Okay, so the big telco shut down community access.
Having relatives who used to run a business, I find it hard to believe that any town can get muscled into anything by BigCompany. Usually, it's the other way around - the city finds ways, legally, of course - of being real jerks to potential businesses and drives them away. If they can't do that, well, they have the power to pass all manner of oppressive laws and regulations and require inspections and paperwork which would erase any profit a business might otherwise make.
Gosh, I mean, it would be a real shame, if after Big Telco builds out the network:
The city decides to charge property taxes on the "assessed value" of the network lines - like they charge on real estate...
Or decides to require monthly reports be filed with the city detailing the usage of the fiber - in paper, on a per-bit basis.
Or requires a monthly "security fee" to reimburse the police department for the cost of "protecting" the fiber where it runs across public land.
And let's not forget the multitude of forms the company must file to remain compliant - must have regular inspections done to ensure the integrity of the lines (wouldn't want our citizens to experience an outage - no sir!), must send a company officer every month to personally, hand deliver the forms and sign a statement - upon penalty of perjury - that every inch of infrastructure was inspected and found defect free.
And while were at it, why not require - and I'm sure you'd agree - that cable companies have lightning insurance. And not just coverage for the lines, but also for any equipment attached to the lines.
Oh, and lest we forget - for the sake of quality of service - require that only network equipment licensed by the city be used for public infrastructure.
etc...
I know big companies can be real jerks at times, but city hall can make or break a business. Their lawyers are paid by the taxpayers, the judges - by the city. They can tie things up in the courts for years, and even if Big Corp wins, they can simply pass another law; one which addresses the deficiencies mentioned in the ruling. Sure, maybe the city doesn't have the authority to regulate communications devices, but they can pass tax laws - they've been taxing real property and vehicles for years, with long precedent. How would taxing commo equipment be any less legal?
It's not their fault if their work computer gets compromised.
It's either the fault of Evil Hackers (TM), or more commonly, the IT department.
Either way, they don't have to deal with the repercussions of their actions. Someone else does. And not surprisingly, this type of relationship (that is, one where someone else bears the brunt of someone else's bad decisions) is so commonplace in corporate America that almost no one notices anymore.
When users see their employer using Windows for that "high security" project, it sends a very clear signal that either the company doesn't care about security, or considers security an "IT problem", or possibly both. If the company doesn't care about security, why should the employee?
Microsoft would not win a patent fight with Texas Instruments. They've been doing this - using "GPUs" in embedded processors to accelerate video compression and decompression for at least a decade now, if not longer.
"Some walking piece of trash just shot John F. Kennedy..."
The first time I heard this quote, I was amazed that the speaker could so eloquently and forcefully communicate what even the strongest of swear words would not. It's not so much that swearing is offensive and vulgar, but rather so often communicates little more than the mental feebleness of the speaker. Having grown up swearing, I found myself unable to express disapproval of something without using vulgarity, and without really saying much important. I had to learn to think before I spoke, to articulate what I was trying to say, instead of merely informing everyone within earshot that I could think of nothing more discriptive, nothing more enlightening to the hearer, than a litany of profanity.
Even though I realize some people have no moral problem with swearing, there's almost never a good reason to use it in casual conversation.
Let me know when the Labor Movement will be handed to us by charities...
For those ignorant of American history, Catholics (and the charities they supported) were very frequently confused with Communists prior to the 1950's because of their concern for the ordinary worker. The Catholic voting block was largely responsible for electing politicians who enacted workers-rights legislation. (And even today there are a large contingent of Catholics who ignore the pro-life issues and support Democrats because of their labor-friendly positions... but I digress.)
Things changed in the 80's when the parties tried to split the voting block over the pro-life issue, but the types of people who support charities typically vote Democrat - or used to, until the Democrats started supporting abortion.
Okay, I understand your point about cutting your losses, moving on, etc.
But on a security clearance, they ask if you've every left a job under unfavorable circumstances, and everything in between (fired, quit after being told you would be fired, quit after allegations of misconduct, etc...) If he really is innocent, and he doesn't clear this up now, he may very well be forced out of his career.
In the first place, there's a killer depression going on right now, so his hopes of finding another job, even with a stellar job record, are abysmal. So getting another job may not be an option.
In the second place, security clearances are typically run *after* you accept the position. He's going to have to restrict himself to only jobs which don't require clearances (i.e. no government work, which probably won't be hiring right now), or gamble on being able to explain his innocence to a clearance investigator. Should he fail, he'll then be in the even worse position of having been fired by his last two employers in a row.
His best bet is to fight it tooth and nail. The damage to his reputation will cost him far more than the legal fees. To simply walk away gives others the impression that he had to leave after "getting caught".
