Where was I? I'm the same place I always am. It would be lovely if politicians would listen to me, but so far I haven't had much success. This is why I am talking to you. Only when enough people demand freedom will politicians listen.
I agree that there should be no subsidies for anything. The carrot is just as corrosive to freedom as the stick.
Pollution is a somewhat different issue, since one person polluting encroaches on the freedom of another. For this reason, the government must be involved. However, zero pollution is not technically possible at this time, short of killing all humans.
It is a question of freedom.
The more power we give the government, the more they will take.
The more power the take, the less we will have.
At some point, we will realize that we are living in a tyranny and the only way to change things will be with guns.
I'd rather stop this now, when no guns are necessary.
All that you need to be free, is to be willing to have your neighbor be free as well.
If free will is an illusion, then there is no "should," there is only "must." We do what the laws of physics require: no more, no less. If we lock up criminals, we do it because that is what our program tells us to do. If we murder, we do that because that is what our program tells us to do. You cannot ascribe right to wrong to a human any more than you can ascribe right or wrong to a hurricane. Both are mere a collection of atoms, moving under laws, yes?
There's also an unexamined assumption here (yet another example of Christianity's baleful influence on our culture) that people can actually choose to be good or bad.
If people cannot choose to be good or bad, there is no such thing as good or bad.
If there is no such thing as bad, Chistianity cannot be bad (or baleful, as you put it.)
Hmm. Seems to be a contradiction. You may want to check your premises.
This is all about the only form of DRM that works: centrally controlled and account based. Regardless of how many reasons that Blizzard gives, this is all about controlling the product.
We have a word for this, and the word is eugenics. How long until the threshold for undesirability is softened to a heart condition, or baldness? How long until the decisions are politically or religiously motivated? Killing the undesirables so that the "proper" children may thrive is a lesson we should not have to learn again.
Yes, Godwin, but here the analogy is apt.
Have you used one for more than a minute or two? You'd be surprised how quickly you adapt to it; it's just another muscle-memory thing. When I'm using a more traditional two-button mouse, I find it quaint that it has actual physical buttons, and that the scroll button/wheel is only two directional.
I support macs, and use mighty mice frequently and involuntarily. I have adapted to lifting up the my left finger when right clicking. The ergonomics of these mice is horrible. Not only is there the issue with the "buttons," but the whole mouse is not shaped for a human hand and the track ball is too small. A mouse should be usable first, and beautiful second. Almost all of the problems with macintosh UI can be traced to not understanding this. Blaming the user for not being fashionable enough is not the correct approach. Fixing the mouse design is.
The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus. The same Jesus who said in Matthew 19:21
God, free(as in freedom), Astrology, it's all the same.
Saying that all forms of spiritual beliefs are equally valid is similar to saying that all forms of science (fraudulent and Nobel prize winning) are equally valid. It is somewhere between naive and intentionally clueless. Major world religions have a vetting process of experts, just as science does. It does not involve the scientific method, but spiritual questions are not tractable to the scientific method. We either have to go with the experts we have, or reject all spiritual knowledge. I for one, do not believe that any path of inquiry should be rejected because it does not hold with our preconceived notions of how knowledge should be acquired.
There are numerous jokes about soylent green here. Unfortunately, most people do not realize how true these comments are. The article is short on details, but the kidney cells in question are probably Human Embryonic Kidney Cells, which were extracted from an aborted human fetus in the 70s, and then modified so that they would reproduce forever (immortalized). These cells are common in research. What many do not realize is that the arguments amount embryonic cell lines have actually been going on for a long time, even though now most arguments are about stem cells, rather than kidney cells.
Anything online (and often even not online) you use your real name for is possibly tied to you, irrevocably and forever. This is the real world, not some fantasy world where everyone is nice and happy and non-prejudiced. http://www.xkcd.com/137/
Frankly, I've never seen any passage in the Bible describing the position or, or need for a pope.
In the following verses, we see Jesus giving authority to
humans. Authority is given to teach and cast out demons (or other evil).
As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is
called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were
fishermen. He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of
men." (Mt 4:18-19). (All of the apostles were called in this way.)
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others whom he sent ahead of him in
pairs to every town and place to visit (Lk 10:1).... The seventy-two returned
rejoicing, and said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your
name." (Lk 10:17)
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has
been given to me. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And
behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Mt 28:18)
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the
Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you
retain are retained." (Jn 20:22-23, Mt 18:18 is similar).
In the next two versus, we see Jesus giving special
authority to Peter. Peter is the rock, upon which Jesus will build his
Church.
