The hope is kids become more interested in computers than joining the rebels, though the organization Human Rights Watch notes that many kids in the area are forced into the group and shot if they try to leave.
OK, anyone thinks that old Bill is exaggerating this time? I think maybe this could get him in trouble. Or I am underestimating his lawyers?
I don't have any data to back this up, but it seems to me that people are migrating from small provider companies to big internet provider companies - and their e-mail is going together. And it also seems to me that all those big companies have good e-mail filters (or they're getting one that will be good in a small period of time). If that's true, spam will face a dead end pretty soon.
Even if you stay with a small provider company with your personal e-mail, there are many good solutions to avoid spam. I used Popfile for a long time and it worked pretty well.
Either way, if people will go to their spam box and click that viagra ad, it will be their problem. It doesn't affect me anymore.
I think they should do an A&E "Sell this house" special with Yahoo! before trying to sell anything. There would be a fat designer with a tight t-shirt telling the owners "oh, this is not a very good front page, let's get rid of all those clumsy links and do something clean, google-like.". And they could put some flowers and a mirror so the page could look bigger.
When I contacted the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Ottawa Region by telephone to disclose my inventions, it should be known that I was ignored and that I was considered ridiculous.
Just some other thing. Even if you have your reasons and you don't agree with this, I think it's really good think about this type of question. This kind of conversation should be encouraged, even if nobody changes his opinion. If both parts are gentle and sincere, both will exit the conversation better than they arrived. That's why I always liked Sagan and never liked Dawkins.
As one example, when people see murders and other atrocities, they may say "If there was a god, and he was good and powerful, he would have stopped that". But if non-interference with free will is a very high moral priority, then stopping the atrocity, or even just removing the opportunity for the atrocity, would be more wrong than allowing it.
I think it goes way deeper than you said. If you have a morally perfect God, how could he *imagine* evil in the first place? You can get free will and choices without being evil. I won't go deep into this here, but there's a plenty of places where you can find information about what I'm talking about. This one is very good.
And, as Carl Sagan and others before him already told, if God is immortal and we're mortal, then he's definitely cruel. The fear of dying is so terrible that it guides most part of human philosophy and religion.
>Unfortunately 90% or more of the discussions on places such as Slashdot will be between people who haven't ever read anything by the people who have done better, and who think their latest point has never been proposed by anyone else before.
>For example, if they don't like the concept of God, they often assume that God, if 'He" exists, must know everything, even where knowing certain things simultaneously supposedly creates a paradox. They then point to that paradox as proof God doesn't exist.
For me, as an agnostic, it's pretty obvious you can't prove that no God exists; The only thing you can 'try' to prove is the existence of one specific God. I do understand what you're saying and your point is valid, but the people that point this paradox are generally arguing about the Christian God, which is our most known deity.
>It's logically quite possible that one or more of these things could exist without the others existing at all.
Not all of them. Like you said, if God is morally perfect He can't be all-powerful. If He's powerfull he can't be morally perfect. This pretty much cuts out most of our known Western religions.
I think we can discuss every type of God we want, with every type of power we want to give Him, but I don't see a point. It seems pretty straightforward to me that is ridiculous that an all-powerful God waits in an afterworld to judge my actions. I have my ethics, I try to make things right. So, still, if He's watching, ok, no problem. But... why bother?
Could we finally see Jurassic Park become a reality, or perhaps use this for colonizing other galaxies?
Pinky: "Gee Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
The Brain: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky - we freeze, clone, and take over the universe."
...but I grew up in the suburbs and many of their speeches implied that I was not a "Real American", which I found quite insulting.)
For me, Real Americans = aztecs, siouxies, etc.
I'm South American and I can say I'm an American too, or at least I should be able to.
I think this is just another type of Ad-Hominem fallacy. Americans do something -> This shouldn't be done by Americans -> They are not "real" Americans.
I agree with your main idea, but I do not agree with your argument. Giving your experience as an individual doesn't help.
I think the main issue here is what to do with this 'evidence', if it really is valid. So, should we allow the government to 'protect' our children from this? Or should we do it ourselves?
I think this question can be answered by the great Frank Zappa.
Space weather warning: Launch News- Today in the Southern Americas regions, the likelihood of debris showers is at Threat Level Orange. Expected drop zone is 15 miles off the coast of Peru as the StarLiner "Moses" launches for Alpha Centauri.
It'll appear today in Fox News: "Obama linked to terrorist space garbage. | Your opinion?"
Slashdot Mirror
First, you have to discover Genetic Mutations. It costs a lot of RP, though.
Yeah, look at all that poisonous gas. I'm sure everyone will agree that's more than one WMD.
The hope is kids become more interested in computers than joining the rebels, though the organization Human Rights Watch notes that many kids in the area are forced into the group and shot if they try to leave.
OK, anyone thinks that old Bill is exaggerating this time? I think maybe this could get him in trouble. Or I am underestimating his lawyers?