Don't tell me you seriously believe that the world would be better off with a decreasing population.
I know it sounds provocative, but its true: the most materially successful generation of Americans was the one which had the most kids.
And I'm not a part of it. Right now, the US is facing - and has been facing, for the past ten years - the single greatest depression since the Great Depression. The Baby Boomers had a lot of kids. My father's generation didn't. My generation didn't. So guess what?!
There's nobody left to buy houses, cellphones, computers, cars, etc...
I've seen the housing market crash. I've seen the largest American carmaker bought by the government. The company that invented the cellphone - Motorola - lays off people at the drop of a hat. Why? Because between the 40 million+ abortions and the reduction in fertility rate, the children necessary to support the ever-expanding economy were never born.
Granted, it's not the end of the world. However, every time I hear someone complaining about having too many mouths to feed, I'm reminded of the law of supply and demand; it is exactly the kind of problem every farmer dreams of having. The problem nowadays isn't that there's too many mouths to feed, but rather, so few that a farmer - you know, someone who actually produces something for a living, by the sweat of his brow - can no longer make a living. We don't need fewer mouths to feed, but more.
There will always be unforgiving, vindictive, dishonest, and just plain cruel people. And some of them will hold hiring authority.
But, if you don't want to work with those kinds of people, you don't have to worry about being honest with your past. Why does anyone want to work for a company that:
Wants to peer into their private lives.
Is more concerned with their extra-curricular activities than their ability to do a job.
Is unwilling to forgive and forget?
Will ask them to work unpaid overtime, reduce their wages when times are tough, and lay them off to increase the profit during an already profitable year?
I've worked in this kind of environment and I don't miss it at all. You shouldn't give up your freedom because other people are jerks. If an employer won't hire you because you committed a few youthful indiscretions, you can bet they won't treat you like a person, either.
While there are employees who do violate the trust of their employer, it is far more likely the employer violates the trust of the employees by:
Paying them less than a living wage.
Arbitrarily reducing their wages during tough economic times because the employer knows the employees cannot get another job.
Making the employees work overtime without pay.
Requiring non-competes as a condition of employment, making it impossible to be legally hired after leaving.
Declining and/or reducing benefits.
I'm aware of no case in which an employee theft erased the value of the product made for the company, or even the profit on the product. Most US companies make around a *half million dollars* per year, per employee.
Think about that. A company paying 10 or 20 cents on the dollar for labor will try to squeeze out an additional 15 to 30 hours of work beyond the standard 40 hours per week. They'll discontinue benefits because they consume a mere half percent or less of the revenue made by an employee. They'll freeze cost of living increases (less than 1.1% of the gross) because, "Times are tough".
I'm sorry, but almost never does an employee steal more than a few thousand dollars from their employer. It is always the other way around - companies treat employees like cattle, sequestering billions of dollars in their corporate coffers as while denying basic things like health care and living wages to their employees.
Imagine if the/. crowd believed the climate scientists on the issue of global warming, because, well, they are the *experts* in their field.
And further imagine that the/. crowd believed the Catholic Church on the existence of God, because, well, they are the *experts* in their field.
Ha! I jest. But you realize that the moment you get the general population to accept science without question, you also pave the way to acceptance of other beliefs without question.
I have downloaded the datasets the IPCC used in their report. And I do see the downward trend in the past ten years, when taking into account the 11 year solar cycle.
I know someone out there will certainly tell me I'm wrong; but it would be far more helpful to post the code used to arrive at your conclusion. I really haven't done much with the data except some very elementary statistics in C. In a world where everyone seems to be an expert on global warming, at least one of you could post code, which, when run with the IPCC dataset would produce the global warming trend everyone seems to believe is happening.
Excuse me, but I don't pay taxes so some lazy teacher can just ignore students with learning or behavioral difficulties.
It's their *JOB* to motivates students to learn. If a teacher, who has the attention of a child 6 hours a day can't teach a kid, do you really think the parents, who might get an hour or two after school with him, will do any better?
Most of the time the kids who have problems are those who have parents working two and three jobs just to make ends meet. If we took away the property taxes, parents could spend more time with their "problem child" kid and send him to a school where the teachers actually knew how to teach, instead of acting like professional babysitters six to eight hours a day.
Because if you don't - even if you didn't receive anything - it could *appear* that you have a business relationship with the company in question.
For example, suppose the company sells some *AHEM* content that is, shall we say, not-safe-for-work. Or worse, not-safe-for-download (as in, possession of which gets you jail time). The fact that you didn't dispute this charge could be used by a prosecutor as evidence that you intended to receive the illegal materials.
I told myself I'd end this thread a long time ago. But I'm interested in the "provably untrue" part in the context of objective reality. Surely you can explain, or point to a reference?
