Comment Re:iGoogle and Google+ (Score 1) 359
The only part of iGoogle I liked was reader, and that got killed as part of the G+ implementation. *sniff*.
That made me use less google.
The only part of iGoogle I liked was reader, and that got killed as part of the G+ implementation. *sniff*.
That made me use less google.
He's certainly one of the extremely interesting ones. Gore Vidal's book "Julian" is quite entertaining (and is not that bad, historically speaking).
I encourage reading more philosophy.
I confess the possibility of misunderstanding. However, when I've had multiple Atheists assert that belief in God is {foolhardy, evil, insert_negative_emotion}, that does seem to be a parsimonious explanation.
I do not think that Dawkins' formulation of the existence of God as a scientific proposition makes much sense, and it's an example of over-scientification of matters of philosophy - he fails to account for the idea of undecidable propositions (the existence of God being among them). Dawkins is actually a good example of someone who makes a bunch of attacks on Theism (cf the title of his book), when if it is merely a matter of him personally not having a belief, why would he care so much? Further, the spectrum displays a profound ignorance of religious people - doubt is a normal part of the religious experience, and he denies that sincerely religious people experience doubt (that is, the expressions of typical religious people would have a lot more degrees between his "1" and his "2"). .
I have a conviction that there are no such bunnies, due to lack of atmosphere.
I take it that you don't study much philosophy or theory of knowledge - there is a gigantic conceptual difference between "absence of evidence of X" and "evidence of absence of X". In code terms, it's the difference between an as-yet-undeclared variable and a variable set to (null).
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.