First off, I'm not an atheist, so your insecurities about how you may look given my anti-religion tirade are completely unfounded.
Strange, I don't recall ever saying you were an atheist. I do recall saying that people like you make people like me, who do not appear demonstrably different to most people, look bad. Don't put words in my mouth.
Secondly, you can make a point without being demeaning and assuming anything about my age.
But you cannot make a point without calling people stupid, okay, I got it. So how old are you?
Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.
I personally don't believe in God; the lack of positive evidence in favor of God's existence is my reason. But I cannot, and will not try to, prove a negative.
I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven. I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.
Then prove that God does not exist. As I just said--a negative cannot be proven. And if we are assuming the omnipotent, omniscient Christian God is the one up for discussion, you lose by default. Said omnipotent god could choose not to be visible to his creations, and we'd never know the wiser.
You would not be arguing so angrily if you were not insecure about your beliefs.
While it so happens that I agree with you on the subject, your immediate conviction is disturbing. You begin in rational territory--disbelieving in a god or gods because it cannot be proven is a perfectly valid choice, and my own as well--and then jump off into deep space. You cannot prove that it does not exist; those who believe cannot prove that it does.
As to bitching and whining, I would say that is a waste of time.
Good, I agree completely. So we both understand that that means you'll shut up now.
Arguing however may be essential, especially in public places like/. where an undecided person may be swayed into considering a more rational perspective. Religion is for idiots, and it's time for the bulk of humanity (especially in a democracy, where the bulk's intelligence can make important decisions effecting everyone) to see it as such.
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. - Albert Einstein
I would argue that Galileo, Copernicus, and Brahe were not "idiots." I would further point to men such as Dr. Kenneth Miller as examples of those who are certainly not "idiots," yet are devout religious people. And while I am certainly not saying that they are right because they are experts in one field or another (argumentum ad verecundiam) So...okay, where are your credentials? What makes you any less of an "idiot" then they are?
I'm not alone in some of these ideas, and I'm sorry that I do not express them eloquently enough for you. Perhaps I should spend more time linking to wikipedia articles by Bertrand Russell, or books like "Fifty Degrees Below Zero", which though fictional, express very intelligent suggestions relating to scientific knowledge, public awareness, and governmental policy.
I don't particularly care for Russell; he sounds alarmingly like you. Fifty Degrees Below (which I read when it came out--I assume this is what you mean, because Amazon has never heard of a book called Fifty Degrees Below Zero) was a decent read, though hackneyed as all hell (here's a hint: there's lots of science fiction out there that deals with "clear-sighted scientists who must overcome
Watch your house on Easter. See if the Easter Bunny comes. It won't come (unless you are not your average Slashdotter and have a girlfriend who also happens to be a bit strange that way).
Now try to observe something to conclude God doesn't exit.
I am an atheist--but I don't delude myself into thinking that I know for sure that a god or gods don't exist. And next time, why not post under your username?
However, religion can cause people to think they can make better predictions than they actually can, i.e. it gives them a false sense of security. It can also make people unnecessarily vulnerable to con men disguised as holy people.
Sure. But I can sell dirt to homeless people, and I'm not religious. And I know plenty of nonreligious people who think they can "make better predictions than they actually can." Overconfident and/or stupid people and all that.
What? You just said that we can't know. Now you say that we will?
I said that we cannot prove whether a deity or deities exist. But I figure we'll have some inkling after we die, yes?
You make atheists such as myself and other unbelievers look bad. But you'll grow up some day.
People are not stupid for believing in one or many gods. There is no way to prove conclusively that a deity or deities exist or do not. I believe they do not; others may differ, and we cannot prove who is right. Soon enough we will know. So why fight about it? Why argue and bitch and whine?
Those who attack a person's faith (or lack thereof) with such vitriol are merely insecure in their own beliefs.
# The well known memory leak issue, There are thousands of different issues that can cause actual and purported memory leaks, not one. We have fixed some of the most common and serious leaks in Firefox 2, and our testing has generally shown memory use to be lower than in 1.5. There are still known memory leaks, and there are certainly unknown ones as well, but we are working on fixing them. Remember that testing for "memory leaks" is not so simple as leaving a browser open or clicking on tabs and seeing if Task Manager reports a higher number. Determining what is actually a memory leak can be quite difficult, and frequently code paths that cause high memory _use_, but not leaks, are assumed to be "leaks" to laymen.
Thanks for replying, but this I won't buy. You have valgrind, I'm sure. That kills a large amount of your memory-leak excuse.
Eh..VB is really not all that bad. VB6 wasn't bad, but VB.NET has gotten surprisingly good. (The fact that it's the exact same thing as C# though with a different syntax certainly doesn't hurt.)