I mean, if someone came to me and said he's seen a pink unicorn, I'm not sure I'd believe him, but I don't think I could prove his observation false, either. If religion was provably false in the context of objective reality, why do prominent atheists like Dawkins argue that God's existence is improbable, instead of just offering proof?
I'd consider saving the life of someone more important, but consider a direct contravention of the laws of physics to be a more compelling argument. Incidentally, I do know someone who recovered from a coma after we prayed for her, after the doctors had assured the family there was nothing more they could do, and they should be prepared for her death.
But there's always the contingent of people willing to assert that, "She would have recovered anyway..." and maybe they're right. I don't have the requisite medical knowledge or specific knowledge of her case to assert otherwise. But anyone making an argument against miracles because of the "probability that the man is lying" would have to concede that the probability of miraculous interference in this case outweighs the probability of natural recovery.
It seems that to an unbeliever, when the odds are in their favor, they shift to the probability argument, and when not, baldly assert that any fortunate outcome was mere coincidence. If probability was the only yardstick by which one chose what to believe, they'd have to contend with the extraordinarily low probability that throughout all of recorded human history, across cultural and geographical boundaries, the only belief every major culture has in common is the belief in a higher power. The probability that the overwhelming majority of people on the planet would come to the same, wrong conclusion about the existence of God, and continue in said error throughout all of history, seems rather low to me.
I know it sounds trollish, and I don't mean it so, but it occurs to me that atheism is more akin to a spiritual developmental disorder than a rational consideration of the facts available. I can understand someone unsure, or unable to decide definitively, but to imply belief an irrational position seems like a rather arbitrary ignorance of the data available.
When I was child, I would take two strips of metal I'd found on the road, stick them in the electrical outlet, and hold on to each with one hand. By some yet unexplained reason, I was never electrocuted, yet my brother managed to get shocked pulling a out a plug.
Years later in my high school electronics class, we passed around a transformer - 12v to 120v - with a 9v battery and had "fun" shocking ourselves by holding the high voltage leads in each hand and touching the battery to the 12v side. Which probably gave about a 90v jolt, much less than the 170v of the ac line. Yet the shock - though temporary - was very real and very easily felt.
I have no intention of repeating strip-in-outlet experiment I did as a child, as everything I've learned since indicates that it would probably be lethal - in fact, people routinely get killed by 120v AC. But for some reason at that moment in time the normal laws of physics, Ohms law in particular, simply didn't apply. The only other time I've seen this happen was when it also made the difference between life and death for me. I tried to hotwire a vehicle left in drive (unknown to me at the time), and it didn't crank. I'd done this before, I knew how, but had I succeeded the vehicle probably would have rolled over me and killed me.
And yet it is when nature does go out of her course, i.e., does something theory doesn't predict, that both science and religion are enlightened. Had Tycho Brahe adjusted his measurements of the heavens to fit with the Greek theories of epicycles - so as not to be thought a liar - we'd still believe the Earth the center of the Universe.
But of more interest: having personally observed miracles myself, I don't have the luxury of writing off someone else as a liar. To Christians, the Bible stories are only remarkable to us as young children, because most of us have observed similar events by the time we're in college. We often forget there are a whole class of people for whom cures can come only through modern medicine, whom have no one but themselves upon which to rely, etc...
You're burning a straw man here. Your understanding of the Bible, and the religions which rely upon it, is just as flawed as the fundamentalist's objections to evolution. In fact, I'd say even more so. Most fundies object to specific theories and bring up ridiculous counterexamples, but you seem to misunderstand even the argument made against your position. In fact, the notion of fire being an element is something the ancient Greeks thought up, not something you'll find in the Bible. Ironically, they came to this conclusion after the rejection of religion and insistence upon observation of nature.
I really don't know where to start with this, except to state that most religions wouldn't even recognize the objections you attribute to them. We don't read the Bible as if it's a scientific treatise. When it says that God created Man, we can believe that without knowing all of the details of how he did it. Indeed, a particularly liberal interpretation might be that, because ancient man had no concept of a cell, that the writer of Genesis chose to say, "out of the dust of the earth" because dust was the smallest size particle of which the ancient reader would be familiar. The point isn't the method chosen, or the specifics of how it was done, but that our existence was the result of divine intention, not a merely lucky coincidence.
There is one point, though, that I think you'd appreciate. You seem to believe religion cherishes ignorance, but in fact the opposite is true. From the very first chapter of Proverbs, we have:
The Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel:
That men may appreciate wisdom and discipline, may understand words of intelligence;
May receive training in wise conduct, in what is right, just and honest;
That resourcefulness may be imparted to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
A wise man by hearing them will advance in learning, an intelligent man will gain sound guidance,
That he may comprehend proverb and parable, the words of the wise and their riddles.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.
