You think the Christian God is a Christian? Nope, if he's God, there cannot be any higher power than him for him to believe in, so he must be an Atheist.
To be honest I'm at a loss as to whether religion really offers much on "why". Honestly, what exactly does religion bring to the table? It has stories handed down through the years from... someone... but what else does it offer to answer "why" any better than philosophy, which doesn't come pre-burdened with official dogma?
I'd love to spend longer on this, but I'm constrained for time. Let me try this: think of religion as a philosophy you've bought into.
There's a lot of comment on the difference between science and philosophy and how they obviate the need for religion. I disagree, somewhat. Science is one particular philosophical discipline (that's the 'Ph' in PhD, kids), that is meant to tackle certain philosophical issues (ie. how). I don't think it is well positioned to answer "why" beyond the causal meaning.
Further philosophical musings can then take many forms. Some are general and abstract. Some use myth, legend, and perhaps historical event to present the idea in a way that is more accessible - and I find no fault in that.
What does religion bring to the table? Accessibility, support, community, beauty, faith, teaching... That's not to say it is accessible to everyone, nor that everyone finds support from it, or even that it always does its jobs particularly well. In fact, it sometimes does these things very badly. Is that the fault of religion, or those that carry its banner? Let's consider that - but we don't need to get into a separate debate of it.
There is more to the human experience than just facts. I believe in the scientific process, I am an atheist, and I find many things of great value in religion.
But I have gone another way. I have zigged while others zagged. This doesn't bother me in slightest, and I don't think it should bother them (any more than I think atheists should be bothered that some people choose to believe in God anyway). It makes the world an interesting place.
Actually the "yuo people" was addressed to all the fundamentalists, not to all the atheists.
Ah. Fair enough
I would argue Atheism is just another religion.
And you have. To the extent that we might define "religion" to be a philosophical belief system about the nature of god - I would agree. It is a fact, though, that the vast majority of religions share general characteristics that you will not find in atheism. It all depends on how broadly you want to define the word "religion."
I just chose not to limit myself to any one belief system. I just pick and choose whatever seems right from whatever religion I'm exposed to. Jesus, Buddha, Socrates, Mohammed all hove some very insightful knowledge of the universe. Why limit yourself to one?
An approach I can support wholeheartedly.
It's interesting that you would immediately assume that someone who is contrary to your beliefs is Christian.
You can rightly say that I got carried away with an assumption - do not then make the mistake of doing the same.
I assumed you were a Christian because you cited Jesus and his teachings. You referred to the (generally understood) Judeo-Christian notion of 'God loving you'. You did not directly refer to characteristic figures or teachings from any other religion.
If I drew an incorrect conclusion from what I was presented - then I retract it, and I apologize for any offense. Allow me to note, though, that it was a (flawed) conclusion based on your text, not my prejudice.
I'm reminded of a quote from dune I saw in someone's sig: "What do you despise? By this are you truly known."
It's from Frank Herbert, if you're interested.
I think this is a trap that many atheists fall into. They simply define themselves as simply being against christianity (and by extension all religions).
Well, first of all - it is not at all a natural extension to say that to be against Christianity is to be against all religions.
Your main point, though, which I would interpret to be that atheism is better understood by what it is not, rather than what it is, is well taken from this corner. A point I reflected on after writing my post above, in fact.
However you are again, IMHO, continuing to take characteristics and attitudes that would well apply across the board, and projecting them simply on atheists. It is true that for many atheists, it is nothing more than a rejection of religion, or perhaps the rejection of a specific faith - but the same is true of non-atheists. Many of them also have a simplistic view, and one that is only relative to their own particular faith.
I have heard many christians discuss atheism solely from the perspective about what it is about Christianity we reject. This was further emphasized the first time I spoke with a muslim about my atheism - and he immediately put atheism into a context of Atheism vs. Islam.
So this narrow view of a philosophical system - the fact that one may limit themselves by only its simplest tenants is (I would argue) a human characteristic - and not an imagination-deficit that atheists have a monopoly on.
So when an atheist asks "Why are we here?" he has to reject any answer that might resemble something from religion. This is what is so limiting about atheism.
