How many times to I have to say it? To be an atheist requires only that you don't believe any any god. You can believe in a soul, afterlife, etc. without also believing in a god. Hence, belief in a soul, afterlife, etc. is perfectly compatible with atheism.

You can change the definition of atheism to preclude that, just don't expect that anyone will accept it.

You're right. I can't find anyone who both espouses your definition of atheism and argues that the belief in a soul is compatible with it.

Why? For the same reason that I can't find a geologist who argues against the idea the center of the earth is made of pudding.

Atheism to you may include a whole bunch of other nonsense criteria, but here in reality all that is required is a belief that no gods exist.

Again, this is about YOUR argument and how ridiculous it is:

Again, you can be an atheist and believe in both a soul and reincarnation. Why? Because neither of those believes also require the believer to believe in any god.

Those things would ONLY be incompatible with atheism if either one required a belief in god. They, very obviously, do not. Therefore, both beliefs are compatible with atheism.

I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. What are you having trouble understanding?

Actually $9million is $9million regardless how how you cut the pie. Just because a business turns over several orders of magnitude more means they should stop factoring in potential savings as *small* as $9million?

I ask you, what is a gamble? How are you gambling when you monitor your equipment? What is the risk when it goes wrong? Back to potential $9million outages? Oh calamity!

The only reason people are up in arms about this is because someone used the phrase "Internet of Things". If this article was started with "Lean Six Sigma", "Kaizen", or "a Continuous Improvement Project" no one would bat an eye. I am a reliability engineer and creating this type of monitoring is my day to day activities. Sometimes they pay off really well, sometimes they produce no benefit and we wasted a few $100k, but all of a sudden when someone says it's an "Internet of Things" project rather than project everybody shouts about risk?

Get a grip. Oh and I work for a plant that turns over approximately $4bn in product annually, yet if I could save $9m I guarantee there would be prizes, parades, and all sorts of untold honours directed my way. Never under-estimate how hard it is to squeeze the last bit of financial efficiency out of a place.

Some of what you said makes perfect sense. Others stuff I think is personal preference. I have a few questions:

4. Why separate the X button from fullscreen and minimise? Why not keep all the window functions in the same logical place? Hitting the X accidentally as rarely as that may happen will on most applications where the loss of some information is possible result in a pop-up asking you if you're sure, or if you want to save etc. So why separate the button locations?

6. Why scale below 100%? Windows already does an incredibly poor job of scaling fonts. Even scaling up makes things look bad, scaling down when you don't have the pixels to do it would just cause a screen to display garbage, not to mention that now we're finally moving up in resolution the 100% scaling will likely be too low for most applications very soon.

Windows ... : http://baetzler.de/humor/haiku...

One of my favorites:

Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working
Windows is like that.

Windows is not an operating system, it is a menace to society.

However that puts the Linux movement into a bad 'catch up' (with what?) situation. A shame it is not more prevalent meanwhile.

Markets are not driven by price or functionality ... regarding what we 'could' do with computers/software everything you perceive right now is 30 years behind what *I* did 20 years ago at the university.

The last 50 years of research have no impact at all at current day computing, except for silicon and SOCs etc.

My ten year old Macs are as fast as they where when I bought them.
If you have speed issues on a Mac you likely caught one of the rare viruses or trojans!
That whole 'degrading of an OS' thing does not occur on unix based systems!

Yes, basically. Otherwise creams would not work.
But in real live, regarding infections this is not happening. At least not as far as we know.

Either Mars had life, or it had not.
It it had, it was likely as plentiful as on earth. There is no simple reason why it would not.
If it had plenty of life it also has oil and coal. Why should it not have? Production of not is a simple geological, erm aresological process.
Assuming that just because something is somewhere else, physical/chemical laws are different, makes no sense.

> So they are re moving the rights of the government. Which is to be able to search you under some conditions.

They are not "removing the rights of the government" to search anybody. They still can. But the people are under no obligation to maintain their lives so as to be ready prepared for a government inspector to drop by at any time and say, "Let me take a look at your paperwork, citizen".

As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.

There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.

I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.

Why do you believe that a god is required for a soul to be judged? Many people believe that such a judgement is done by themselves (as I stated earlier). If you don't like that, how about a judgement by a soul's peers? How about judgement by a lesser entity, like how a people might judge their king. Judgement, very obviously, does not require a deity.

Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.

Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:

None of those beliefs also require a belief in a god. Hence, they do not make "Hinduism" incompatible with atheism. Your argument is terrible.

I had some HP printer drivers that I couldn't get rid of on a Windows 7 machine, no matter what I did (well, I didn't boot into recovery console and delete the files that way, but that's dangerous territory), so yes, there are ill-behaved applications that can still leave their rotting remnants around the system.

I remember in the transition between INI files and the registry (how I miss the days when applications had their own discrete text-based configuration files... oh wait, *nix still does!), and Microsoft sent out countless missives all but ordering developers to move to the registry. The registry was the approved place to store configurations, likely, I'm sure, because sticking all user settings in a single hive that could be passed around from workstation to workstation for roaming profiles.

Of course, the down side has always been that the registry just becomes cluttered with crap, particularly on a system that sees a lot of software installed, updated, reinstalled and uninstalled. Throw in there nearly two decades' worth of COM objects being incremented and decremented unsuccessfully, and a computer that's been running for five or six years, and fragmentation of the file system, and it can lead to just awful response times.

If your disk develops bad sectors, the OS most certainly does not "have to work around them". Any modern drive will self correct its own bad sectors upon identifying them. If a disk is developing so many bad sectors that this is a constant problem, then the disk is about to fail, and you should expect performance to be degraded. This has nothing to do with Windows.

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." - Padme Amidala

Metric is based on a 10/10 ratio ... no random 10,000 in the middle.
No idea where you got that from.
Also meters are too long to be useful at human scale
Considering that plenty of cultures on the planet adopted a "meter" as a perfect size, your claim is bollocks.
Hint, a yard is more or less a meter. A "tatami" in Japan is more or less a square meter.
A human is in size between 1 and a half to two meters. A 'big' step is a meter long. Or a yard long ... sounds completely perfect to me.

No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

You're confusing things. To be an atheist means that you don't believe in a god. How you justify that belief is irrelevant to your status as an atheist. An atheist need not justify their atheism with any argument, let alone whatever specific argument to which you want all atheists to agree.

Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.

I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.