You see, religion isn't content with merely the explanation of natural phenomenon, but seeks to understand all aspects of reality - including the supernatural, the spiritual, and the moral as well. It doesn't require us to abandon the notion of God's control over the universe because someone has found a way of explaining, and even predicting, natural phenomena.
You'd have to outlaw mathematics, physics, large parts of chemistry, information theory, parts of history, geology, ah fuck it: you'd have to outlaw pretty much everything. For some reason, you guys have singled out evolution, but the rest of science is kicking your collective asses just as badly.
Since mathematics is the only pure science, perhaps you can enlighten me how exactly it contradicts scripture. Or even religion - any religion, for that matter. I'm sure there's some scripture somewhere that contradicts one of the laws of chemistry - can you name it? Surely there's a commandment against information theory, something about not computing on the Sabbath, maybe?
Or perhaps the problem is that there are people who observe variations among species in nature and automatically jump to the conclusion that such variations are somehow proof that God doesn't exist. That the possibility of life adapting to its environment - rather than a sign of God's genius - is proof of his absence.
Don't you find it odd that evolution is the only scientific theory to which fundamentalists object? Maybe, just maybe, there's something about teaching evolution that is more than just science?
If your standard for finding something untrue is that you haven't personally seen it, your understanding of the world will be very limited indeed. If anyone could turn water into wine, Jesus would probably be regarded as just another preacher. The fact that we can't, and that no one has been able to reproduce this feat, is evidence that He was God. But you seem to regard this as evidence the story isn't true. I'm curious, by what leap of logic are you able to state something untrue? Can you prove it false? Or is it merely that you can't understand it?
I say this because we can't prove *any* historical account of the ancient world to be true. We can't even *prove* our accounts of World War II - even though some of those veterans are still living. We can't *prove* the reality of the Holocaust. All we have to go on are the accounts passed down to us by others. If we stopped believing any source that couldn't prove itself, we'd have no history at all.
Well, a caveat first: Your understanding of evolution is not the elementary biology teacher's understanding of evolution.
Scientist: Evolutionary theory teaches that there is a physical process by which living organisms adapt to, and are shaped by, the environment over periods of many, many generations. Though we can't explain it completely yet, we believe we will someday discover how life came about on this planet.
Teacher: Evilushun is the theory that living things just sprang up out of nowhere, and because of that, God doesn't exist.
You see the difference? If you could teach the history and theory of science, you'd have to teach:
That science has been wrong more often than not. (Try convincing a 16th century sailor the Earth goes around the sun, when his charts are based on just the opposite, and hey, he can make 3,000+ mile navigational trip and come back to where he started. And besides, any fool can look up in the sky and *watch* the sun go around the Earth. Right!? Yet for 2000 years, mankind's best thinkers and philosophers believed something that was totally untrue.)
That being wrong is a hallmark of science. That being wrong is how science differentiates between correct and incorrect theories - that is, that they must be falsifiable. That science progresses by falsifying old theories and adopting new ones. That what science believes to be true today could, with the discovery of additional evidence, be proven wrong tomorrow.
That science often believes things on faith - for example, there's faith that someday we'll discover the means by which the first living cells came to be. It may even be a well founded faith - backed up by years of experimentation and data. But it's still faith.
That science - unlike math - has never *proven* anything in its entire history.
That unlike religious belief, science specifically restricts itself to theories of the natural - that is, material - world. Science can't tell you why, only how. It can't even address the question of God's existence, because it intentionally excludes supernatural questions from its purview.
Now while you can understand and appreciate all of these things, this is going to be quite a stretch for most elementary and secondary education teachers, not to mention their students. A few students want to understand the depth of science. Most will be content just to know "what science says" so they can pass the test. Most will believe whatever is taught - whether creationism or evolution - without question.
Having actually met a person in college who chose not to believe in God because of her HS biology class, I find it troubling that evolution is taught at all. Not because I take issue with the scientific theory, but because for so many, the fight over evolution is a fight over teaching against the existence of God. The science doesn't take a position one way or another, but so many have minds so small that they cannot understand the Genesis account of creation tells us who created us and why we were created, while science postulates about the process by which it came about. For an elementary or high school teacher to understand this, to articulate it well, and to get their students to understand it requires an intellect and a teaching ability few teachers possess. Evolution is better left for college, when students can appreciate the limits of the scientific method, of faith, and understand the difference between philosophy, religion, and science.
And besides, given the difficulty with which professional evangelists having making converts, there is really very little likelihood that someone taught creationism will somehow become a believer by accident.