He [Jesus] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter
said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus
said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and
blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say
to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys
to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt
16:15-19)
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of
John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you
know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said
to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to
him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my
sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love
me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you
love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love
you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)
We also learn that Peter (and the other apostles) are not
like other Earthly leaders. Even though they have power, power is not
their primary purpose. Service is their primary purpose.
Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded
as the greatest. He [Jesus] said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord
it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors';
but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as
the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one
seated at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at the
table? I am among you as the one who serves. It is you who have
stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has
conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and
you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon,
Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all
Your information is incorrect. It is a commonly believed myth, but it is a myth nonetheless. In reality, the Vatican has an operating budget and endowment (or patrimony, as they call it) of well less than Harvard University. See http://marquettetribune.its.mu.edu/umi/events/docu ments/AllenJohn.pdf. This is written by the Vatican correspondent for CNN. The Catholic Church as a whole has substantially more money, but the church is so decentralized that the Vatican has no access to this money. Each diocese has its own, separate financial management.
my disbelief in the big bang as describing the birth fo the ENTIRE universe stems from an instinct i have about the history of science:
1. at one time, people believed the world was flat
2. at one time, people believed the sun revolved aorund the earth
3. at one time, people believe humans were created in the image of god, above the other beasts
Your argument is the following:
Scientists have made false statements in the past.
Scientists are making statements.
Therefore, scientists are making false statements.
This does not follow, unless you claim that all statements that scientists make are false. Do you truly believe this? What we must do instead is make the best model we can given the data available. The data for the big bang is strong and should be believed until we have a better model. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang. html Your model, that the universe is infinite in time, has no evidence. A theorist coming up with a possibility by which time pulls a trick around the time of the big bang does not qualify. A theory of physics is not justified without experimental verification.
Either the universe popped into existance from nothing, the laws of physics popped into existance from nothing, or God popped into existance from nothing, or one of these things has always existed. That is, at some point, something just is. Classically, this is called a first cause, or uncaused cause. There must be something that can cause others, but itself is not caused by anything. Hawking has not gotten around this problem, so no one should think that he has.
If the universe is flat or open like a bedsheet, then it is infinite in extent, and has always been infinite in extent, or at least larger than we can see. As time passes, we have to look further away (or further back in time) to see the beginning. If the universe is closed like a balloon, then we still have to look further and further away, but we may end up looking back at our own position, just further back in time. A good, semi-technical discussion of the big bang can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang. html
Space-time itself can expand faster than the speed of light, and did so in the early universe. That is, even though point A and point B used to be very close, and light was going from point A to point B, point A and B keep getting father apart, so the light has further and further to go.
You may say, "But I thought nothing can go faster than the speed of light." However, you'd be wrong. General relativity allows for this effect.
Unfortunately, using this to create a faster than light drive is still not conceivable, because the only way we know to control space-time is with large amounts of mass or energy (and I mean LARGE).
The normal reason to encourage people to vote is if you expect them to vote the same way as you. Encouraging uninformed people to vote means that you expect uninformed people to vote with you. This is not a good sign. I prefer to inform people, rather than just speak on the virtue of voting. Once you are informed, the need to vote becomes obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Where was I? I'm the same place I always am. It would be lovely if politicians would listen to me, but so far I haven't had much success. This is why I am talking to you. Only when enough people demand freedom will politicians listen. I agree that there should be no subsidies for anything. The carrot is just as corrosive to freedom as the stick. Pollution is a somewhat different issue, since one person polluting encroaches on the freedom of another. For this reason, the government must be involved. However, zero pollution is not technically possible at this time, short of killing all humans.
It is a question of freedom. The more power we give the government, the more they will take. The more power the take, the less we will have. At some point, we will realize that we are living in a tyranny and the only way to change things will be with guns. I'd rather stop this now, when no guns are necessary. All that you need to be free, is to be willing to have your neighbor be free as well.
If free will is an illusion, then there is no "should," there is only "must." We do what the laws of physics require: no more, no less. If we lock up criminals, we do it because that is what our program tells us to do. If we murder, we do that because that is what our program tells us to do. You cannot ascribe right to wrong to a human any more than you can ascribe right or wrong to a hurricane. Both are mere a collection of atoms, moving under laws, yes?
There's also an unexamined assumption here (yet another example of Christianity's baleful influence on our culture) that people can actually choose to be good or bad.
If people cannot choose to be good or bad, there is no such thing as good or bad. If there is no such thing as bad, Chistianity cannot be bad (or baleful, as you put it.) Hmm. Seems to be a contradiction. You may want to check your premises.
This is all about the only form of DRM that works: centrally controlled and account based. Regardless of how many reasons that Blizzard gives, this is all about controlling the product.
