Being a Christian myself (a relatively logical one, as well), here's my point of view.
He bought it, it's his book, so he's free to burn it. I personally would never burn a Bible, and I don't like even the idea of Bibles being burned, but as long as he's doing it to his own property, he's free to. To me, it's the words that matter, not the paper. As long as I have the words, he can burn as much paper as he's willing to buy. I can disagree with him, but that's all I can do. No more.
Well, sure, but that's not really the point.
An act like burning someone's holy book, by itself, is meaningless. You make a fire, keep yourself warm, or whatever. But this isn't being done in a vacuum. It's being done as a little hate-rally, and the message of hate is, judging from how well this whole stupid thing has been publicized, being propagated to the subjects of that hate.
I think it's a reprehensible way to act. Americans should be better than this. Christians should be better than this. So hell yes, I will heap scorn on these ignorant fools for burning "just a book".
Sometimes, it's a good idea to read someone's complete post before replying...
Ooh, what a burn! I tried that, though, and this bit threw me for a loop...
"i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech."
Dang, tough one to untangle. I guess he's saying that Canada doesn't have freedom of speech, after all? If wisnoskij's point is that Canadians have freedom of speech (except not) then I think Dishevel is quite right to say that this isn't freedom of speech at all...
I worked as the Director of Technology for a charter school for 3 years and I looked at pretty good reporting on how one-laptop-per-child programs saw a 15% gain in performance on standardized testing. So I'd lay pretty good odds they will see some sort of increase from this, but probably not as great as they expect since they are doing a weird one-subject parallel.
That's cool. The skeptic in me still wonders whether the study was over a long enough period for the novelty of the laptops to wear off - and also whether other uses of the funds might have seen better improvements - and whether standardized tests are really what we should be gunning for in the first place. (But then again, how else do you measure whether something is effective, except by testing it? And how can the test be valid if it's not standardized?)
I prefer the updates, "OMG pray for me to get through this", "wow, just wow", and "I'll get through this". To everyone who's posted those, "NO. I WILL NOT ASK WHAT YOU ARE REFERING TO!"
At least we know your sarcasometer is properly calibrated.:)
I hate to break it to you and to Slashdot in general, but not every response to the underlying sentiment behind the sarcasm is a failure to understand that it was, in fact, sarcasm.
If you reply to a sarcastic message, and in your reply take the sarcastic message according to its literal meaning, then it's fair to say you've failed to interpret the message correctly, whether intentionally or not. The literal interpretation of the message is not its "underlying sentiment".
Actually it means "happy" - the only reason it's commonly taken to mean "lame" is because "Gay" is used to refer to homosexuals, and a lot of people hate homosexuals...
So I guess what I'm saying is that their claim to the word is greater than yours.:)
They didn't just throw money. They bought an electronic device that proved to be much more effective than what they replaced.
No, the results of this test aren't in yet. A salesman for the education firm pushing this program says that it's effective. This deployment is a test to see if it's true. Even the initial results of this experiment won't be ready for another few months.
Personally I don't believe this is the best use of that kind of money, but I'm open-minded. Maybe it'll work out. Who knows?
You know, I read this headline and immediately thought of GNU Hurd... And then I thought about it, and remembered that it couldn't possibly be about GNU Hurd, because GNU Hurd hasn't been relevant since... ever.
and we didn't need gimmicks like motion controllers, photo-realistic graphics and high framerates to enjoy them.
Man, whatever. The way I remember it, half the fun of gaming in the late 80s and early 90s was looking forward to the next big step forward in hardware or software performance.
Weak, dude, seriously. If you can't take the time to read things then go watch some Youtube or something. Leave the philosophical discussions to the would-be philosophers. You know, the ones with an attention span...
moral - a quick read of the bible clearly shows that modern christians get their moral values form the same place as athiests: modern liberal secular values that have been explored since the enlightenment and can be simply expressed as do onto others as you would have done to yourself, or do not directly harm other people.
Well, to say that people, Christian or not, are discovering and holding the same values is a good argument for the existence of objective morality. After all, if such a thing as "objective morality" exists, then wouldn't there be a good chance that even nonbelievers would accept those same principles, even if learned from another source?
To me the better approach is to question the idea of objective morality. Does such a thing really exist outside of ourselves? Most of the guidelines accepted as "moral standards" are simply practical guidelines for living as a social creature. As we are social creatures, we must live in a way that enables us to enjoy the company of others. Is it wrong to kill? Or to steal? The reason these behaviors are unacceptable is because they lead to gain at another's expense. If this kind of behavior were tolerated by the group, the group would tear itself apart with acts of vengeance and greed. There must be order for a social group to work, and that (I contend) is the basis of morality.
There are a lot of expensive tools at work in those articles. A lathe, drill press, a gas torch for soldering, plus a lot of junk for spare parts. I think the equipment list would put this safely outside the hobbyist category.
Nonsense. It's just a matter of what sort of hobbyist you are... How committed you are and what kind of budget you have to play with.
Slashdot Mirror
Relevant XKCD
Being a Christian myself (a relatively logical one, as well), here's my point of view.
He bought it, it's his book, so he's free to burn it. I personally would never burn a Bible, and I don't like even the idea of Bibles being burned, but as long as he's doing it to his own property, he's free to. To me, it's the words that matter, not the paper. As long as I have the words, he can burn as much paper as he's willing to buy. I can disagree with him, but that's all I can do. No more.
Well, sure, but that's not really the point.
