X-Ftn-To: Marek Williams

abc@spooron.com (Marek Williams) wrote:
>As you say, it's an ethical issue with library books. But it's more
>than just ethics. It's also cost. Even the cheapest copy machine will
>end up costing the book borrower more for a copy of the book than it
>would usually cost just to buy it from the bookstore. And, of course,
>the illicit copy is not going to be nicely bound, either.

The exact case with the inkjet prints.

>Contrast that with your PDF files. Copying them and giving them to
>friends is trivial.

Sure. And they'll all either read them from the screen, which is
tiresome, or print them on their inkjet/laser. Printing them might
actually cost more than just buying the book on Amazon; and, the thing
they'd get from Amazon is an excellently produced hardcover, courtesy
LightningSource.

>I'm sure some will be ethical and refuse to do so,
>but how many will?

I don't know - let's find out.

>Perhaps I am too cynical about the nature of
>mankind, but I'm afraid the amount of piracy will cut out any profit
>you hope to make.

Actually, that might be the case with the kind of books that you read
and throw away - people who write them can't allow people to read them
before buying. My book is a different thing, because it's the kind of
a book that people have at home and read so many times that they'll
soon have to buy another, because they abused it to death. :) True,
there will be people who are just not interested, but I think it would
be unethical to force them to buy something that they don't find
interesting.
So, I can afford to make it shareware, but I agree that most can't.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Gromit

Gromit wrote:
>So far you have done nothing to show that his interpretation is erroneous.
>
>Why the need for ad hominem?

:) Exactly because, I guess. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: dse

"dse" wrote:
>Where in the hell ( :-) ) do you get your definitions of what
>hell is or is not!

Experience.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: angus

"angus" wrote:
>> NE !!__ZNA__!!! Ima _iskustvo_ Boga.
>
>Kako sad "NE!!_ZNA_!!" !!??Citiram tvoju izjavu:
>"Sto 90% ljudi (da budem optimist) istinski STVARNO zna o Bogu? Nista."
>Dakle,prema tebi i logici zdravog razuma,ostalih 10% ljudi nestho istinski
>stvarno ZNA o Bogu!!

Ovdje na konfi je postotak prilicno visi, zapravo oni koji nemaju
barem nekakvo iskustvo Boga su u manjini.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

>> "Thine Kingdom come thine will be done
>> On Earth as it is in Heaven"
>>
>> (Jesus of Nazareth, ca. 1 B.C.)
>>
>> Since they are all Angels in Heaven, when Kingdom Come
>arrives, we
>> will all be Angels on Earth. Don't you know nuthin?

Actually, the correct interpretation of this is as follows.

The Divine will is perfectly manifested in the higher realms of
existence. We must pray for its manifestation on the physical plane,
by being "the worthy sons of our heavenly Father", meaning, by
manifesting the Divine attributes on the physical plane. We must
therefore become the instruments of the Divine, reflecting God's light
in our lives. It has nothing to do with Hammond's insane concept of
God, in which human brain creates God. In Jesus' concept, a man
surrenders to God to provide for him, not vice versa.

Hammond managed to misquote even Jesus. The original prayer is this:

Pray, then, in this way:
"Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom
and the power and the glory forever. Amen."

(Mt 6:9-13, NASB)

People with zero understanding and without any spiritual experience
should restrain themselves from quoting and interpreting the
scriptures, because their attempts result in horrible mockery. Hammond
is a perfect example.

Hammond is a materialist and an atheist, who thinks that there is no
God, and makes a mockery of religion with his claims that God is a
byproduct of brain's functions. His interpretations of the religions
are in accordance with his beliefs, and thus wrong.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Tris

"Tris" wrote:
>Now the statement, "Does anyone know of any books that will help me reach an
>answer to this question?" Any books that will help him reach the answer to
>that question?

http://www.danijel.org/eng/library.htm
I don't know if you'll find it convincing, but we'll never know until
you read it. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