If Jesus was not really historical, why is it that every major religion acknowledges his existence, in spite of the fact they believe the others to be heresy? I would think Muslims would be champing at the bit to deny Christ and hence, Christianity, but they don't. Instead, they argue the finer points of the Crucifixion, etc... If Jesus never existed, why can't the billion+ Muslims figure this out? They'd love more than anyone else to discredit all of Christianity, yet do not deny Christ's existence.
Calling the Bible stories fiction is really a stretch, especially in light of the fact that you have no way of proving so. The best argument you could make would be that you, personally haven't observed divine intervention. Even though I'm a Christian, and don't recognize the Koran, I realize that I can't call it fiction without departing from logical argument territory.
Your points are just as valid with respect to non-religious causes. For example, Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions, yet killed more people in one year than the inquisition killed in all of history. And lets not forget communism, which killed about 50 million people in Russia alone. While you do have people with insane religious zeal, most religious people have a conscience which keeps them from taking part in mass misery; contrast this with "rational" ideologies which will make arbitrary divisions based on skin color, social class, etc... and disenfranchise a whole class of people.
Honestly, I want to know the power output of my phone - and the selectivity and sensitivity of the receiver as well.
At least with this law, consumers will have some indication of which phones are the most likely to drop calls. By measuring the emitted radiation (as opposed to the power put into the antenna), you get a better idea of how far from a cell tower you can be and still make calls.
Sure, maybe it does cause cancer; too bad there isn't any good scientific study showing such. If there was, Californians would have a lot bigger problems than warning labels.
Free software isn't done for the financial reward - they understand there's no paycheck. However, these people submit their entries with the *expectation* they might be compensated. That's the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so the big telco shut down community access.
Having relatives who used to run a business, I find it hard to believe that any town can get muscled into anything by BigCompany. Usually, it's the other way around - the city finds ways, legally, of course - of being real jerks to potential businesses and drives them away. If they can't do that, well, they have the power to pass all manner of oppressive laws and regulations and require inspections and paperwork which would erase any profit a business might otherwise make.
Gosh, I mean, it would be a real shame, if after Big Telco builds out the network:
I know big companies can be real jerks at times, but city hall can make or break a business. Their lawyers are paid by the taxpayers, the judges - by the city. They can tie things up in the courts for years, and even if Big Corp wins, they can simply pass another law; one which addresses the deficiencies mentioned in the ruling. Sure, maybe the city doesn't have the authority to regulate communications devices, but they can pass tax laws - they've been taxing real property and vehicles for years, with long precedent. How would taxing commo equipment be any less legal?
It's not their fault if their work computer gets compromised.
It's either the fault of Evil Hackers (TM), or more commonly, the IT department.
Either way, they don't have to deal with the repercussions of their actions. Someone else does. And not surprisingly, this type of relationship (that is, one where someone else bears the brunt of someone else's bad decisions) is so commonplace in corporate America that almost no one notices anymore.
When users see their employer using Windows for that "high security" project, it sends a very clear signal that either the company doesn't care about security, or considers security an "IT problem", or possibly both. If the company doesn't care about security, why should the employee?
Microsoft would not win a patent fight with Texas Instruments. They've been doing this - using "GPUs" in embedded processors to accelerate video compression and decompression for at least a decade now, if not longer.
"Some walking piece of trash just shot John F. Kennedy..."
The first time I heard this quote, I was amazed that the speaker could so eloquently and forcefully communicate what even the strongest of swear words would not. It's not so much that swearing is offensive and vulgar, but rather so often communicates little more than the mental feebleness of the speaker. Having grown up swearing, I found myself unable to express disapproval of something without using vulgarity, and without really saying much important. I had to learn to think before I spoke, to articulate what I was trying to say, instead of merely informing everyone within earshot that I could think of nothing more discriptive, nothing more enlightening to the hearer, than a litany of profanity.
Even though I realize some people have no moral problem with swearing, there's almost never a good reason to use it in casual conversation.
Let me know when the Labor Movement will be handed to us by charities...
For those ignorant of American history, Catholics (and the charities they supported) were very frequently confused with Communists prior to the 1950's because of their concern for the ordinary worker. The Catholic voting block was largely responsible for electing politicians who enacted workers-rights legislation. (And even today there are a large contingent of Catholics who ignore the pro-life issues and support Democrats because of their labor-friendly positions... but I digress.)
Things changed in the 80's when the parties tried to split the voting block over the pro-life issue, but the types of people who support charities typically vote Democrat - or used to, until the Democrats started supporting abortion.
Okay, I understand your point about cutting your losses, moving on, etc.
But on a security clearance, they ask if you've every left a job under unfavorable circumstances, and everything in between (fired, quit after being told you would be fired, quit after allegations of misconduct, etc...) If he really is innocent, and he doesn't clear this up now, he may very well be forced out of his career.