Download a copy off the 'net, install it on a throwaway box/VM of your own, get the password file, swap the password file with the one on the frozen machine.
That was how folks did it in my high school.
Then I started distributing Linux liveCDs, and some enterprising soul figured out what to do with them.
Offtopic, but DON'T get a MacBook. The keyboards are hell, the machines have (in my experience as a tech) a lovely tendency to break, and from a purely subjective view I think they look terrible.
The MacBook Pro, on the other hand, is a pretty high-quality machine. I haven't had any problems with any of 'em.
OSS works - I use it exclusively at home (desktop PC), at work (desktop PC) and on my laptop. Not a minute of windows since 1.5 years and I don't miss a thing.
That's nice. Zealotry is for those with holes in the head or way too much time on their hands.
And all this without having any informatics related education, i'm a biologist so I can't even fix software problems - why don't you, instead of thrashing something that works for millions?
Honestly, I can understand not RTFA'ing, but read the goddamn comment you're replying to, jeez.
He said he didn't know it could be resized while mounted; it's also pretty fun (read: dangerous) to resize NTFS using Linux (which I use alongside WinXP) in the best of cases.
It's good. Really, really good. I've had the lemon-lime (tastes pretty much like lemon juice), cola (good), orange (acidy, but good), berry (REALLY good), and ginger ale (meh). The caffeine kick is insane.
If you want to buy a case, a buddy of mine is a distributor for the stuff, could get a decent price. Mail me if you care to.
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement -- and perfectly "natural" Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnaturaI" and a "despoiling of Nature."
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I'm not an atheist, so your insecurities about how you may look given my anti-religion tirade are completely unfounded.
/. where an undecided person may be swayed into considering a more rational perspective. Religion is for idiots, and it's time for the bulk of humanity (especially in a democracy, where the bulk's intelligence can make important decisions effecting everyone) to see it as such.
Strange, I don't recall ever saying you were an atheist. I do recall saying that people like you make people like me, who do not appear demonstrably different to most people, look bad. Don't put words in my mouth.
Secondly, you can make a point without being demeaning and assuming anything about my age.
But you cannot make a point without calling people stupid, okay, I got it. So how old are you?
Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.
I personally don't believe in God; the lack of positive evidence in favor of God's existence is my reason. But I cannot, and will not try to, prove a negative.
I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven. I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.
Then prove that God does not exist. As I just said--a negative cannot be proven. And if we are assuming the omnipotent, omniscient Christian God is the one up for discussion, you lose by default. Said omnipotent god could choose not to be visible to his creations, and we'd never know the wiser.
You would not be arguing so angrily if you were not insecure about your beliefs.
While it so happens that I agree with you on the subject, your immediate conviction is disturbing. You begin in rational territory--disbelieving in a god or gods because it cannot be proven is a perfectly valid choice, and my own as well--and then jump off into deep space. You cannot prove that it does not exist; those who believe cannot prove that it does.
As to bitching and whining, I would say that is a waste of time.
Good, I agree completely. So we both understand that that means you'll shut up now.
Arguing however may be essential, especially in public places like
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. - Albert Einstein
I would argue that Galileo, Copernicus, and Brahe were not "idiots." I would further point to men such as Dr. Kenneth Miller as examples of those who are certainly not "idiots," yet are devout religious people. And while I am certainly not saying that they are right because they are experts in one field or another (argumentum ad verecundiam) So...okay, where are your credentials? What makes you any less of an "idiot" then they are?
I'm not alone in some of these ideas, and I'm sorry that I do not express them eloquently enough for you. Perhaps I should spend more time linking to wikipedia articles by Bertrand Russell, or books like "Fifty Degrees Below Zero", which though fictional, express very intelligent suggestions relating to scientific knowledge, public awareness, and governmental policy.
I don't particularly care for Russell; he sounds alarmingly like you. Fifty Degrees Below (which I read when it came out--I assume this is what you mean, because Amazon has never heard of a book called Fifty Degrees Below Zero) was a decent read, though hackneyed as all hell (here's a hint: there's lots of science fiction out there that deals with "clear-sighted scientists who must overcome
Watch your house on Easter. See if the Easter Bunny comes. It won't come (unless you are not your average Slashdotter and have a girlfriend who also happens to be a bit strange that way).
Now try to observe something to conclude God doesn't exit.
I am an atheist--but I don't delude myself into thinking that I know for sure that a god or gods don't exist. And next time, why not post under your username?
However, religion can cause people to think they can make better predictions than they actually can, i.e. it gives them a false sense of security. It can also make people unnecessarily vulnerable to con men disguised as holy people.