Again, I don't agree that you can take it that far. We must reject anything 'that might resemble something from religion'? I have beliefs that religious friends have described as "deeply spiritual." As I said before, there is room for beauty, imagination, and inspiration in atheism.
Atheism implicitly rejects the notion that we are given our purpose from some external entity, this is true. Religions, by and large, also implicitly reject the idea that we might actually choose to answer that question for ourselves.
They're both limiting - not because there's something wrong with them but because to b
The only thing worse than a christian fundamentalist is an atheist fundamentalist.
As an atheist - I more or less agree with this. I have a problem with fundamentalists of any stripe.
Why the hell do you people want to convert everyone?
And then you go and say something like that. "You people"? I understand if your passions is inflamed - but don't do that.
With every belief system, there's a bell curve of evangelisation. Some are content to live according to their system, others to "live as an example". Some answer when asked, some preach, some confront, and some harass.
That's true of every group - so there's no sense in getting your knickers in a twist over atheists, unless you've got a particular axe to grind. But then the issue is with you, and not them.
Jesus said we should be kind to one another and forgive and not judge. If theis message makes someone a better person, couldn't you say that person was saved by Jesus?
Is it wrong to appreciate life in all its forms? Is it wrong to think that life is something special in the Universe? "God loves you" is just another way of saying that.
On these statements - you and I can agree, and using religion as a metaphor for appreciating nature and trying to live in harmony with your fellow man...hey - I'm all for that.
Unfortunately, there are as many on "your side" that would disagree with us as on "my side". So that leaves us in a pickle.
I used to be an atheist. But the problem with atheism is that it limits you. Science can answer the "How?" questions but not the "Why?" questions. Why are we here? Big bang, evolution, yada yada yada. That tells us how, but not why.
With respect, that's not a limit of atheism. That's a limit of science, and to a certain extent, that betrays a limit of your own imagination.
To start with, you should realise this equation ( atheism == scientific belief ) is not true. Science deals with how, not why - that's not a flaw, that's just what it is. Personally, I think we'd be better off if religion stuck to the why, and stopped trying to decide the how - but that's for another day.
Atheism doesn't "limit" you any more than it frees you - again, same as religion...
Someone who lives in fear of an invisible man, and attempts to abide by a codified rule set lest they face an eternity of torture and punishment is not free.
Someone who marvels at the fact that we are the only known piece of the universe that is aware of itself, and trying to figure itself out - who sees the universe as a conscious entity, through us - is not limited.
I present that contrast, not to attempt to characterise your beliefs, but to point out that it is we who limit ourselves or free ourselves. Religion can be a way to do either, depending on how it is used, but it is not the only option.
Atheism is not fundamentally flawed because it tells us no one will supply a "why" for us. It is not limiting because it requires the individual to set their own purpose, and chart their own beliefs. There is beauty. There is mystery. There is inspiration.
I'm sorry you could not find it. I genuinely hope that you have found it in Christianity. Either way - I don't think you serve yourself or us by relating your experience as anything more than your experience.
...can anyone here tell me what makes this even remotely (pardon the expression) a GOOD idea?
*with parent hat on* Knowing where my kids are.
Besides that - can't think of a thing.
Oh and don't get me wrong - a GPS-enabled phone is not the best foundation for a trusting parent-child relationship; but when pressed to find something of worth in it - that's what I come up with.
Could it be that Microsoft is actually using some Novell-held patents in Vista and want to put a spin on it?
Possible - but even if we accept the premise; their response would be entirely inconsistent. Microsoft is no stranger to patent/trademark issues - and they've never been the kind to roll over willingly, if in the wrong.
Microsoft is handing over a lot of money, and in doing so, legitimizing a product (Linux) and a technology (open source software) that they have spent a LOT more time and money trying to discredit.
Now, can any slashdoter tell me why this deal is really bad and should be avoided?
I'm not saying either of those things - but I don't have the warm and fuzzies over this. Why? Because there is no immediate answer to the most obvious question; What does Microsoft believe they are getting for their 348 million dollars?
I mean - they ponied up a third of a bill so that you'd be protected from lawsuits...from them. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to - say - not sue? I'd have to double-check my figures; but I'm pretty sure that will cost you nothing.