An act like burning someone's holy book, by itself, is meaningless. You make a fire, keep yourself warm, or whatever. But this isn't being done in a vacuum. It's being done as a little hate-rally, and the message of hate is, judging from how well this whole stupid thing has been publicized, being propagated to the subjects of that hate.
I think it's a reprehensible way to act. Americans should be better than this. Christians should be better than this. So hell yes, I will heap scorn on these ignorant fools for burning "just a book".
Sometimes, it's a good idea to read someone's complete post before replying ...
Ooh, what a burn! I tried that, though, and this bit threw me for a loop...
"i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech."
Dang, tough one to untangle. I guess he's saying that Canada doesn't have freedom of speech, after all? If wisnoskij's point is that Canadians have freedom of speech (except not) then I think Dishevel is quite right to say that this isn't freedom of speech at all...
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive
I think you mean, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When we teach robots to deceive"...
Dude, they're computer programs. Get a grip.
I worked as the Director of Technology for a charter school for 3 years and I looked at pretty good reporting on how one-laptop-per-child programs saw a 15% gain in performance on standardized testing. So I'd lay pretty good odds they will see some sort of increase from this, but probably not as great as they expect since they are doing a weird one-subject parallel.
That's cool. The skeptic in me still wonders whether the study was over a long enough period for the novelty of the laptops to wear off - and also whether other uses of the funds might have seen better improvements - and whether standardized tests are really what we should be gunning for in the first place. (But then again, how else do you measure whether something is effective, except by testing it? And how can the test be valid if it's not standardized?)
Tetsujin likes the comment:
I prefer the updates, "OMG pray for me to get through this", "wow, just wow", and "I'll get through this". To everyone who's posted those, "NO. I WILL NOT ASK WHAT YOU ARE REFERING TO!"
on /.
Oh, and I have a sig line, too! Gary Numan is cool!
I can make funny comments!
At least we know your sarcasometer is properly calibrated. :)
I hate to break it to you and to Slashdot in general, but not every response to the underlying sentiment behind the sarcasm is a failure to understand that it was, in fact, sarcasm.
If you reply to a sarcastic message, and in your reply take the sarcastic message according to its literal meaning, then it's fair to say you've failed to interpret the message correctly, whether intentionally or not. The literal interpretation of the message is not its "underlying sentiment".
At least we know your sarcasometer is properly calibrated. :)
Wouldn't that be a sarcasmometer?
Gay still means lame.
Actually it means "happy" - the only reason it's commonly taken to mean "lame" is because "Gay" is used to refer to homosexuals, and a lot of people hate homosexuals...
So I guess what I'm saying is that their claim to the word is greater than yours. :)
That is not in itself an excuse.
What needs excusing? God damn, if you'd just stop being so uptight, you might see that it's funny!
They didn't just throw money. They bought an electronic device that proved to be much more effective than what they replaced.
No, the results of this test aren't in yet. A salesman for the education firm pushing this program says that it's effective. This deployment is a test to see if it's true. Even the initial results of this experiment won't be ready for another few months.
Personally I don't believe this is the best use of that kind of money, but I'm open-minded. Maybe it'll work out. Who knows?
The GNU this was going to happen.
You know, I read this headline and immediately thought of GNU Hurd... And then I thought about it, and remembered that it couldn't possibly be about GNU Hurd, because GNU Hurd hasn't been relevant since... ever.
Freedom isn't free either, but apparently it's a lot cheaper than happiness...
Happiness: $75,000 per year
Freedom: $1.05
and we didn't need gimmicks like motion controllers, photo-realistic graphics and high framerates to enjoy them.
Man, whatever. The way I remember it, half the fun of gaming in the late 80s and early 90s was looking forward to the next big step forward in hardware or software performance.
tl;dr
Weak, dude, seriously. If you can't take the time to read things then go watch some Youtube or something. Leave the philosophical discussions to the would-be philosophers. You know, the ones with an attention span...
moral - a quick read of the bible clearly shows that modern christians get their moral values form the same place as athiests: modern liberal secular values that have been explored since the enlightenment and can be simply expressed as do onto others as you would have done to yourself, or do not directly harm other people.
Well, to say that people, Christian or not, are discovering and holding the same values is a good argument for the existence of objective morality. After all, if such a thing as "objective morality" exists, then wouldn't there be a good chance that even nonbelievers would accept those same principles, even if learned from another source?
To me the better approach is to question the idea of objective morality. Does such a thing really exist outside of ourselves? Most of the guidelines accepted as "moral standards" are simply practical guidelines for living as a social creature. As we are social creatures, we must live in a way that enables us to enjoy the company of others. Is it wrong to kill? Or to steal? The reason these behaviors are unacceptable is because they lead to gain at another's expense. If this kind of behavior were tolerated by the group, the group would tear itself apart with acts of vengeance and greed. There must be order for a social group to work, and that (I contend) is the basis of morality.
I did, and I'm my own Grandpa.
It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so!
What's a Nubian?
After hearing about this, the Daleks have instituted a strict regimen of daily alcohol intake to ward of The Oncoming Storm...
$666,666,666.67 for a PAR? How much would I get for a 20 over par?
$666,666,686.67, obviously...
So I guess it averages out to $666,666,666.67 per PAR?
There are a lot of expensive tools at work in those articles. A lathe, drill press, a gas torch for soldering, plus a lot of junk for spare parts. I think the equipment list would put this safely outside the hobbyist category.
Nonsense. It's just a matter of what sort of hobbyist you are... How committed you are and what kind of budget you have to play with.