I have to say, though, how is it that people manage to marry someone that they hate that much?
The hate (or simple anger) comes later. When you repeatedly catch her fucking your best friend, you may actually shoot the bastard. When you beat her, is she going to keep loving you?
Have you never had a falling out with a dear friend that was irreconcilable? Same thing happens with marriages.
And the US President at the time was Ronald Reagan! You know, when you put someone in charge of government who thinks that government is always the problem and never the solution, you shouldn't expect good government out of them.
It was the right wing who insisted ketchup is a vegetable.
Quoting someone else's opinion is hardly a rebuttal. Now, if you'd quoted Weinberg about physics it would be valid, but Weinberg speaking about religion is as insightful as quoting an astronomer about biology. IT ISN'T HIS FIELD. HE IS IGNORANT about the subject.
How many athiest organizations go to Somalia to feed the poor? Where were the athiests when my church gave the poorest families in town two weeks groceries each so the kids wouldn't go hungry over Christmas vacation? The fanatical athiests spending money to put anti-religion messages on busses and billboards, are they spending any feeding the poor? If so, I've never heard of it.
How many athiests are against vengeance? How many are for doing good to those who harm you? In fact, my own religion (Christianity) say that nobody is good, all are evil except God. Show me someone who claims to have never done wrong, and I'll show you a liar. Almost everyone does some good, and everyone does some wrong.
I'm really tired of this generalisation. Yes, I will concede that some (maybe even many) practitioners of so-called religions do so only to increase their own personal wealth or something.
Jesus himself warned about these people in many scriptures; the wolf in sheep's clothing, the pot clean outside but filthy inside, etc. The trouble is that people see these folks who pretend to be Christians who are preying on them and say "see? Your religion is BS." That's what the fool who responded to you sees, the wolves who pretend to be sheep to gain wealth and power.
Because there isn't one in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense.
And you're 100% positive of that despite any evidence whatever. OTOH I have experienced God's presence, and many, many others have as well. You're the guy who's never been to the zoo trying to tell me elephants are impossible.
Only some people who thrive on the power and money generated from convincing people of the most ridiculous things.
And you're not only completely ignorant about Christianity, you refuse to learn. Our religion is strictly against wealth and power. Do you know where the money I throw in the collection plate goes? A lot of it goes to Somalia and other horribly poverty stricken places around the world. Including here in Springfield -- last year volunteers from my church donated a whole lot of time, money, and effort to fixing up Harvard Park Elementary in the poorest neighborhood in town. Last Christmas every family with a child in that school got two weeks of groceries, free, thanks to us, because a lot of those kids don't get to eat much when they're not in school.
Wealth and power? God, how ignorant you are, fool. "It is as hard for a rich man to enter hevean as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Yes, there are some wolves in sheep's clothing (*cough*Pat Robertson*cough) that take advantage of Christian generosity (we are required to be generous) but the vast majority of Christian preachers are not, in fact, either rich or powerful.
Before you pan a book you might want to try reading it, fool.
But that's what a marriage is. It's two people becoming one entity, and it's supposed to last until one of you dies. Unfortunately too many don't; mine didn't (lasted 27 years).
The "digital property"? It's digital. Both parties get all of it. I mean, it's only data. Just copy it. As to physical property, that depends on your state's divorce laws, the lawyers, and the judge. I would suggest to the submitter that he ask his lawyer, not us nerds.
I thought he made a very good comment, and he's athiest and I'm Christian. Links? Links to what? Hell, there are examples of what he's saying in this very thread.
There's a big difference between a skeptic (agnostic) and the faithful (athiest). Without proof either way, agnosticism is the only rational position.
I can understand why a Christian would want to save an athiest's soul (although his evangelism is IMO misguided; the athiest or agnostic won't going to find God unless he looks). What I can't understand is why athiests all try to convince me of God's nonexistance. My faith doesn't affect you at all. Well, unless you're poor in which case you'll probably get food from my church, even if you're athiest.
