Interesting.. It seems that the elementary school average salary there is 96k, yet the high school math teacher average salary is 77k, according to that. Furthermore, it says the average "College Teacher" makes less than 65k. Looks like money is inversely proportional to education in the Boulder, CO teacher hierarchy.
Yep. I took my college placement test in 7th grade, and scored in the 90th percentile for college freshmen. By 9th grade, my score was higher than the average for students entering MIT (at least the ones that took the ACT test, which is what I took). The only thing that prevented me from dropping out of high school to go to college was that my parents wouldn't let me. Of course, I didn't go on to do anything all that interesting. At the time I thought I was some sort of super genius, but it turned out I was just an early bloomer academically, and I'm very good at taking multiple choice tests.
I'm not so sure he was joking.. At any rate, if you call the cops they expect to arrest someone. If the real perp is too inconvenient to go after, you're the lucky winner. This is even more likely if the malware does a bunch of google searches for kiddie porn in the background
How do you mean? I interpreted his comment as meaning that a.) there is nothing to steal from the pirate bay (only stolen via the pirate bay), or that b.) what we call "stealing" in this instance is actually copyright infringement which, according to the law, is a much more serious crime.
I've know a couple of devs with math degrees, and they were excellent.
I've known a few with math degrees, and they were terrible. The main problem seemed to be an inability to understand the need for maintainability. To them it was always 'get the job done' with no thought to design or even meaningful variable names. One of my favorite moments was trying to explain for hours why its better to create a code library than to copy the same code into multiple related projects. At the end, we had to agree to disagree.
If I remember correctly, escaping the dictatorial rule of people with your point of view was one of the primary reasons this country was founded. To think that you know the "truth" about religion and everyone that disagrees with you is a moron pretty much makes you worse than most of those you despise. Congratulations on finding a way to use science to help you be as close minded and bigoted as the 18th century Church of England.
So what you're saying is that calling someone stupid for believing something stupid means you're stupid? Because obviously no belief is ever more or less correct than any other belief?
Clearly you never understood the Libertarian Party philosophy you clam you were a part of. They are not the anarchist party..... they are the party of minimal government (just enough to protect us & our rights from those corporations you fear so much). I would certainly never advocate getting rid of the U.S. or State governments, or join a party that did.
I remember quite a few people talk of privatizing roads, schools, fire departments, etc. The difference between "minimal" and "insufficient" is in the eye of the beholder. It was pretty much agreed that Walmart and its ilk should be allowed to do as they please, since they had obviously been chosen by the market. It became clear to me after a bit that the difference between coercion via gun-to-the-head is really no different than coercion via starvation. The only way I'd ever consider a libertarian-style government a good idea is if a.) corporations were not people, and b.) inheritance was outlawed. With those two things in place, you could at least have some measure of equality since nobody would be born into power, nor would their legacy continue after death. Even still, I dislike the social darwinism doctrine that anyone who can't make money and has no family to look out for them should be left to starve to death.
OH and you're wrong the corporation only cares about shareholders. A company must also care about serving the customer..... else it would end-up like Montgomerys Wards or Circuit Shitty (bankrupt).
Caring about the customer is not an end in itself for corporations, though it is *sometimes* a means, particularly in the retail sector. A better example would be BP. Do you really think they'd do anything about the oil spill if the EPA didn't force them? Do you think they'd even admit to causing it?
The term "middle" must have been used quite loosely there. Compared to those living in 1913 America, they were impoverished bumpkins.
Only if you measure wealth by things that weren't invented in Roman times. I think reasonably well off Romans had a pretty good lifestyle.
Also, the culture of Rome at its height was somewhat more impressive than that of America at any time. Although I suppose you did invent rock 'n' roll.
Really? I mean, the Romans stole pretty much every aspect of their culture. They even took all of the Greek gods and just renamed them. The Romans were builders, not innovators.
Okay, so something needs to made clear here -- when people talk about corporate slavery, what we're actually talking about is something akin to serfdom. Look at any Walmart town and you will see this. The vast majority of the population in these small towns lives in poverty, works for Walmart, and have no hope of escaping. They're free to go any time, but more than likely they won't be able to leave because they have no means to do so. They're stuck in a cycle of poverty, enforced by their corporate overlords. The most hope these people have is to rise high enough in the corporate structure to become one of the "rich" people in town (which means making what used to be considered a middle-class wage)
I'm no fan of the government telling me what to do, but it's better than putting the Walmarts of the world in charge.
I didn't ask about his *affiliation*, I asked for his *stance*
I can't ever recall anyone asking for this information for any other reason than to use it to smear someone.