They're getting something out of this (or at least they believe they are), and if you've directly benefited, then it's reasonable to believe that it's costing you something as well (TNSTAAFL).
Maybe it's a good trade, maybe not, but Microsoft has earned a certain reputation among this audience.
Time, and the trust of Linux users other than myself, will tell.
I consider myself very technologically savvy, have been working in IT for 15 years, 10 of those in networking, and I've honestly never understood why people deride the politician that made the "tubes" analogy so much. Isn't the analogy of tubes or pipes fairly accurate to describe the Internet's physical infrastructure? What's so weird about that? Someone please explain it, I honestly want to know. Thanks in advance.
Out of context - the comment seems about as funny as a random line from Monty Python. The speech Senator Stevens gave was a halting, rambling affair that maintained an amazingly consistent level of anger/passion. He made numerous statements that belied a decidedly uninformed perspective on e-mail, e-commerce, and the internet at large.
The now infamous comment; "it's a series of tubes!" came at the end of a diatribe about how the "internet" that his staff had sent him last Friday was, apparently, clogged up with all the movies being offered by commercial operators. The statement was delivered with such gusto, such conviction that you swear the old fella truly believed they were a bunch of literal tubes.
Was it a technically sound statement, in and of itself? Perhaps...but it seems clear from the rest of the speech that it was more Clouseau than Sherlock.
I thought that I read that the Duelfer Report also talked about how, although the weapons programs were not up and running, Saddam was hoping to use the oil for food program to wiggle his way out of inspections and international pressure? Saddam was hoping that once that happened he could resume the research and development of WMD. We now know that the oil for food payoffs were working. Thankfully we will never know when the next step would have been.
Yeah, the whole country might have ended up a disaster.
If you look at the statistics, the "in their own bed" recommendation only applies if the parent is drunk or drugged out.
...or is a heavy sleeper, has thick blankets, suffers from sleep apnea, or, or, or...
Look; I have no problems if mom and dad want to keep the little one in their bed. Different people, different cultures have different ideas and I'm all for that. I've never heard any credible suggestion about aural therapy to teach kids breathing techniques before - but maybe there's something to it. (and seriously; as a parent, if you've got anything scientific to back that up I'd be genuinely interested.)
That doesn't translate to your implication that responsible parents keep their kids in their bed. It may well be the right thing to do, but there is risk in that - and a lack of imagination in determining how good people might suffer accidents doesn't serve anyone. Parents should evaluate the situation honestly and critically, and make their own choice.
I think that "abnormality in the brain stem" is itself due to the parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and giving him a slappus for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus.
Man, a direct-from-the-ass theory that even manages to magle the Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur approach.
I suppose it'll get modified insightful - a much stronger indication that someone was beaten on the head while a child.
Mrs. Otter gave birth to our first pup a little over a year ago, and I noticed even then that many of the strategies we were given to reduce the chances of SIDS (baby on their back, in their own bed, no blankets, no "crib-bumpers") really seemed to be about reducing the risk of suffocation.
I'm no scientist, but hearing a theory that some babies might be a little worse of when required to react to lack of oxygen tracks pretty well with what the prevention techniques.
Sounds promising - time for a bigger study, I think.
Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?
Judge says he wants to see 100 hours of game play. Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...
I have a long term goal of switching all my applications to ones that work anywhere so I won't be tied to windows.
I undertook a similar effort, if you're interested. I've now got an XP machine, a Mac, and a couple of Linux boxes running at home.
Firefox for browsing
OpenOffice 2.0 for document/spreadsheet stuff (great office program - and you can export documents to PDF if you need a 3rd party to read them)
Gaim for IMing - although it looked like it would be a bit of a pain to get it going on Mac - so I just downloaded Adium for it
Tried getting into GIMP - but I was already accustomed to Photoshop, so I've left it on XP for now.
Trying like the dickens get get Quicken 2000 working on all platforms. Good on XP, naturally - okay on Linux via WINE, but with a couple of bugs. Trying to get it going on Mac via Darwine, and it conks out at any chart or graph
Anyway, that was my experience. The real interesting thing was helping Mrs. Otter make the adjustment. She's not a geek, but as I moved her on to these apps - she found them easy to use, and so didn't really mind the OS switchover, despite being initially nervous.