In the first place, there's a killer depression going on right now, so his hopes of finding another job, even with a stellar job record, are abysmal. So getting another job may not be an option.
In the second place, security clearances are typically run *after* you accept the position. He's going to have to restrict himself to only jobs which don't require clearances (i.e. no government work, which probably won't be hiring right now), or gamble on being able to explain his innocence to a clearance investigator. Should he fail, he'll then be in the even worse position of having been fired by his last two employers in a row.
His best bet is to fight it tooth and nail. The damage to his reputation will cost him far more than the legal fees. To simply walk away gives others the impression that he had to leave after "getting caught".
Don't tell me you seriously believe that the world would be better off with a decreasing population.
I know it sounds provocative, but its true: the most materially successful generation of Americans was the one which had the most kids.
And I'm not a part of it. Right now, the US is facing - and has been facing, for the past ten years - the single greatest depression since the Great Depression. The Baby Boomers had a lot of kids. My father's generation didn't. My generation didn't. So guess what?!
There's nobody left to buy houses, cellphones, computers, cars, etc...
I've seen the housing market crash. I've seen the largest American carmaker bought by the government. The company that invented the cellphone - Motorola - lays off people at the drop of a hat. Why? Because between the 40 million+ abortions and the reduction in fertility rate, the children necessary to support the ever-expanding economy were never born.
Granted, it's not the end of the world. However, every time I hear someone complaining about having too many mouths to feed, I'm reminded of the law of supply and demand; it is exactly the kind of problem every farmer dreams of having. The problem nowadays isn't that there's too many mouths to feed, but rather, so few that a farmer - you know, someone who actually produces something for a living, by the sweat of his brow - can no longer make a living. We don't need fewer mouths to feed, but more.
Schmidt is *wrong*.
There will always be unforgiving, vindictive, dishonest, and just plain cruel people. And some of them will hold hiring authority.
But, if you don't want to work with those kinds of people, you don't have to worry about being honest with your past. Why does anyone want to work for a company that:
I've worked in this kind of environment and I don't miss it at all. You shouldn't give up your freedom because other people are jerks. If an employer won't hire you because you committed a few youthful indiscretions, you can bet they won't treat you like a person, either.
While there are employees who do violate the trust of their employer, it is far more likely the employer violates the trust of the employees by:
I'm aware of no case in which an employee theft erased the value of the product made for the company, or even the profit on the product. Most US companies make around a *half million dollars* per year, per employee.
Think about that. A company paying 10 or 20 cents on the dollar for labor will try to squeeze out an additional 15 to 30 hours of work beyond the standard 40 hours per week. They'll discontinue benefits because they consume a mere half percent or less of the revenue made by an employee. They'll freeze cost of living increases (less than 1.1% of the gross) because, "Times are tough".
I'm sorry, but almost never does an employee steal more than a few thousand dollars from their employer. It is always the other way around - companies treat employees like cattle, sequestering billions of dollars in their corporate coffers as while denying basic things like health care and living wages to their employees.
Employers are almost *never* the victims.
It's normal for *some kinds* of salad to have eyes, you know.
As far as they're concerned.
Imagine if the /. crowd believed the climate scientists on the issue of global warming, because, well, they are the *experts* in their field.
And further imagine that the /. crowd believed the Catholic Church on the existence of God, because, well, they are the *experts* in their field.
Ha! I jest. But you realize that the moment you get the general population to accept science without question, you also pave the way to acceptance of other beliefs without question.
I have downloaded the datasets the IPCC used in their report. And I do see the downward trend in the past ten years, when taking into account the 11 year solar cycle.
I know someone out there will certainly tell me I'm wrong; but it would be far more helpful to post the code used to arrive at your conclusion. I really haven't done much with the data except some very elementary statistics in C. In a world where everyone seems to be an expert on global warming, at least one of you could post code, which, when run with the IPCC dataset would produce the global warming trend everyone seems to believe is happening.
Then, I think we can have a fruitful discussion.
Excuse me, but I don't pay taxes so some lazy teacher can just ignore students with learning or behavioral difficulties.
It's their *JOB* to motivates students to learn. If a teacher, who has the attention of a child 6 hours a day can't teach a kid, do you really think the parents, who might get an hour or two after school with him, will do any better?
Most of the time the kids who have problems are those who have parents working two and three jobs just to make ends meet. If we took away the property taxes, parents could spend more time with their "problem child" kid and send him to a school where the teachers actually knew how to teach, instead of acting like professional babysitters six to eight hours a day.
Because if you don't - even if you didn't receive anything - it could *appear* that you have a business relationship with the company in question.
For example, suppose the company sells some *AHEM* content that is, shall we say, not-safe-for-work. Or worse, not-safe-for-download (as in, possession of which gets you jail time). The fact that you didn't dispute this charge could be used by a prosecutor as evidence that you intended to receive the illegal materials.