You don't need to know because it doesn't matter, you WANT to know because you think you can then go "AHA YOU SUPPORT TEAM BLUE YOU'RE A _____" or "I KNEW IT, YOU SUPPORT TEAM RED, YOU ARE A _______"
You want to know because it will allow you to avoid addressing the actual issues, and frankly, YOU and those like YOU are what's wrong with politics in this country.
It's entirely possible to address his position without knowing anything else about him.
You've got some issues to work through. I actually agree with both things he said, and was curious whether his reasons aligned with mine.
BTW, you might want to look into blood pressure medication.
You forget about the Walmart effect, where a powerful enough corporation can gain a regional monopoly and destroy the job market. Or a group of employers can make a pact that they won't hire each other's workers, such as the google/microsoft/apple thing that happened a while back. Corporations do all kinds of greedy shit to screw the common man. In fact, if they don't try to screw you, they're not doing their job.
I was, at one point, a registered libertarian voter, and I'm pretty sure they'd take your card away if they heard you talk about the minimum wage like that. Anyway, the idea that corporate overlords are better than government overlords is ridiculous. At least the government is *supposed* to represent your best interests. The corporation is only supposed to represent your best interests if you're a shareholder.
How you gonna get that money you need to survive when nobody is willing to pay you? Oh, right, you'll do what it takes. And when they offer you $2/hour to dig ditches, you'll do it because nobody else will give you a better deal. Yay libertarianism.
Quite familiar with it. I didn't ask about his *affiliation*, I asked for his *stance*. I rarely encounter people who have a stance that doesn't closely match an affiliation, and was genuinely curious what his stance is. Granted, stance is a bit of a loaded word, since you can have as many as there are topics to consider. But most people have at least a few guiding principles.
Alright, well if we're going to go that route, then Christianity is about the worst religion to keep people in line. Seriously, you can do whatever you want, as long as you're sorry for it at then end, according to the doctrine of pretty much every Christian sect.
The God of the Bible and the God of the Baptist preacher are two entirely different things. The Catholic church has made a pretty good policy post-Galileo -- if religion and science differ on facts, science wins. Can't say I like their decisions much, but at least they tend to be consistent with reality (except for that whole cracker and grape juice cannibalism thing).
A couple of problems here. First, you obviously don't believe in or understand the concept of free will. How much of a paradise would heaven be if you were forced there against your own will? Second, you seem to have a lack of understanding how "relationships" work. You cannot force someone to love you.
Right. It's perfectly reasonably to beat someone repeatedly, then expect them to love you for it.
Also, what people in hell will be tortured with is a form or what they took pleasure in while on earth. Glutenous people for example, will be forced to eat themselves to death for all eternity. They are getting what they sought in life.
Selfish people in life did not give a damn about anyone but themselves in life or consider how their actions could affect others so they will be deprived of the love of others.
Seriously, are you expecting god to force people to love him after they die or something? The people who are saved did not "earn" salvation, all the did was accept the gift offered to them. What condemns them is pride which is what caused the downfall of the devil. If you think that you are the centre of the universe then you will be left without god's love.
Do you like unsolicited mail? Wouldn't you rather be given the option to receive a gift rather than having it forced into your hands?
Okay, let's take a look at this "pride" argument. Let's say I have two people standing before me:
"Before you is the collected works of science over the last 400 years. We have shown the body of the heavens is predictable, that life has evolved over billions of years, and that the number of things that can be explained by 'God' approaches zero. I'm sorry, but you are but a spec in the great universe, and any purpose you have in life is your own. There is no divine plan. I'm sorry," says the scientist.
"This man is the devil and the world is 6,000 years old and you're going to Hell unless you believe me!" says the preacher.
So, where's the "pride" argument here? Seriously, the God you describe only wants idiots.
The problem with holding up the "falsifiable" notion of knowledge is that it's self-refuting. It is not, itself, falsifiable. By your own standard, it has no place in science either.
I'm just saying that in this topic, you need to be careful about concepts that cut both ways.
"Falsifiable" is an extension on "testable". Essentially, if you can't apply the scientific principle to something, it's not science. Creationism is unscientific, but not necessarily unethical. ID, which purports to be sciences but in fact is not, is unethical. Ethics, interestingly enough, have no foundation in science (or really in philosophy for that matter).
Why would a "God" need to perform an experiment, when He already knows the outcome?
For the same reason a freshman chemistry lab instructor does. God knows that Satan is wrong, but Satan is being given a chance to have it his way so that people can ultimately realize just how wrong Satan is.
...and condemning anyone who dare believe what they see to an eternity of torture, right? Wow, God sure is a sadistic fuck.
Slashdot Mirror
Also interesting that he selected Colorado's most affluent city (Boulder - basically a mini San Francisco) to use as an example.
Maybe so, but how much does a dev job pay there? I'd imagine not much more than that.