They are not very concerned about stopping the geeks. They are not numerous enough to matter. They want to stop the masses, and they are succeeding.
Oh, I realise...and that's kind of my point. Mainly I find this kind of stuff really bad business behaviour by annoying your customers - but I must acknowledge that this pretty much guarantees that I (and we) will always have the cooler toys.
No doubt - but in the meantime, I'm ripping my movie collection on my new Mac Mini. When they come for my Mac, I've got Linux running my servers in the basement.
I used to be sympathetic to the cause (if not the means) of protecting content - but everything they're coming up with these days is about getting in the way of the consumer; none of it really stops those who are determined. So I just say fuck 'em.
I'm not proud of it, but on some level, I revel in seeing these things. I'm the geek in Mrs. Otter's social circle - but they all have computers, are insufferably pleased about what they're able to "do" with it (like IM), and call me when they've taken it in to some two-bit servicing outfit and want me to tell them over the phone why it won't work anymore.
They were over for dinner, and saw how I'd set the Mini up to be my little media machine. They didn't even know such things could be done, and if *AA have their way, they'll never have one.
These DRM/anti-copy tactics are pointless, ineffective, and prevent the masses from doing the kind of cool shit they should be allowed to...but it's never going to stop the geeks - which gives us an avenue to showcase that smugness we all carry.
If you re-program those machines to show child porn on election day, you'll surely get a scandal, even if the actual votes don't get manipulated... but then, a little background picture showing a naked breast will do as well. Just be careful that the nipple isn't obscured by the names of the candidates.:-)
Go with the breast. Sexual exploitation of children still seems to be a partisan issue. Breasts are an uncontested national crisis.
Slashdot Mirror
When a lump of coal just won't do...
You think the Christian God is a Christian? Nope, if he's God, there cannot be any higher power than him for him to believe in, so he must be an Atheist.
Actually, I suspect he's a narcissist.
To be honest I'm at a loss as to whether religion really offers much on "why". Honestly, what exactly does religion bring to the table? It has stories handed down through the years from ... someone ... but what else does it offer to answer "why" any better than philosophy, which doesn't come pre-burdened with official dogma?
I'd love to spend longer on this, but I'm constrained for time. Let me try this: think of religion as a philosophy you've bought into.
There's a lot of comment on the difference between science and philosophy and how they obviate the need for religion. I disagree, somewhat. Science is one particular philosophical discipline (that's the 'Ph' in PhD, kids), that is meant to tackle certain philosophical issues (ie. how). I don't think it is well positioned to answer "why" beyond the causal meaning.
Further philosophical musings can then take many forms. Some are general and abstract. Some use myth, legend, and perhaps historical event to present the idea in a way that is more accessible - and I find no fault in that.
What does religion bring to the table? Accessibility, support, community, beauty, faith, teaching... That's not to say it is accessible to everyone, nor that everyone finds support from it, or even that it always does its jobs particularly well. In fact, it sometimes does these things very badly. Is that the fault of religion, or those that carry its banner? Let's consider that - but we don't need to get into a separate debate of it.
There is more to the human experience than just facts. I believe in the scientific process, I am an atheist, and I find many things of great value in religion.
But I have gone another way. I have zigged while others zagged. This doesn't bother me in slightest, and I don't think it should bother them (any more than I think atheists should be bothered that some people choose to believe in God anyway). It makes the world an interesting place.
Actually the "yuo people" was addressed to all the fundamentalists, not to all the atheists.
Ah. Fair enough
I would argue Atheism is just another religion.
And you have. To the extent that we might define "religion" to be a philosophical belief system about the nature of god - I would agree. It is a fact, though, that the vast majority of religions share general characteristics that you will not find in atheism. It all depends on how broadly you want to define the word "religion."
I just chose not to limit myself to any one belief system. I just pick and choose whatever seems right from whatever religion I'm exposed to. Jesus, Buddha, Socrates, Mohammed all hove some very insightful knowledge of the universe. Why limit yourself to one?