I don't know if anybody had the same idea before, but maybe I'm
original.
I made a digital equivalent of a public library on my website,
containing my books. It works exactly as any public library: all the
books are owned by the library, and everybody can come and read the
books, as long as he doesn't make copies or anything, because that
would violate the rights of the author and the publisher. Since
apparently the libraries all over the world don't harm the sales of
the books, I thought, why not make the digital equivalent? So I did.
The address is http://www.danijel.org/eng/library.htm ; so, now
everybody can read my books for free (if they accept the shareware
terms), and if they get to like them, well, there are links to Amazon
and B&N.
The files are PDF - none of that encrypted e-book stuff, and even the
PDF isn't protected from copy-pasting and printing; intentionally so,
because, as in any library, the license is purely ethical. If it works
for the software, why shouldn't it work for the literature?
So far only my first book is available - for logical reasons, because
the second one is not yet published.
Pleasant reading. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Radoslav Prica

Stovanje Felix!

felix@inet.hr (Radoslav Prica) wrote:
>>konja s jednim rogom na celu, onda mozemo reci da takvo bice ne
>>postoji, ali moze postojati, naime siguran sam da se genetskim
>>inzinjeringom moze proizvesti. Ali, drveno zeljezo je po definiciji
>>proturjecno i zato ne moze postojati. To su stvari kojima logika
>>sluzi, jasnom misljenju i baratanju pojmovima.
>
> Naravno. No ono sto sam htio naglasiti Zoranu je da "razmisljanje"
>o Bogu NE SPADA u domenu logike.

Ma razmisljanje o Bogu spada u domenu logike, ali Bog i iskustvo Boga
ne spadaju.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

Danijel Turina wrote:
>Recimo, ako pojam "sveznajuce bice" definiramo kao "bice koje u svojoj
>spoznaji nije ograniceno procesom opazanja, nego u sve postojece ima
>neposredni uvid, te ima potpuni i savrseni uvid u bit svega
>postojeceg",

Sad sam ovo pogledao i to je sranje, treba glasiti "bice koje u svojoj
spoznaji nije ograniceno procesom opazanja, nego ima potpuni i
savrseni uvid u bit svega postojeceg"

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Radoslav Prica

Stovanje Felix!

felix@inet.hr (Radoslav Prica) wrote:
>Kad bi htio dokazati postojanje Boga, morao bi prvo maknuti sve atribute,
>ne bi Ga smio ogranicavati. No ako maknes atribute, onda ljudi koji se
>oslanjaju na logiku, na usporedjivanje necega sa necim, na dualnosti, na
>.. "ako je ovo ovakvo, onda MORA biti ovo.."..i slicno.. gube tlo pod
>nogama i nemaju se za "sto uhvatiti". A bas u tome i je fora. Boga se ne
>moze "objasniti" niti "dokazati" nasom ljudskom ogranicavajucom,
>uvjetovanom logikom. Sto prije to Zoran shvati, shvatit ce da nepotrebno
>gubi vrijeme.. makar ja i dalje mislim da se covjek zajebava i ne pise
>ozbiljno, jer nitko ne moze biti toliko glup.