Interesting.. It seems that the elementary school average salary there is 96k, yet the high school math teacher average salary is 77k, according to that. Furthermore, it says the average "College Teacher" makes less than 65k. Looks like money is inversely proportional to education in the Boulder, CO teacher hierarchy.
Yep. I took my college placement test in 7th grade, and scored in the 90th percentile for college freshmen. By 9th grade, my score was higher than the average for students entering MIT (at least the ones that took the ACT test, which is what I took). The only thing that prevented me from dropping out of high school to go to college was that my parents wouldn't let me. Of course, I didn't go on to do anything all that interesting. At the time I thought I was some sort of super genius, but it turned out I was just an early bloomer academically, and I'm very good at taking multiple choice tests.
Since when do the police know the law?
I'm not so sure he was joking.. At any rate, if you call the cops they expect to arrest someone. If the real perp is too inconvenient to go after, you're the lucky winner. This is even more likely if the malware does a bunch of google searches for kiddie porn in the background
How do you mean? I interpreted his comment as meaning that a.) there is nothing to steal from the pirate bay (only stolen via the pirate bay), or that b.) what we call "stealing" in this instance is actually copyright infringement which, according to the law, is a much more serious crime.
I've know a couple of devs with math degrees, and they were excellent.
I've known a few with math degrees, and they were terrible. The main problem seemed to be an inability to understand the need for maintainability. To them it was always 'get the job done' with no thought to design or even meaningful variable names. One of my favorite moments was trying to explain for hours why its better to create a code library than to copy the same code into multiple related projects. At the end, we had to agree to disagree.
If I remember correctly, escaping the dictatorial rule of people with your point of view was one of the primary reasons this country was founded. To think that you know the "truth" about religion and everyone that disagrees with you is a moron pretty much makes you worse than most of those you despise. Congratulations on finding a way to use science to help you be as close minded and bigoted as the 18th century Church of England.
So what you're saying is that calling someone stupid for believing something stupid means you're stupid? Because obviously no belief is ever more or less correct than any other belief?
Clearly you never understood the Libertarian Party philosophy you clam you were a part of. They are not the anarchist party..... they are the party of minimal government (just enough to protect us & our rights from those corporations you fear so much). I would certainly never advocate getting rid of the U.S. or State governments, or join a party that did.
I remember quite a few people talk of privatizing roads, schools, fire departments, etc. The difference between "minimal" and "insufficient" is in the eye of the beholder. It was pretty much agreed that Walmart and its ilk should be allowed to do as they please, since they had obviously been chosen by the market. It became clear to me after a bit that the difference between coercion via gun-to-the-head is really no different than coercion via starvation. The only way I'd ever consider a libertarian-style government a good idea is if a.) corporations were not people, and b.) inheritance was outlawed. With those two things in place, you could at least have some measure of equality since nobody would be born into power, nor would their legacy continue after death. Even still, I dislike the social darwinism doctrine that anyone who can't make money and has no family to look out for them should be left to starve to death.
OH and you're wrong the corporation only cares about shareholders. A company must also care about serving the customer..... else it would end-up like Montgomerys Wards or Circuit Shitty (bankrupt).
Caring about the customer is not an end in itself for corporations, though it is *sometimes* a means, particularly in the retail sector. A better example would be BP. Do you really think they'd do anything about the oil spill if the EPA didn't force them? Do you think they'd even admit to causing it?
The term "middle" must have been used quite loosely there. Compared to those living in 1913 America, they were impoverished bumpkins.
Only if you measure wealth by things that weren't invented in Roman times. I think reasonably well off Romans had a pretty good lifestyle. Also, the culture of Rome at its height was somewhat more impressive than that of America at any time. Although I suppose you did invent rock 'n' roll.
Really? I mean, the Romans stole pretty much every aspect of their culture. They even took all of the Greek gods and just renamed them. The Romans were builders, not innovators.
Okay, so something needs to made clear here -- when people talk about corporate slavery, what we're actually talking about is something akin to serfdom. Look at any Walmart town and you will see this. The vast majority of the population in these small towns lives in poverty, works for Walmart, and have no hope of escaping. They're free to go any time, but more than likely they won't be able to leave because they have no means to do so. They're stuck in a cycle of poverty, enforced by their corporate overlords. The most hope these people have is to rise high enough in the corporate structure to become one of the "rich" people in town (which means making what used to be considered a middle-class wage)
I'm no fan of the government telling me what to do, but it's better than putting the Walmarts of the world in charge.
I can't ever recall anyone asking for this information for any other reason than to use it to smear someone.
You don't need to know because it doesn't matter, you WANT to know because you think you can then go "AHA YOU SUPPORT TEAM BLUE YOU'RE A _____" or "I KNEW IT, YOU SUPPORT TEAM RED, YOU ARE A _______"
You want to know because it will allow you to avoid addressing the actual issues, and frankly, YOU and those like YOU are what's wrong with politics in this country.
