skunk
Apr 24, 05:59 PM
The freedom of women is an archaic subject. It is established that women generally had less rights as we go back in time.If it was the Word of God™ itself that came from Mohammed's lips, then surely it would sound less like the word of a warlike, bigoted misogynist. Jesus' words are remarkably peaceful and inclusive by comparison. Paul of course, and other "spokesmen" for the organisation, added all kinds of glosses and amendments which were not part of Jesus' original message as transmitted to us.
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.Perhaps we can agree on haram? :)
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.Perhaps we can agree on haram? :)
AhmedFaisal
Mar 15, 10:58 PM
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
I did.
I did.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:42 AM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe.
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
jasonph
Apr 6, 03:55 AM
The biggest thing I miss is the ALT + <somekey> to open a menu keyboard shortcut.
What I don't miss. Windows (inc 7) is slower on the same hardware than OS X. It also thrashes the hard drive with its virtual memory use in comparison to OS X and some of it's file handling is laughable. Even XP was better than Win7. I run all sorts of PC's but you really need a lot of memory, a quad core CPU and a very fast drive for win 7 to give of it's best. Not so with Mac OS X, almost any of the Intel Mac's are fine for most jobs (with the exception of Final Cut Pro maybe!).
Also Stability wise OS X is much more stable than Windows and Apps rarely crash (with the exception of MS Office when it was first released!).
As with all things Microsoft they take an idea and turn it into bloatware! Almost every MS app I have used feels bloated even Office on the Mac :(
What I don't miss. Windows (inc 7) is slower on the same hardware than OS X. It also thrashes the hard drive with its virtual memory use in comparison to OS X and some of it's file handling is laughable. Even XP was better than Win7. I run all sorts of PC's but you really need a lot of memory, a quad core CPU and a very fast drive for win 7 to give of it's best. Not so with Mac OS X, almost any of the Intel Mac's are fine for most jobs (with the exception of Final Cut Pro maybe!).
Also Stability wise OS X is much more stable than Windows and Apps rarely crash (with the exception of MS Office when it was first released!).
As with all things Microsoft they take an idea and turn it into bloatware! Almost every MS app I have used feels bloated even Office on the Mac :(
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
slffl
Oct 7, 12:05 PM
To quote the bit on Jimmy Fallon... 'Who Cares?'
Obviously market share doesn't mean crap as is evident in the OS market.
Obviously market share doesn't mean crap as is evident in the OS market.
SuperCachetes
Apr 23, 11:09 PM
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
Thanatoast
Sep 20, 03:16 PM
Why in the world are so many people complaining about the lack of a DVR and DVD?
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front of entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
As for the DVD player issue, Apple wants you to buy your movies from them. They neither need nor want a DVD player on this device. If you already own a movie on DVD, rip it for goodness' sake. Large collections of DVD's look impressive, but really all they do is take up space.
My conclusion: drop the cable + Tivo - save money, time and brain cells. Only watch the content you're willing to pay for rather than letting Hollywood/Madison Ave shove whatever they wish down your throat while you slowly vegetate.
/soapbox
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front of entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
As for the DVD player issue, Apple wants you to buy your movies from them. They neither need nor want a DVD player on this device. If you already own a movie on DVD, rip it for goodness' sake. Large collections of DVD's look impressive, but really all they do is take up space.
My conclusion: drop the cable + Tivo - save money, time and brain cells. Only watch the content you're willing to pay for rather than letting Hollywood/Madison Ave shove whatever they wish down your throat while you slowly vegetate.
/soapbox
rhuber
Apr 20, 09:30 PM
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
I can't speak for your experiences, but to say that an android cannot last 2 days is just not accurate. My wife uses a DroidX (the one with the giant bright screen), and yes... she gets two days of use on a charge. And she texts constantly.
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
MovieCutter
Apr 12, 10:14 PM
If this really is to non-linear editing as Henry Ford was to the automobile, it's time to learn how to drive this thing like a Formula One driver...because everyone's going to THINK they know how to use this.
chim9999
Jul 10, 08:15 PM
i'm in north central arkansas. town with a population of 12k. we just went 3g a couple of weeks ago. 2 dropped calls since then (one crossing from 2g back to 3g). can't remember last dropped call on 2g.
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:22 PM
8-Core Mac Pro? Can't wait to upgrade. :cool:
Alpinism
Oct 26, 09:07 AM
I am waiting for a quad core MP and a copy of FCS. I hope they make it before Xmas. THen, it would indeed be a glorious Xmas.
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
spicyapple
Oct 25, 11:18 PM
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
manhattanboy
May 5, 05:30 PM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
Macnoviz
Sep 26, 05:08 AM
So, first it was the number of transistors per processor, then they coupled that with higher clock speeds (MHz) and now with multi-cores inside multi-processors.
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
How about Quantum computers?
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
How about Quantum computers?
grue
Apr 12, 11:59 PM
I'm very curious to see what becomes of Compressor. It's buggy and annoying as it stands now, but I think it kinda needs to be a separate app unless they have a different view for doing batch encodes of stuff.
einmusiker
Mar 18, 01:16 PM
I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they can prove people are doing unauthorized tethering. You won't be seeing it so they really have nothing to charge you for. All we've heard so far is speculation and nothing more
charliehustle
Oct 15, 07:10 PM
Some conventions are worth adopting, if only for the reasons they are created. For instance, when writing in the English language, the convention is to begin at the left, with each sentence starting with an upper case letter.
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
firestarter
Apr 23, 05:49 PM
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
Someone who has never been challenged in their atheist 'beliefs' (or more accurately, lack of belief) would be unlikely to engage in argument anyway. Being an atheist here in the UK isn't a particularly controversial position, and the topic of religion rarely comes up in polite conversation. In an ideal world, a 'live and let live' attitude would exist between theists and atheists, and each would just get on with their lives.
However, this isn't an ideal world - and there does appear to be a perceptible shift in the stridency of religious thought both in the East and West. Here in the UK, believers have been seen as an interesting electoral demographic, and targeted with promises of religious schooling, grants etc. In the US, it seems to be extremely difficult to enter higher political life as an atheist.
It's against this backdrop that atheists themselves have started to become more vocal, critical and radical. What someone else believes holds little interest to me, until that starts to impinge upon my own freedoms. At that point, the gloves come off...
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
Someone who has never been challenged in their atheist 'beliefs' (or more accurately, lack of belief) would be unlikely to engage in argument anyway. Being an atheist here in the UK isn't a particularly controversial position, and the topic of religion rarely comes up in polite conversation. In an ideal world, a 'live and let live' attitude would exist between theists and atheists, and each would just get on with their lives.
However, this isn't an ideal world - and there does appear to be a perceptible shift in the stridency of religious thought both in the East and West. Here in the UK, believers have been seen as an interesting electoral demographic, and targeted with promises of religious schooling, grants etc. In the US, it seems to be extremely difficult to enter higher political life as an atheist.
It's against this backdrop that atheists themselves have started to become more vocal, critical and radical. What someone else believes holds little interest to me, until that starts to impinge upon my own freedoms. At that point, the gloves come off...
doctor pangloss
Oct 24, 04:32 PM
In three years they will have something much better, might as well wait!:p
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
yeah w/e.. winblows!! forever live apple!
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
yeah w/e.. winblows!! forever live apple!
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق