assess religious doctrine to determine whether it seems to make sense. Or do you also think philosophy is the province of the mentally ill?
I believe they mentioned in the article that you can just use a small straight screwdriver.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Theft requires an object to be taken from one person and given to another.
So it's not theft if someone comes into your house, takes away your TV, doesn't give it to someone else, but throws it into the ocean?
In the case of copyright, the "thief" doesn't gain copyright, but deprives the author of being the sole distributor (i.e., the copyright). Consequently, it is a theft.
Since we seem to be going in circles, allow me to summarize my argument:
I'm not trying to say the infringer has stolen the right in the sense that he now has the right, I'm meaning the infringer has stolen the right in the sense that he has de facto taken that right away from the author by making the author no longer the sole distributor. Legally, the author is still the only person with that right, yes, but someone else is ignoring that and acting as if he had that right.
Either you're grasping at straws to maintain a flawed argument or I should contact some people about selling syndication rights.
B no longer controls production and distribution.
No amount of repeating that will actually make it true.
Nor will repeating this make it not true. If someone else is reproducing and distributing your work, you are, by definition, not in control of production and distribution.
Please note that there is a difference here between simply distribution and legal distribution. You seem to be equating the two.
Once any copyrighted material is released to the public it's could be reproduced digital media or otherwise. The ability of a consumer to reproduce a work is not theft no matter how you spin it.
Not if for their personal use, no, but if they're redistributing it then it is theft.
The author still has sole possession of the copyright and is the only one who can license it's use. I've yet to see someone selling pirated dvd's out of their trunk or a renting one from blockbuster.
Evidently you hang out in the wrong neighborhood... or maybe it's that you don't hang out in the wrong neighborhood. :)
But are you aware that people download stuff off of bittorrent and other places? Or do you think that isn't unlawful duplication and distribution (i.e., theft of the the author's right to be the sole source for distribution)?
Certainly, B still has the sole legal copyright, but this right has been de facto rendered meaningless because A has become an unauthorized distributor. B no longer controls production and distribution. So this was stolen from B.
What's "stolen" is B's sole right to produce copies.
Yeah, if you use the word "theft" (or "stolen") to mean something completely different, then you can say the copyright infringement is theft. But using this method you can also claim that piracy is "robbery", "treason", "rape" and "murder". So how is "theft" different?
Theft is unlawfully depriving someone of something that they own. Obviously in the case of information duplication you aren't depriving them of anything physical. But you are depriving them of their legal right to be the sole source to produce copies. Hence, theft.
And yes, I would say "piracy" is "robbery." Oh wait, by "piracy" did you mean copyright infringement? Well, either way...
But you'd have to stretch pretty far to claim copyright infringement is betrayal of one's country, forced sexual intercourse, or killing someone...
I agree that the RIAA are ripping off the artists, but because the artists have entered legally binding contracts, if you download their songs without paying you're not just hurting the RIAA, but the artists, too, because they can't offer their music any other way. Although, you may speed the change toward a new model that will serve the artists better, who knows.
What's "stolen" is B's sole right to produce copies.