I had a very interesting conversation with two athiests I know well in a bar the other night. One is an avowed athiest (and card carrying KKK member who's spent time in prison for murder) and the other athiest claimed to be a Catholic. Hers was the intereting part, how could one claim to be Catholic but not believe in God?
Both of them tried their best to make me not believe. He (KKK guy) started the conversation... here in Springfield we do our trolling offline.
The problem isn't "obama's nanny state" but ham-fisted authoritarian school officials. I saw this in the firehose yesterday and RFTA, the school very obviously screwed up badly, since the lunch the kid brought was indeed healthy and did indeed meet USDA guidelines. And nobody had to take the kid's word, the parent and administration agreed that they did indeed substitute the kid's lunch and try to charge the mother for the price.
What's dispicable is that morons so damned stupid are teaching our kids.
Where as a RELIGION I would state has a dogma, a leader, followers, and have no requirements to join other than maybe a ritual.
Many religions are like that, probably all the real ones. In a real Christian church (and Bhuddists and Hindus are probably the same) you can walk right in, be greeted with a smile, maybe get a free cup of coffee and donuts, watch the show (music and sermon, a good preacher will have you laughing), and not be required to contribute a penny or do anything else. When they pass the collection bag you're not required to put anything in at all. Even the rituals are voluntary (baptism and communion).
If you have to pay to get in, it isn't a church. If it doesn't give almost all the money that's donated to it away it probably isn't, either.
BTW, don't worry about the meds, you're perfectly lucid.
And Christianity. Actually, what's the difference between a pseudo-Religion and a Religion?
I'd like to see Randi heal the lame, make the blind see, raise the dead, feed a multitude with a few fish and some bread, tell fishermen to put their nets where the fishermen know there's no fish and bring up sp many it almost capsizes the boat, walk on the water, and be tortured to death and come back to life 3 days later.
Oh, and that doesn't even cover the important part -- the message itself. Even if you don't believe Jesus performed those miracles or that God exists, what he taught has great value.
I know how to drive a stick, owned quite a few cars with manual transmissions, but I would argue that you're wrong. It's like saying that you don't know how to drive unless you know how to operate a manual choke and starter crank -- other primitive technologies that are thankfully gone.
Faster decisions doesn't necessarily mean better decisions. However, I do think driverless vehicles will be far safer than vehicles piloted by humans. Humans are limited by emotion (fear, anger, impatience) while machines are not.
Rather than having people complain that they're dangerous, I suspect the main complaint will be "but that 100 mile trip took ten minutes longer!"
While I'm sure there will be anti-patent people saying that since the process is "Inspired by origami and children's pop-up books" there's nothing novel or original in it, and prior art should invalidate their patents, for once I'm not sure I agree.
I'm sure I disagree. This is novel and new and should be able to be patented. Everything novel and new comes from what came before, "shoulders of giants" and all that. All science, all technology, all art. Everything.
Wow. I am continually impressed with the advance in various technologies, especially medical tech. In 1966 McCoy's displays in sick bay were far-out future fantasy, today they look primitive.
When we have nano-robots that can build more nano-robots, I think the time will come when a 3D printer will seem not only quaint, but as primitive as McCoy's sick bay.
The media would have you believe that if I download a file for free, it's a lost sale. But it's not -- as you say, it's free advertising. However, if you BUY that file, the money you spent on that file should have gone to one entity and instead went to another.
Say you cleaned your mom's kitchen; even if you would have done it for free, would it be right for her to pay your sister for it? You did the work, she got the money.
If there's money changing hands on a work that's still under copyright, the artist should at least get a cut.
Amen! If you're publishing a dead tree book you control the "screen" size and fonts and everything, not so e-material. You don't know the display's size, aspect ratio, or orientation. It could be a tiny phone on a screen or a huge TV screen.
Someone has a sense of entitlement - "I don't want to pay for this, so instead of doing without or being responsible I'll just take it" - and so they make more and more run-arounds just so they can get their stuff for free.