Sure. But I can sell dirt to homeless people, and I'm not religious. And I know plenty of nonreligious people who think they can "make better predictions than they actually can." Overconfident and/or stupid people and all that.
What? You just said that we can't know. Now you say that we will?
I said that we cannot prove whether a deity or deities exist. But I figure we'll have some inkling after we die, yes?
That's a rather large generalization. Evidence?
Experience. Your mileage may vary.
A kernel is a "shiny bit"?
Must be nice where you live, man.
Equally as important: Which one is doing good things with his time and money?
The Great Woz is teaching. Jobs is selling lousy music players and laptops with exploding batteries.
+1, Woz.
Too late. I'm shunning you.
*shun!*
(Points for any who get the Dilbert reference.)
You make atheists such as myself and other unbelievers look bad. But you'll grow up some day. People are not stupid for believing in one or many gods. There is no way to prove conclusively that a deity or deities exist or do not. I believe they do not; others may differ, and we cannot prove who is right. Soon enough we will know. So why fight about it? Why argue and bitch and whine? Those who attack a person's faith (or lack thereof) with such vitriol are merely insecure in their own beliefs.
Your user ID is not low enough for this statement to be allowed, sir.
May I offer you your walker, though?
What a numbnut. Do it immediately or don't bother doing it.
I have a hard time finding (if date > 365 then date = date - 365) that difficult of a concept.
Exploded both times I tried it. GNOME stopped booting, and a remove/reinstall broke KDE.
I ended up going and installing Kubuntu on my machine; it was less hassle.
Edgy's gotten a lot better lately though...I'm happy my Dell's hardbuttons actually work.
Not quite true. Dapper had extreme problems when (as an example) you installed Ubuntu, then the KDE desktop on top of it.
Not as simple as most think.
# The well known memory leak issue,
There are thousands of different issues that can cause actual and purported memory leaks, not one. We have fixed some of the most common and serious leaks in Firefox 2, and our testing has generally shown memory use to be lower than in 1.5. There are still known memory leaks, and there are certainly unknown ones as well, but we are working on fixing them. Remember that testing for "memory leaks" is not so simple as leaving a browser open or clicking on tabs and seeing if Task Manager reports a higher number. Determining what is actually a memory leak can be quite difficult, and frequently code paths that cause high memory _use_, but not leaks, are assumed to be "leaks" to laymen.
Thanks for replying, but this I won't buy. You have valgrind, I'm sure. That kills a large amount of your memory-leak excuse.
"Socially conscious" my ass. They just want something that's free (as in beer, surely not freedom).
Eh..VB is really not all that bad. VB6 wasn't bad, but VB.NET has gotten surprisingly good. (The fact that it's the exact same thing as C# though with a different syntax certainly doesn't hurt.)
But the Mozilla Corporation is not.
Download a copy off the 'net, install it on a throwaway box/VM of your own, get the password file, swap the password file with the one on the frozen machine.
That was how folks did it in my high school.
Then I started distributing Linux liveCDs, and some enterprising soul figured out what to do with them.
D'oh.
Does Mozilla?
Thought not.
I'm 18 and got it...
;)
...you old fart.
Offtopic, but DON'T get a MacBook. The keyboards are hell, the machines have (in my experience as a tech) a lovely tendency to break, and from a purely subjective view I think they look terrible.
The MacBook Pro, on the other hand, is a pretty high-quality machine. I haven't had any problems with any of 'em.
OSS works - I use it exclusively at home (desktop PC), at work (desktop PC) and on my laptop. Not a minute of windows since 1.5 years and I don't miss a thing.
That's nice. Zealotry is for those with holes in the head or way too much time on their hands.
And all this without having any informatics related education, i'm a biologist so I can't even fix software problems - why don't you, instead of thrashing something that works for millions?
Because I use Photoshop instead.
Or sanely allocate addresses.
bob.jones.2006@foo.edu
jane.jones.2010@foo.edu
Honestly, I can understand not RTFA'ing, but read the goddamn comment you're replying to, jeez.
He said he didn't know it could be resized while mounted; it's also pretty fun (read: dangerous) to resize NTFS using Linux (which I use alongside WinXP) in the best of cases.
It's good. Really, really good. I've had the lemon-lime (tastes pretty much like lemon juice), cola (good), orange (acidy, but good), berry (REALLY good), and ginger ale (meh). The caffeine kick is insane. If you want to buy a case, a buddy of mine is a distributor for the stuff, could get a decent price. Mail me if you care to.
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement -- and perfectly "natural" Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnaturaI" and a "despoiling of Nature."
-Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love