It's entirely possible to address his position without knowing anything else about him.
You've got some issues to work through. I actually agree with both things he said, and was curious whether his reasons aligned with mine.
BTW, you might want to look into blood pressure medication.
You forget about the Walmart effect, where a powerful enough corporation can gain a regional monopoly and destroy the job market. Or a group of employers can make a pact that they won't hire each other's workers, such as the google/microsoft/apple thing that happened a while back. Corporations do all kinds of greedy shit to screw the common man. In fact, if they don't try to screw you, they're not doing their job.
I was, at one point, a registered libertarian voter, and I'm pretty sure they'd take your card away if they heard you talk about the minimum wage like that. Anyway, the idea that corporate overlords are better than government overlords is ridiculous. At least the government is *supposed* to represent your best interests. The corporation is only supposed to represent your best interests if you're a shareholder.
Is political agnosticism a stance as you define "stance"? Is, for example, the claimed political neutrality of Jehovah's Witnesses a stance?
Given that the point of his thread was political, I'm going to call that a "no".
How you gonna get that money you need to survive when nobody is willing to pay you? Oh, right, you'll do what it takes. And when they offer you $2/hour to dig ditches, you'll do it because nobody else will give you a better deal. Yay libertarianism.
False Dilemma. Learn a new concept.
Quite familiar with it. I didn't ask about his *affiliation*, I asked for his *stance*. I rarely encounter people who have a stance that doesn't closely match an affiliation, and was genuinely curious what his stance is. Granted, stance is a bit of a loaded word, since you can have as many as there are topics to consider. But most people have at least a few guiding principles.
In your post you deride the liberal do-gooders, and in your sig you deride libertarians. If you don't mind me asking, what's your political stance?
Alright, well if we're going to go that route, then Christianity is about the worst religion to keep people in line. Seriously, you can do whatever you want, as long as you're sorry for it at then end, according to the doctrine of pretty much every Christian sect.
The God of the Bible and the God of the Baptist preacher are two entirely different things. The Catholic church has made a pretty good policy post-Galileo -- if religion and science differ on facts, science wins. Can't say I like their decisions much, but at least they tend to be consistent with reality (except for that whole cracker and grape juice cannibalism thing).
A couple of problems here. First, you obviously don't believe in or understand the concept of free will. How much of a paradise would heaven be if you were forced there against your own will? Second, you seem to have a lack of understanding how "relationships" work. You cannot force someone to love you.
Right. It's perfectly reasonably to beat someone repeatedly, then expect them to love you for it.
Also, what people in hell will be tortured with is a form or what they took pleasure in while on earth. Glutenous people for example, will be forced to eat themselves to death for all eternity. They are getting what they sought in life.
Selfish people in life did not give a damn about anyone but themselves in life or consider how their actions could affect others so they will be deprived of the love of others.
Seriously, are you expecting god to force people to love him after they die or something? The people who are saved did not "earn" salvation, all the did was accept the gift offered to them. What condemns them is pride which is what caused the downfall of the devil. If you think that you are the centre of the universe then you will be left without god's love.
Do you like unsolicited mail? Wouldn't you rather be given the option to receive a gift rather than having it forced into your hands?
Okay, let's take a look at this "pride" argument. Let's say I have two people standing before me:
"Before you is the collected works of science over the last 400 years. We have shown the body of the heavens is predictable, that life has evolved over billions of years, and that the number of things that can be explained by 'God' approaches zero. I'm sorry, but you are but a spec in the great universe, and any purpose you have in life is your own. There is no divine plan. I'm sorry," says the scientist.
"This man is the devil and the world is 6,000 years old and you're going to Hell unless you believe me!" says the preacher.
So, where's the "pride" argument here? Seriously, the God you describe only wants idiots.
The problem with holding up the "falsifiable" notion of knowledge is that it's self-refuting. It is not, itself, falsifiable. By your own standard, it has no place in science either.
I'm just saying that in this topic, you need to be careful about concepts that cut both ways.
"Falsifiable" is an extension on "testable". Essentially, if you can't apply the scientific principle to something, it's not science. Creationism is unscientific, but not necessarily unethical. ID, which purports to be sciences but in fact is not, is unethical. Ethics, interestingly enough, have no foundation in science (or really in philosophy for that matter).
Why would a "God" need to perform an experiment, when He already knows the outcome?
For the same reason a freshman chemistry lab instructor does. God knows that Satan is wrong, but Satan is being given a chance to have it his way so that people can ultimately realize just how wrong Satan is.
...and condemning anyone who dare believe what they see to an eternity of torture, right? Wow, God sure is a sadistic fuck.
You seem scared.
So now you can't do something that both gets you laid *and* makes enough money to live on. I here the waaambulance coming..