No, that would be 'dope'
I don't have any data to back this up, but it seems to me that people are migrating from small provider companies to big internet provider companies - and their e-mail is going together. And it also seems to me that all those big companies have good e-mail filters (or they're getting one that will be good in a small period of time). If that's true, spam will face a dead end pretty soon.
Even if you stay with a small provider company with your personal e-mail, there are many good solutions to avoid spam. I used Popfile for a long time and it worked pretty well.
Either way, if people will go to their spam box and click that viagra ad, it will be their problem. It doesn't affect me anymore.
I think they should do an A&E "Sell this house" special with Yahoo! before trying to sell anything. There would be a fat designer with a tight t-shirt telling the owners "oh, this is not a very good front page, let's get rid of all those clumsy links and do something clean, google-like.". And they could put some flowers and a mirror so the page could look bigger.
Maybe this way the shares would go up. Maybe.
When I contacted the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Ottawa Region by telephone to disclose my inventions, it should be known that I was ignored and that I was considered ridiculous.
OMG why would someone do that????
Alex Chiu. But Alex Chiu sucks. I got the page hits I needed and he never sent me the immortality device.
Just some other thing. Even if you have your reasons and you don't agree with this, I think it's really good think about this type of question. This kind of conversation should be encouraged, even if nobody changes his opinion. If both parts are gentle and sincere, both will exit the conversation better than they arrived. That's why I always liked Sagan and never liked Dawkins.
As one example, when people see murders and other atrocities, they may say "If there was a god, and he was good and powerful, he would have stopped that". But if non-interference with free will is a very high moral priority, then stopping the atrocity, or even just removing the opportunity for the atrocity, would be more wrong than allowing it.
I think it goes way deeper than you said. If you have a morally perfect God, how could he *imagine* evil in the first place? You can get free will and choices without being evil. I won't go deep into this here, but there's a plenty of places where you can find information about what I'm talking about. This one is very good.
And, as Carl Sagan and others before him already told, if God is immortal and we're mortal, then he's definitely cruel. The fear of dying is so terrible that it guides most part of human philosophy and religion.
>Unfortunately 90% or more of the discussions on places such as Slashdot will be between people who haven't ever read anything by the people who have done better, and who think their latest point has never been proposed by anyone else before.
This sounds like circular reasoning to me.
>For example, if they don't like the concept of God, they often assume that God, if 'He" exists, must know everything, even where knowing certain things simultaneously supposedly creates a paradox. They then point to that paradox as proof God doesn't exist.
For me, as an agnostic, it's pretty obvious you can't prove that no God exists; The only thing you can 'try' to prove is the existence of one specific God. I do understand what you're saying and your point is valid, but the people that point this paradox are generally arguing about the Christian God, which is our most known deity.
>It's logically quite possible that one or more of these things could exist without the others existing at all.
Not all of them. Like you said, if God is morally perfect He can't be all-powerful. If He's powerfull he can't be morally perfect. This pretty much cuts out most of our known Western religions.
I think we can discuss every type of God we want, with every type of power we want to give Him, but I don't see a point. It seems pretty straightforward to me that is ridiculous that an all-powerful God waits in an afterworld to judge my actions. I have my ethics, I try to make things right. So, still, if He's watching, ok, no problem. But... why bother?
Yeah, and my "Mice-cream-wagon" will play Vanilla Ice's version of "Mice-mice-baby".
Could we finally see Jurassic Park become a reality, or perhaps use this for colonizing other galaxies?
Pinky: "Gee Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
The Brain: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky - we freeze, clone, and take over the universe."
Now that mice ice-cream factory I was planning will work _very_ well.
I, for one, welcome the old eight-arms overlord!
I wonder what Dawkins will say about this. It's undeniable!
...they describe other early living things that looked like leaves, shells, stars and something almost akin to a peace symbol.
Damn hippie fossils!
I'll believe ID when they find a fossilized watch.
I found it. It's an Ad-Hoc fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
...but I grew up in the suburbs and many of their speeches implied that I was not a "Real American", which I found quite insulting.)
For me, Real Americans = aztecs, siouxies, etc. I'm South American and I can say I'm an American too, or at least I should be able to.
I think this is just another type of Ad-Hominem fallacy. Americans do something -> This shouldn't be done by Americans -> They are not "real" Americans.
I don't. There are atheists and agnostics in other parts of the world, you know.
I agree with your main idea, but I do not agree with your argument. Giving your experience as an individual doesn't help.
I think the main issue here is what to do with this 'evidence', if it really is valid. So, should we allow the government to 'protect' our children from this? Or should we do it ourselves?
I think this question can be answered by the great Frank Zappa.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap061119.html
I kind of look forward to news reports like this:
Space weather warning: Launch News- Today in the Southern Americas regions, the likelihood of debris showers is at Threat Level Orange. Expected drop zone is 15 miles off the coast of Peru as the StarLiner "Moses" launches for Alpha Centauri.
It'll appear today in Fox News: "Obama linked to terrorist space garbage. | Your opinion?"