I told myself I'd end this thread a long time ago. But I'm interested in the "provably untrue" part in the context of objective reality. Surely you can explain, or point to a reference?
I mean, if someone came to me and said he's seen a pink unicorn, I'm not sure I'd believe him, but I don't think I could prove his observation false, either. If religion was provably false in the context of objective reality, why do prominent atheists like Dawkins argue that God's existence is improbable, instead of just offering proof?
I'd consider saving the life of someone more important, but consider a direct contravention of the laws of physics to be a more compelling argument. Incidentally, I do know someone who recovered from a coma after we prayed for her, after the doctors had assured the family there was nothing more they could do, and they should be prepared for her death.
But there's always the contingent of people willing to assert that, "She would have recovered anyway..." and maybe they're right. I don't have the requisite medical knowledge or specific knowledge of her case to assert otherwise. But anyone making an argument against miracles because of the "probability that the man is lying" would have to concede that the probability of miraculous interference in this case outweighs the probability of natural recovery.
It seems that to an unbeliever, when the odds are in their favor, they shift to the probability argument, and when not, baldly assert that any fortunate outcome was mere coincidence. If probability was the only yardstick by which one chose what to believe, they'd have to contend with the extraordinarily low probability that throughout all of recorded human history, across cultural and geographical boundaries, the only belief every major culture has in common is the belief in a higher power. The probability that the overwhelming majority of people on the planet would come to the same, wrong conclusion about the existence of God, and continue in said error throughout all of history, seems rather low to me.
I know it sounds trollish, and I don't mean it so, but it occurs to me that atheism is more akin to a spiritual developmental disorder than a rational consideration of the facts available. I can understand someone unsure, or unable to decide definitively, but to imply belief an irrational position seems like a rather arbitrary ignorance of the data available.
When I was child, I would take two strips of metal I'd found on the road, stick them in the electrical outlet, and hold on to each with one hand. By some yet unexplained reason, I was never electrocuted, yet my brother managed to get shocked pulling a out a plug.
Years later in my high school electronics class, we passed around a transformer - 12v to 120v - with a 9v battery and had "fun" shocking ourselves by holding the high voltage leads in each hand and touching the battery to the 12v side. Which probably gave about a 90v jolt, much less than the 170v of the ac line. Yet the shock - though temporary - was very real and very easily felt.
I have no intention of repeating strip-in-outlet experiment I did as a child, as everything I've learned since indicates that it would probably be lethal - in fact, people routinely get killed by 120v AC. But for some reason at that moment in time the normal laws of physics, Ohms law in particular, simply didn't apply. The only other time I've seen this happen was when it also made the difference between life and death for me. I tried to hotwire a vehicle left in drive (unknown to me at the time), and it didn't crank. I'd done this before, I knew how, but had I succeeded the vehicle probably would have rolled over me and killed me.
And yet it is when nature does go out of her course, i.e., does something theory doesn't predict, that both science and religion are enlightened. Had Tycho Brahe adjusted his measurements of the heavens to fit with the Greek theories of epicycles - so as not to be thought a liar - we'd still believe the Earth the center of the Universe.
But of more interest: having personally observed miracles myself, I don't have the luxury of writing off someone else as a liar. To Christians, the Bible stories are only remarkable to us as young children, because most of us have observed similar events by the time we're in college. We often forget there are a whole class of people for whom cures can come only through modern medicine, whom have no one but themselves upon which to rely, etc...
You're burning a straw man here. Your understanding of the Bible, and the religions which rely upon it, is just as flawed as the fundamentalist's objections to evolution. In fact, I'd say even more so. Most fundies object to specific theories and bring up ridiculous counterexamples, but you seem to misunderstand even the argument made against your position. In fact, the notion of fire being an element is something the ancient Greeks thought up, not something you'll find in the Bible. Ironically, they came to this conclusion after the rejection of religion and insistence upon observation of nature.
I really don't know where to start with this, except to state that most religions wouldn't even recognize the objections you attribute to them. We don't read the Bible as if it's a scientific treatise. When it says that God created Man, we can believe that without knowing all of the details of how he did it. Indeed, a particularly liberal interpretation might be that, because ancient man had no concept of a cell, that the writer of Genesis chose to say, "out of the dust of the earth" because dust was the smallest size particle of which the ancient reader would be familiar. The point isn't the method chosen, or the specifics of how it was done, but that our existence was the result of divine intention, not a merely lucky coincidence.