If that's the pirates' mind set, then why do all the studies show that music pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates? No, the pirates didn't bring SOPA and the other evils, YOU, the publishers, did.
What on earth do you expect the reactions of the media giants to be?
I always expected them to not be learning-disabled but my expectations were incorrect. It's simple: give the content away, sell the container like it's been done for hundreds of years. I've been reading since 1958 and never had to pay to read before. I paid when I wanted and could afford to, by going to the bookstore instead of the library.
The war on piracy is nothing but incredibly stupid greed. "Hey, look, we can sell an ebook or record for the same price we're selling it now and not have printing, shipping, and distribution costs! Now all we have to do is make people stop doing it for free."
Illegal? Yes. Immoral? No. The only immoral actors here are the publishers themselves.
Infringing copyright isn't theft. Copyright theft is when a record company takes the rights to their musicians' work. If I held a gun to your head and made you sign your copyrights over, that too would be copyright theft.
The publishing industries should stop listening to the advertiser's mantra "sell the sizzle, not the steak" and try to understand what the phrase means. You can't sell me a sizzle, but the sizzle might help you sell me a steak.
What's the difference between downloading a CD's worth of songs and checking the CD out from the library? It has dozens of movies, hundreds of CDs and thousands of books -- all free.
Since the invention of moveable type, the content sold the book. The music sold the record. Plays, concerts, and movies were the only exceptions. Study after study shows that music pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates. Attack piracy and you attack your best customers. I can think of little more foolish.
However, I agree that those making money from piracy or counterfeiting are in fact stealing. In that case, something is indeed lost.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say, though, how is it that people manage to marry someone that they hate that much?
The hate (or simple anger) comes later. When you repeatedly catch her fucking your best friend, you may actually shoot the bastard. When you beat her, is she going to keep loving you?
Have you never had a falling out with a dear friend that was irreconcilable? Same thing happens with marriages.
Why would an athiest go to church?
Surrogates. Bruce Willis does more than just destroy asteroids!
Avatar had live sentient animals being grown and controlled by humans. In Surrogates, they're robots, and surrogacy starts on the battlefield.
Good SF movie, I don't know why it's so unknown.
Does your faith tell you that you will be punished if you stop following it or do not do what it states?
I don't know about his (he may be Jewish) but mine says my evil has already been paid for.
Has your faith always been right?
In the six decades I've been here it's never let me down, although there are times I've let it down.
Is your faith factually correct?
It deals with wisdom, not fact.
And the US President at the time was Ronald Reagan! You know, when you put someone in charge of government who thinks that government is always the problem and never the solution, you shouldn't expect good government out of them.
It was the right wing who insisted ketchup is a vegetable.
Quoting someone else's opinion is hardly a rebuttal. Now, if you'd quoted Weinberg about physics it would be valid, but Weinberg speaking about religion is as insightful as quoting an astronomer about biology. IT ISN'T HIS FIELD. HE IS IGNORANT about the subject.
How many athiest organizations go to Somalia to feed the poor? Where were the athiests when my church gave the poorest families in town two weeks groceries each so the kids wouldn't go hungry over Christmas vacation? The fanatical athiests spending money to put anti-religion messages on busses and billboards, are they spending any feeding the poor? If so, I've never heard of it.
How many athiests are against vengeance? How many are for doing good to those who harm you? In fact, my own religion (Christianity) say that nobody is good, all are evil except God. Show me someone who claims to have never done wrong, and I'll show you a liar. Almost everyone does some good, and everyone does some wrong.
When you get older still you'll discover that who you were when you were 25 isn't who you are now.
I'm really tired of this generalisation. Yes, I will concede that some (maybe even many) practitioners of so-called religions do so only to increase their own personal wealth or something.
Jesus himself warned about these people in many scriptures; the wolf in sheep's clothing, the pot clean outside but filthy inside, etc. The trouble is that people see these folks who pretend to be Christians who are preying on them and say "see? Your religion is BS." That's what the fool who responded to you sees, the wolves who pretend to be sheep to gain wealth and power.