An approach I can support wholeheartedly.
It's interesting that you would immediately assume that someone who is contrary to your beliefs is Christian.
You can rightly say that I got carried away with an assumption - do not then make the mistake of doing the same.
I assumed you were a Christian because you cited Jesus and his teachings. You referred to the (generally understood) Judeo-Christian notion of 'God loving you'. You did not directly refer to characteristic figures or teachings from any other religion.
If I drew an incorrect conclusion from what I was presented - then I retract it, and I apologize for any offense. Allow me to note, though, that it was a (flawed) conclusion based on your text, not my prejudice.
I'm reminded of a quote from dune I saw in someone's sig: "What do you despise? By this are you truly known."
It's from Frank Herbert, if you're interested.
I think this is a trap that many atheists fall into. They simply define themselves as simply being against christianity (and by extension all religions).
Well, first of all - it is not at all a natural extension to say that to be against Christianity is to be against all religions.
Your main point, though, which I would interpret to be that atheism is better understood by what it is not, rather than what it is, is well taken from this corner. A point I reflected on after writing my post above, in fact.
However you are again, IMHO, continuing to take characteristics and attitudes that would well apply across the board, and projecting them simply on atheists. It is true that for many atheists, it is nothing more than a rejection of religion, or perhaps the rejection of a specific faith - but the same is true of non-atheists. Many of them also have a simplistic view, and one that is only relative to their own particular faith.
I have heard many christians discuss atheism solely from the perspective about what it is about Christianity we reject. This was further emphasized the first time I spoke with a muslim about my atheism - and he immediately put atheism into a context of Atheism vs. Islam.
So this narrow view of a philosophical system - the fact that one may limit themselves by only its simplest tenants is (I would argue) a human characteristic - and not an imagination-deficit that atheists have a monopoly on.
So when an atheist asks "Why are we here?" he has to reject any answer that might resemble something from religion. This is what is so limiting about atheism.
Again, I don't agree that you can take it that far. We must reject anything 'that might resemble something from religion'? I have beliefs that religious friends have described as "deeply spiritual." As I said before, there is room for beauty, imagination, and inspiration in atheism.
Atheism implicitly rejects the notion that we are given our purpose from some external entity, this is true. Religions, by and large, also implicitly reject the idea that we might actually choose to answer that question for ourselves.
They're both limiting - not because there's something wrong with them but because to b
The only thing worse than a christian fundamentalist is an atheist fundamentalist.
As an atheist - I more or less agree with this. I have a problem with fundamentalists of any stripe.
Why the hell do you people want to convert everyone?
And then you go and say something like that. "You people"? I understand if your passions is inflamed - but don't do that.
With every belief system, there's a bell curve of evangelisation. Some are content to live according to their system, others to "live as an example". Some answer when asked, some preach, some confront, and some harass.
That's true of every group - so there's no sense in getting your knickers in a twist over atheists, unless you've got a particular axe to grind. But then the issue is with you, and not them.
Jesus said we should be kind to one another and forgive and not judge. If theis message makes someone a better person, couldn't you say that person was saved by Jesus?
Is it wrong to appreciate life in all its forms? Is it wrong to think that life is something special in the Universe? "God loves you" is just another way of saying that.
On these statements - you and I can agree, and using religion as a metaphor for appreciating nature and trying to live in harmony with your fellow man...hey - I'm all for that.
Unfortunately, there are as many on "your side" that would disagree with us as on "my side". So that leaves us in a pickle.
I used to be an atheist. But the problem with atheism is that it limits you. Science can answer the "How?" questions but not the "Why?" questions. Why are we here? Big bang, evolution, yada yada yada. That tells us how, but not why.
With respect, that's not a limit of atheism. That's a limit of science, and to a certain extent, that betrays a limit of your own imagination.
To start with, you should realise this equation ( atheism == scientific belief ) is not true. Science deals with how, not why - that's not a flaw, that's just what it is. Personally, I think we'd be better off if religion stuck to the why, and stopped trying to decide the how - but that's for another day.
Atheism doesn't "limit" you any more than it frees you - again, same as religion...