S njegovim "dokazom", u najboljem slucaju moze dokazati da ideja o
sveznajucem/svemocnom bicu nije proturjecna. To on ocigledno drzi
dokazom o postojanju takvog bica, jednako kao i Anselmo, a sto je
takva glupost da bih ja onoga tko je izvali dao javno bicevati do
krvi, cisto da se kao presedan uvede da glupost boli.
Naime, jedno je dokazati da jednorog moze postojati, a drugo da
stvarno postoji. Za teoretsku mogucnost njegovog postojanja dovoljno
je da definicija nije po sebi proturjecna, a to da li uistinu postoji
bice koje odgovara takvoj definiciji, to je posve drugi problem i to
spada u domenu empirijske provjere, odnosno, treba utvrditi postojanje
nekog bica, usporediti ga s definicijom i ako odgovara definiciji,
onda je to to. Recimo, sto se tice jednoroga, ako ga definiramo kao
konja s jednim rogom na celu, onda mozemo reci da takvo bice ne
postoji, ali moze postojati, naime siguran sam da se genetskim
inzinjeringom moze proizvesti. Ali, drveno zeljezo je po definiciji
proturjecno i zato ne moze postojati. To su stvari kojima logika
sluzi, jasnom misljenju i baratanju pojmovima.
Recimo, ako pojam "sveznajuce bice" definiramo kao "bice koje u svojoj
spoznaji nije ograniceno procesom opazanja, nego u sve postojece ima
neposredni uvid, te ima potpuni i savrseni uvid u bit svega
postojeceg", tada ta definicija nije kontradiktorna, ali postoje neki
nuzni uvjeti mogucnosti postojanja takvog bica, primjerice taj da
takvo bice ne smije biti stvar pokraj stvari, nego temelj svih stvari,
odnosno Apsolut. Naime, ako je takvo bice stvar pokraj drugih stvari,
onda je u svojoj spoznaji ograniceno procesom opazanja, a i Godel se
nesto malo zajebavao na tu temu, nisam previse upucen u detalje, to bi
trebalo pitati ljude koji na filozofskom faksu gube vrijeme na
gluposti umjesto da se bave stvarnoscu.
Ako pojam "svemocno bice" definiramo kao "bice koje je sposobno
ostvariti svoju volju na bilo koji nacin, koji nije proturjecan
njegovoj bitnoj naravi ili u sebi proturjecan", vaze slicna pravila
kao i za sveznajuce bice. Sve u svemu, mogu se zamisliti uvjeti
mogucnosti postojanja takvog bica, ali, to je daleko od dokaza da ti
uvjeti doista postoje, te da to bice, prema definiciji, doista
postoji. Naime, da ponovim, jedno je dokazati da nesto moze postojati,
a drugo je dokazati da to doista postoji.
Recimo, to je kao da sad velim da je dokaz o postojanju beskrajno
jakog kompjutora taj, da kad on ne bi postojao, onda bi svaki obicni
kompjutor, primjerice ovaj moj celeron, bio jaci od njega, a buduci da
tada to ne bi bio beskrajno jaki kompjutor, onda je time dokazano da
on postoji. To je Anselmov "dokaz" o postojanju Boga, s kojega se pola
civilizacije sprdalo tijekom pola povijesti civiliziranog svijeta, sto
je prilicno dobra ilustracija koliko je to pametno. Ocito, dok postoje
budale, imat ce tko pisati gluposti.
Ono sto je kod Ostrica posebno iritantno, i zbog cega bi ga trebalo
politi katranom i posipati perjem i onda sutirati nogom u guzicu par
kilometara, jest cinjenica da je taj covjek (vjerojatno) studirao
filozofiju a prica takve gluposti, za koje bi dobio jedan iz logike za
gimnaziju, da ih je slucajno izgovorio pred profesorom.
A glede toga da li se zajebava ili ne, to je moguce ustanoviti kod
ljudi koji uglavnom pricaju pametne stvari, pa onda kad veli nesto sto
je nespojivo s pamecu mozes zakljuciti da je ili pijan ili se
zajebava. Kod Ostrica je takvo nesto nemoguce, buduci da on uvijek
prica pizdarije, pa nije moguce uociti kod koje pizdarije se kao
zajebava, a kod koje je ozbiljan. To je moguce recimo kod Ratka, on
koji puta napise nekakvu pizdariju cisto da vidi kakve budu reakcije,
a to se onda kuzi, barem ako nisi totalno glup.

Sto se tice nase ogranicene logike, ona je dobra za ustanoviti da je
nesto pizdarija, recimo upotrijebis logiku da bi razjebao Ostrica, a
isto tako mozes vidjeti koji oblici razmisljanja imaju blesave
rezultate, cisto da ih mozes izbjegavati. Ali, kad jednom izbjegnes
zamku loseg i proturjecnog razmisljanja, tada logika i filozofija
postaju posve beskorisnima u spoznaji, buduci da se one bave
promisljanjem o tome sto moze, a sto ne moze posojati, ali ne mogu
ustanoviti sto od onoga, sto je zamislivo, doista i postoji. A da ne
govorimo o stvarima koje nisu zamislive, a svejedno postoje.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org