Because there isn't one in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense.
And you're 100% positive of that despite any evidence whatever. OTOH I have experienced God's presence, and many, many others have as well. You're the guy who's never been to the zoo trying to tell me elephants are impossible.
Only some people who thrive on the power and money generated from convincing people of the most ridiculous things.
And you're not only completely ignorant about Christianity, you refuse to learn. Our religion is strictly against wealth and power. Do you know where the money I throw in the collection plate goes? A lot of it goes to Somalia and other horribly poverty stricken places around the world. Including here in Springfield -- last year volunteers from my church donated a whole lot of time, money, and effort to fixing up Harvard Park Elementary in the poorest neighborhood in town. Last Christmas every family with a child in that school got two weeks of groceries, free, thanks to us, because a lot of those kids don't get to eat much when they're not in school.
Wealth and power? God, how ignorant you are, fool. "It is as hard for a rich man to enter hevean as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Yes, there are some wolves in sheep's clothing (*cough*Pat Robertson*cough) that take advantage of Christian generosity (we are required to be generous) but the vast majority of Christian preachers are not, in fact, either rich or powerful.
Before you pan a book you might want to try reading it, fool.
There isn't really a war on drugs. It's a war on privacy, liberty, and your GF's health.
But that's what a marriage is. It's two people becoming one entity, and it's supposed to last until one of you dies. Unfortunately too many don't; mine didn't (lasted 27 years).
The "digital property"? It's digital. Both parties get all of it. I mean, it's only data. Just copy it. As to physical property, that depends on your state's divorce laws, the lawyers, and the judge. I would suggest to the submitter that he ask his lawyer, not us nerds.
I thought he made a very good comment, and he's athiest and I'm Christian. Links? Links to what? Hell, there are examples of what he's saying in this very thread.
There's a big difference between a skeptic (agnostic) and the faithful (athiest). Without proof either way, agnosticism is the only rational position.
I can understand why a Christian would want to save an athiest's soul (although his evangelism is IMO misguided; the athiest or agnostic won't going to find God unless he looks). What I can't understand is why athiests all try to convince me of God's nonexistance. My faith doesn't affect you at all. Well, unless you're poor in which case you'll probably get food from my church, even if you're athiest.
I had a very interesting conversation with two athiests I know well in a bar the other night. One is an avowed athiest (and card carrying KKK member who's spent time in prison for murder) and the other athiest claimed to be a Catholic. Hers was the intereting part, how could one claim to be Catholic but not believe in God?
Both of them tried their best to make me not believe. He (KKK guy) started the conversation... here in Springfield we do our trolling offline.
The problem isn't "obama's nanny state" but ham-fisted authoritarian school officials. I saw this in the firehose yesterday and RFTA, the school very obviously screwed up badly, since the lunch the kid brought was indeed healthy and did indeed meet USDA guidelines. And nobody had to take the kid's word, the parent and administration agreed that they did indeed substitute the kid's lunch and try to charge the mother for the price.
What's dispicable is that morons so damned stupid are teaching our kids.
Where as a RELIGION I would state has a dogma, a leader, followers, and have no requirements to join other than maybe a ritual.
Many religions are like that, probably all the real ones. In a real Christian church (and Bhuddists and Hindus are probably the same) you can walk right in, be greeted with a smile, maybe get a free cup of coffee and donuts, watch the show (music and sermon, a good preacher will have you laughing), and not be required to contribute a penny or do anything else. When they pass the collection bag you're not required to put anything in at all. Even the rituals are voluntary (baptism and communion).
If you have to pay to get in, it isn't a church. If it doesn't give almost all the money that's donated to it away it probably isn't, either.
BTW, don't worry about the meds, you're perfectly lucid.
Please don't feed the trolls.
And Christianity. Actually, what's the difference between a pseudo-Religion and a Religion?
I'd like to see Randi heal the lame, make the blind see, raise the dead, feed a multitude with a few fish and some bread, tell fishermen to put their nets where the fishermen know there's no fish and bring up sp many it almost capsizes the boat, walk on the water, and be tortured to death and come back to life 3 days later.