There is one point, though, that I think you'd appreciate. You seem to believe religion cherishes ignorance, but in fact the opposite is true. From the very first chapter of Proverbs, we have:
The Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel:
That men may appreciate wisdom and discipline, may understand words of intelligence;
May receive training in wise conduct, in what is right, just and honest;
That resourcefulness may be imparted to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
A wise man by hearing them will advance in learning, an intelligent man will gain sound guidance,
That he may comprehend proverb and parable, the words of the wise and their riddles.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.
You see, religion isn't content with merely the explanation of natural phenomenon, but seeks to understand all aspects of reality - including the supernatural, the spiritual, and the moral as well. It doesn't require us to abandon the notion of God's control over the universe because someone has found a way of explaining, and even predicting, natural phenomena.
You'd have to outlaw mathematics, physics, large parts of chemistry, information theory, parts of history, geology, ah fuck it: you'd have to outlaw pretty much everything. For some reason, you guys have singled out evolution, but the rest of science is kicking your collective asses just as badly.
Since mathematics is the only pure science, perhaps you can enlighten me how exactly it contradicts scripture. Or even religion - any religion, for that matter. I'm sure there's some scripture somewhere that contradicts one of the laws of chemistry - can you name it? Surely there's a commandment against information theory, something about not computing on the Sabbath, maybe?
Or perhaps the problem is that there are people who observe variations among species in nature and automatically jump to the conclusion that such variations are somehow proof that God doesn't exist. That the possibility of life adapting to its environment - rather than a sign of God's genius - is proof of his absence.
Don't you find it odd that evolution is the only scientific theory to which fundamentalists object? Maybe, just maybe, there's something about teaching evolution that is more than just science?
If your standard for finding something untrue is that you haven't personally seen it, your understanding of the world will be very limited indeed. If anyone could turn water into wine, Jesus would probably be regarded as just another preacher. The fact that we can't, and that no one has been able to reproduce this feat, is evidence that He was God. But you seem to regard this as evidence the story isn't true. I'm curious, by what leap of logic are you able to state something untrue? Can you prove it false? Or is it merely that you can't understand it?
I say this because we can't prove *any* historical account of the ancient world to be true. We can't even *prove* our accounts of World War II - even though some of those veterans are still living. We can't *prove* the reality of the Holocaust. All we have to go on are the accounts passed down to us by others. If we stopped believing any source that couldn't prove itself, we'd have no history at all.
Well, a caveat first: Your understanding of evolution is not the elementary biology teacher's understanding of evolution.
Scientist: Evolutionary theory teaches that there is a physical process by which living organisms adapt to, and are shaped by, the environment over periods of many, many generations. Though we can't explain it completely yet, we believe we will someday discover how life came about on this planet.
Teacher: Evilushun is the theory that living things just sprang up out of nowhere, and because of that, God doesn't exist.
You see the difference? If you could teach the history and theory of science, you'd have to teach:
Now while you can understand and appreciate all of these things, this is going to be quite a stretch for most elementary and secondary education teachers, not to mention their students. A few students want to understand the depth of science. Most will be content just to know "what science says" so they can pass the test. Most will believe whatever is taught - whether creationism or evolution - without question.
Having actually met a person in college who chose not to believe in God because of her HS biology class, I find it troubling that evolution is taught at all. Not because I take issue with the scientific theory, but because for so many, the fight over evolution is a fight over teaching against the existence of God. The science doesn't take a position one way or another, but so many have minds so small that they cannot understand the Genesis account of creation tells us who created us and why we were created, while science postulates about the process by which it came about. For an elementary or high school teacher to understand this, to articulate it well, and to get their students to understand it requires an intellect and a teaching ability few teachers possess. Evolution is better left for college, when students can appreciate the limits of the scientific method, of faith, and understand the difference between philosophy, religion, and science.
And besides, given the difficulty with which professional evangelists having making converts, there is really very little likelihood that someone taught creationism will somehow become a believer by accident.
Two points:
Your points are just as valid with respect to non-religious causes. For example, Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions, yet killed more people in one year than the inquisition killed in all of history. And lets not forget communism, which killed about 50 million people in Russia alone. While you do have people with insane religious zeal, most religious people have a conscience which keeps them from taking part in mass misery; contrast this with "rational" ideologies which will make arbitrary divisions based on skin color, social class, etc... and disenfranchise a whole class of people.
Honestly, I want to know the power output of my phone - and the selectivity and sensitivity of the receiver as well.
At least with this law, consumers will have some indication of which phones are the most likely to drop calls. By measuring the emitted radiation (as opposed to the power put into the antenna), you get a better idea of how far from a cell tower you can be and still make calls.
Sure, maybe it does cause cancer; too bad there isn't any good scientific study showing such. If there was, Californians would have a lot bigger problems than warning labels.
Free software isn't done for the financial reward - they understand there's no paycheck. However, these people submit their entries with the *expectation* they might be compensated. That's the difference.