We have a word for this, and the word is eugenics. How long until the threshold for undesirability is softened to a heart condition, or baldness? How long until the decisions are politically or religiously motivated? Killing the undesirables so that the "proper" children may thrive is a lesson we should not have to learn again. Yes, Godwin, but here the analogy is apt.
Have you used one for more than a minute or two? You'd be surprised how quickly you adapt to it; it's just another muscle-memory thing. When I'm using a more traditional two-button mouse, I find it quaint that it has actual physical buttons, and that the scroll button/wheel is only two directional.
I support macs, and use mighty mice frequently and involuntarily. I have adapted to lifting up the my left finger when right clicking. The ergonomics of these mice is horrible. Not only is there the issue with the "buttons," but the whole mouse is not shaped for a human hand and the track ball is too small. A mouse should be usable first, and beautiful second. Almost all of the problems with macintosh UI can be traced to not understanding this. Blaming the user for not being fashionable enough is not the correct approach. Fixing the mouse design is.
The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus. The same Jesus who said in Matthew 19:21
You might think this, but you would be wrong. The Vatican has an annual operating budget of $260 million. This puts it on order a mid-sized U.S. college. http://www.marquette.edu/umi/events/documents/AllenJohn.pdf
Saying that all forms of spiritual beliefs are equally valid is similar to saying that all forms of science (fraudulent and Nobel prize winning) are equally valid. It is somewhere between naive and intentionally clueless. Major world religions have a vetting process of experts, just as science does. It does not involve the scientific method, but spiritual questions are not tractable to the scientific method. We either have to go with the experts we have, or reject all spiritual knowledge. I for one, do not believe that any path of inquiry should be rejected because it does not hold with our preconceived notions of how knowledge should be acquired.
There are numerous jokes about soylent green here. Unfortunately, most people do not realize how true these comments are. The article is short on details, but the kidney cells in question are probably Human Embryonic Kidney Cells, which were extracted from an aborted human fetus in the 70s, and then modified so that they would reproduce forever (immortalized). These cells are common in research. What many do not realize is that the arguments amount embryonic cell lines have actually been going on for a long time, even though now most arguments are about stem cells, rather than kidney cells.
In the following verses, we see Jesus giving authority to humans. Authority is given to teach and cast out demons (or other evil).
In the next two versus, we see Jesus giving special authority to Peter. Peter is the rock, upon which Jesus will build his Church.
We also learn that Peter (and the other apostles) are not like other Earthly leaders. Even though they have power, power is not their primary purpose. Service is their primary purpose.
Your information is incorrect. It is a commonly believed myth, but it is a myth nonetheless. In reality, the Vatican has an operating budget and endowment (or patrimony, as they call it) of well less than Harvard University. See http://marquettetribune.its.mu.edu/umi/events/docu ments/AllenJohn.pdf. This is written by the Vatican correspondent for CNN. The Catholic Church as a whole has substantially more money, but the church is so decentralized that the Vatican has no access to this money. Each diocese has its own, separate financial management.
Scientists have made false statements in the past. Scientists are making statements. Therefore, scientists are making false statements.
This does not follow, unless you claim that all statements that scientists make are false. Do you truly believe this? What we must do instead is make the best model we can given the data available. The data for the big bang is strong and should be believed until we have a better model. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang
Either the universe popped into existance from nothing, the laws of physics popped into existance from nothing, or God popped into existance from nothing, or one of these things has always existed. That is, at some point, something just is. Classically, this is called a first cause, or uncaused cause. There must be something that can cause others, but itself is not caused by anything. Hawking has not gotten around this problem, so no one should think that he has.
If the universe is flat or open like a bedsheet, then it is infinite in extent, and has always been infinite in extent, or at least larger than we can see. As time passes, we have to look further away (or further back in time) to see the beginning. If the universe is closed like a balloon, then we still have to look further and further away, but we may end up looking back at our own position, just further back in time. A good, semi-technical discussion of the big bang can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang. html
Space-time itself can expand faster than the speed of light, and did so in the early universe. That is, even though point A and point B used to be very close, and light was going from point A to point B, point A and B keep getting father apart, so the light has further and further to go.
You may say, "But I thought nothing can go faster than the speed of light." However, you'd be wrong. General relativity allows for this effect.
Unfortunately, using this to create a faster than light drive is still not conceivable, because the only way we know to control space-time is with large amounts of mass or energy (and I mean LARGE).
The normal reason to encourage people to vote is if you expect them to vote the same way as you. Encouraging uninformed people to vote means that you expect uninformed people to vote with you. This is not a good sign. I prefer to inform people, rather than just speak on the virtue of voting. Once you are informed, the need to vote becomes obvious.