Someone who lives in fear of an invisible man, and attempts to abide by a codified rule set lest they face an eternity of torture and punishment is not free.
Someone who marvels at the fact that we are the only known piece of the universe that is aware of itself, and trying to figure itself out - who sees the universe as a conscious entity, through us - is not limited.
I present that contrast, not to attempt to characterise your beliefs, but to point out that it is we who limit ourselves or free ourselves. Religion can be a way to do either, depending on how it is used, but it is not the only option.
Atheism is not fundamentally flawed because it tells us no one will supply a "why" for us. It is not limiting because it requires the individual to set their own purpose, and chart their own beliefs. There is beauty. There is mystery. There is inspiration.
I'm sorry you could not find it. I genuinely hope that you have found it in Christianity. Either way - I don't think you serve yourself or us by relating your experience as anything more than your experience.
Judge not.
Cheers.
*with parent hat on* Knowing where my kids are.
Besides that - can't think of a thing.
Oh and don't get me wrong - a GPS-enabled phone is not the best foundation for a trusting parent-child relationship; but when pressed to find something of worth in it - that's what I come up with.
Is there a bias here? please clarify.
Oh god, where to begin?
Could it be that Microsoft is actually using some Novell-held patents in Vista and want to put a spin on it?
Possible - but even if we accept the premise; their response would be entirely inconsistent. Microsoft is no stranger to patent/trademark issues - and they've never been the kind to roll over willingly, if in the wrong.
Microsoft is handing over a lot of money, and in doing so, legitimizing a product (Linux) and a technology (open source software) that they have spent a LOT more time and money trying to discredit.
Now, can any slashdoter tell me why this deal is really bad and should be avoided?
I'm not saying either of those things - but I don't have the warm and fuzzies over this. Why? Because there is no immediate answer to the most obvious question; What does Microsoft believe they are getting for their 348 million dollars?
I mean - they ponied up a third of a bill so that you'd be protected from lawsuits...from them. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to - say - not sue? I'd have to double-check my figures; but I'm pretty sure that will cost you nothing.
They're getting something out of this (or at least they believe they are), and if you've directly benefited, then it's reasonable to believe that it's costing you something as well (TNSTAAFL).
Maybe it's a good trade, maybe not, but Microsoft has earned a certain reputation among this audience.
Time, and the trust of Linux users other than myself, will tell.
I consider myself very technologically savvy, have been working in IT for 15 years, 10 of those in networking, and I've honestly never understood why people deride the politician that made the "tubes" analogy so much. Isn't the analogy of tubes or pipes fairly accurate to describe the Internet's physical infrastructure? What's so weird about that? Someone please explain it, I honestly want to know. Thanks in advance.
Out of context - the comment seems about as funny as a random line from Monty Python. The speech Senator Stevens gave was a halting, rambling affair that maintained an amazingly consistent level of anger/passion. He made numerous statements that belied a decidedly uninformed perspective on e-mail, e-commerce, and the internet at large.
The now infamous comment; "it's a series of tubes!" came at the end of a diatribe about how the "internet" that his staff had sent him last Friday was, apparently, clogged up with all the movies being offered by commercial operators. The statement was delivered with such gusto, such conviction that you swear the old fella truly believed they were a bunch of literal tubes.
Was it a technically sound statement, in and of itself? Perhaps...but it seems clear from the rest of the speech that it was more Clouseau than Sherlock.
That's comedy.
I thought that I read that the Duelfer Report also talked about how, although the weapons programs were not up and running, Saddam was hoping to use the oil for food program to wiggle his way out of inspections and international pressure? Saddam was hoping that once that happened he could resume the research and development of WMD. We now know that the oil for food payoffs were working. Thankfully we will never know when the next step would have been.
Yeah, the whole country might have ended up a disaster.
If you look at the statistics, the "in their own bed" recommendation only applies if the parent is drunk or drugged out.
...or is a heavy sleeper, has thick blankets, suffers from sleep apnea, or, or, or...