Oh, and that doesn't even cover the important part -- the message itself. Even if you don't believe Jesus performed those miracles or that God exists, what he taught has great value.
I know how to drive a stick, owned quite a few cars with manual transmissions, but I would argue that you're wrong. It's like saying that you don't know how to drive unless you know how to operate a manual choke and starter crank -- other primitive technologies that are thankfully gone.
Faster decisions doesn't necessarily mean better decisions. However, I do think driverless vehicles will be far safer than vehicles piloted by humans. Humans are limited by emotion (fear, anger, impatience) while machines are not.
Rather than having people complain that they're dangerous, I suspect the main complaint will be "but that 100 mile trip took ten minutes longer!"
While I'm sure there will be anti-patent people saying that since the process is "Inspired by origami and children's pop-up books" there's nothing novel or original in it, and prior art should invalidate their patents, for once I'm not sure I agree.
I'm sure I disagree. This is novel and new and should be able to be patented. Everything novel and new comes from what came before, "shoulders of giants" and all that. All science, all technology, all art. Everything.
Wow. I am continually impressed with the advance in various technologies, especially medical tech. In 1966 McCoy's displays in sick bay were far-out future fantasy, today they look primitive.
When we have nano-robots that can build more nano-robots, I think the time will come when a 3D printer will seem not only quaint, but as primitive as McCoy's sick bay.
Are these devices really "robots," though?
So, I ask you again, what is lost?
The media would have you believe that if I download a file for free, it's a lost sale. But it's not -- as you say, it's free advertising. However, if you BUY that file, the money you spent on that file should have gone to one entity and instead went to another.
Say you cleaned your mom's kitchen; even if you would have done it for free, would it be right for her to pay your sister for it? You did the work, she got the money.
If there's money changing hands on a work that's still under copyright, the artist should at least get a cut.
Amen! If you're publishing a dead tree book you control the "screen" size and fonts and everything, not so e-material. You don't know the display's size, aspect ratio, or orientation. It could be a tiny phone on a screen or a huge TV screen.
Trying for control like that is retarded.
Cottage cheese works just as well as yogurt.
Someone has a sense of entitlement - "I don't want to pay for this, so instead of doing without or being responsible I'll just take it" - and so they make more and more run-arounds just so they can get their stuff for free.
If that's the pirates' mind set, then why do all the studies show that music pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates? No, the pirates didn't bring SOPA and the other evils, YOU, the publishers, did.
What on earth do you expect the reactions of the media giants to be?
I always expected them to not be learning-disabled but my expectations were incorrect. It's simple: give the content away, sell the container like it's been done for hundreds of years. I've been reading since 1958 and never had to pay to read before. I paid when I wanted and could afford to, by going to the bookstore instead of the library.
The war on piracy is nothing but incredibly stupid greed. "Hey, look, we can sell an ebook or record for the same price we're selling it now and not have printing, shipping, and distribution costs! Now all we have to do is make people stop doing it for free."
Illegal? Yes. Immoral? No. The only immoral actors here are the publishers themselves.
Infringing copyright isn't theft. Copyright theft is when a record company takes the rights to their musicians' work. If I held a gun to your head and made you sign your copyrights over, that too would be copyright theft.
The publishing industries should stop listening to the advertiser's mantra "sell the sizzle, not the steak" and try to understand what the phrase means. You can't sell me a sizzle, but the sizzle might help you sell me a steak.
What's the difference between downloading a CD's worth of songs and checking the CD out from the library? It has dozens of movies, hundreds of CDs and thousands of books -- all free.
Since the invention of moveable type, the content sold the book. The music sold the record. Plays, concerts, and movies were the only exceptions. Study after study shows that music pirates spend more money on music than non-pirates. Attack piracy and you attack your best customers. I can think of little more foolish.
However, I agree that those making money from piracy or counterfeiting are in fact stealing. In that case, something is indeed lost.