Look; I have no problems if mom and dad want to keep the little one in their bed. Different people, different cultures have different ideas and I'm all for that. I've never heard any credible suggestion about aural therapy to teach kids breathing techniques before - but maybe there's something to it. (and seriously; as a parent, if you've got anything scientific to back that up I'd be genuinely interested.)
That doesn't translate to your implication that responsible parents keep their kids in their bed. It may well be the right thing to do, but there is risk in that - and a lack of imagination in determining how good people might suffer accidents doesn't serve anyone. Parents should evaluate the situation honestly and critically, and make their own choice.
I think that "abnormality in the brain stem" is itself due to the parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and giving him a slappus for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus.
Man, a direct-from-the-ass theory that even manages to magle the Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur approach.
I suppose it'll get modified insightful - a much stronger indication that someone was beaten on the head while a child.
Mrs. Otter gave birth to our first pup a little over a year ago, and I noticed even then that many of the strategies we were given to reduce the chances of SIDS (baby on their back, in their own bed, no blankets, no "crib-bumpers") really seemed to be about reducing the risk of suffocation.
I'm no scientist, but hearing a theory that some babies might be a little worse of when required to react to lack of oxygen tracks pretty well with what the prevention techniques.
Sounds promising - time for a bigger study, I think.
Tell them Hubble might have found oil on a distant planet, and that we need to take another look.
Can anything be done to stop Web bugs?
Funny you should ascii...
Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?
Judge says he wants to see 100 hours of game play. Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...
I have a long term goal of switching all my applications to ones that work anywhere so I won't be tied to windows.
I undertook a similar effort, if you're interested. I've now got an XP machine, a Mac, and a couple of Linux boxes running at home.
Anyway, that was my experience. The real interesting thing was helping Mrs. Otter make the adjustment. She's not a geek, but as I moved her on to these apps - she found them easy to use, and so didn't really mind the OS switchover, despite being initially nervous.
They are not very concerned about stopping the geeks. They are not numerous enough to matter. They want to stop the masses, and they are succeeding.
Oh, I realise...and that's kind of my point. Mainly I find this kind of stuff really bad business behaviour by annoying your customers - but I must acknowledge that this pretty much guarantees that I (and we) will always have the cooler toys.
yes I know, it will eventually get to macs
No doubt - but in the meantime, I'm ripping my movie collection on my new Mac Mini. When they come for my Mac, I've got Linux running my servers in the basement.
I used to be sympathetic to the cause (if not the means) of protecting content - but everything they're coming up with these days is about getting in the way of the consumer; none of it really stops those who are determined. So I just say fuck 'em.
I'm not proud of it, but on some level, I revel in seeing these things. I'm the geek in Mrs. Otter's social circle - but they all have computers, are insufferably pleased about what they're able to "do" with it (like IM), and call me when they've taken it in to some two-bit servicing outfit and want me to tell them over the phone why it won't work anymore.
They were over for dinner, and saw how I'd set the Mini up to be my little media machine. They didn't even know such things could be done, and if *AA have their way, they'll never have one.
These DRM/anti-copy tactics are pointless, ineffective, and prevent the masses from doing the kind of cool shit they should be allowed to...but it's never going to stop the geeks - which gives us an avenue to showcase that smugness we all carry.
Best Buy, Microsoft DRM and Real.
Could they possibly have come up with a better combo for me to rush out and ignore?
Free coupons for the store when you subscribe to AOL, and with your first purchase you get a free Kevin Federline track.
Anyone else?
If you re-program those machines to show child porn on election day, you'll surely get a scandal, even if the actual votes don't get manipulated ... but then, a little background picture showing a naked breast will do as well. Just be careful that the nipple isn't obscured by the names of the candidates. :-)
Go with the breast. Sexual exploitation of children still seems to be a partisan issue. Breasts are an uncontested national crisis.
*head explodes*
I could have sworn that movie was made years after Lennon was killed.
The movie was released two and a half years after his death. The writers said they had written the role with Lennon in mind.
Timewise that works for me - and I'm inclined to take the writers at their word.
Come to think of it, even that might be too high-level. How 'bout...
The Internet Made Simple
(C'mon someone was going to do it eventually...)
Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc.
Like I'm gonna trust that guy - with all the spam he's been sending me.