You're sounding very elitist, and I think that you're wrong on many accounts.
Yes, training in certain trades may not take that long, but becoming a good craftsman or mechanic takes years of experience. Simply because a guy doesn't spend 4-8 years getting his engineering degree doesn't mean what he does for a living isn't hard.
Have you looked at the studies done about vaccinations, particularly on autism? I know that "correlation is not causation" and such, but there's been some pretty extensive analysis about vaccines for kids and certain conditions, and its pretty statistically evident that vaccines probably cause little to no harm, and are far more helpful as a whole.
Drug-wise, you may be right. Vaccines, not so much.
Well, IF we had to land some guys on an asteroid to deal with it, would you want practical blue-collar types who aren't afraid to work with their hands and have the muscle to get stuff done, or techno-weenies pushing buttons and not able to deal with something on the outside if it breaks?
Not that it's quite that dichotomy, but those "teabaggers" you ridicule aren't as stupid as you think that their politics are.
No, you CAN have 2 cars instead of 1 because you have room to park them. You may use more gas, but I've noticed that it can be cheaper in the countryside - a major nonfactor. You also may have less maintenance - less start and stop traffic, and no road-salting like in the big northern cities, which degrades the undercarriage.
Taxes are less across the board, and I have a choice and the responsibility on where my money goes. My local politicians also tend to at least be a little more reliable and aren't the big spenders that the cities have.
Food? Whatever. It's not that much more expensive, and I have better access to the fresh stuff.
Schools suck everywhere. That's a function of parenting and teachers, not money. DC throws more money at schools than anywhere else and they continue to be terrible.
Starbucks? Who needs that? I brew my own - better - for far less a cup. Don't need Whole Foods. Lived decently without it so far.
It's not so bad staying home all day when you actually like where you live and aren't cramped up by all the noise and smog and people.
Internet? It gets better every year. Also lived without it for a while.
Somewhat healthier in the boonies - cleaner environment overall. Less stress. Nicer people.
Limited open source for electronic voting may be a good answer. The code shouldn't be proprietary, but I've no problem with private corps coming up with it. The code should be able to be essentially peer-reviewed by the public in some manner, but probably not created that way.
"Free" was a bad word choice - I was going more for probably whatever the true definition of "Piracy" is, with people downloading content that they SHOULD be paying for.
Wow. Thanks for the encouragement to convince me to consider your opinion.
Seriously, I'm not "a dick." I'm honestly seeking to understand the issue because I'm automatically suspicious of whatever the hard left tends to push (which is net neutrality) AND I'm suspicious of its opponents (big business). So I'm looking to find what the real truth is.
As a non-hard techie with only a cursory understanding of the issue, here's my concern about network neutrality (or lack thereof).
My real concern is that the proponents of network neutrality just want to be able to have unabated access to download music and movies and porn without paying for them - that there's no real "freedom" issues at hand; it's just people wanting free stuff.
Maybe someone can address this without modding me as a troll, but I honestly WANT some of those people to have more restricted access.
I guess the affect for someone like me is that most of my internet viewing is something like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc, and whether or not the cost of streaming media should be passed on to me as the end user.
That's the reverse standard. If God is Who the Christians claim He is, then He's perfect in His decision making - so, in that sense, there must have been some purpose for Him allowing it to become corrupted that ALSO fits into the idea that it is part of His plan; NOT that there is some fault with Him.
Most of modern science is the result of hundreds of years of research by people who were religious to some extent.
Yes, because people had less of an understanding back in the day of how stuff actually works. Being religious was also compulsory in those days. Bach, one of my favorite composers, glorified god in his music while he was fooling around with maidens in wine cellars and beating up his musicians in street fights.
Anyway, back to your point. Religion is stifling "modern science" rather than advancing it forward. We all know what happened to Persia after Islam, and about Europe in the dark ages, etc. I think it's safe to say that the world as a whole would be much more advanced if magical thinking was abolished somewhere in its history.
Actually, there's a lot of science that WOULDN'T have happened without the Roman Catholic Church oversight and requirement for set standards. Remember, they never said Galileo was wrong, just that he was a jerk.
Actually, I think that what you stated is the true genius of wikipedia - not necessarily the finished product, but the PROCESS of how that product evolves over time.
On historical matters, it also shows that maybe we CAN'T know the whole story because, even in today's world, facts can be dubious things.
Wow, you missed something in college. Historiography is essentially "checking your sources" and looking at how history was written. It's not some off-the-wall media term or something. Every historian does (or should do) it.
Jumping in here - absolutely correct, though there is no strict mandate against self-defense in the Bible (the "turn the other cheek" thing is about a personal attack, not protecting from real physical harm or property, or not defending someone else).
I guess that I'm describing the Gospel as broader than just what occurs in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - that the Bible is one big story, not a bunch of them thrown together.
I get the wrath argument, but the scale is a little small and doesn't really accomplish anything.
Ugh, sorry, but you have a complete misconception about "worshiping the same God." The ideas are pretty distinct - in Christianity, God isn't a callous arbiter that weighs our good actions against our bad ones. Islam is VERY "works"-based, where I would have to do a ton of good stuff to find favor with Allah. Christianity is the opposite - I am favored by God, who enables me to do good with proper motivations, without fear of having to earn something and wonder if I have done enough.
Actually, from what Christ pointed out on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-25), the Gospel IS the entirety of Christianity. The entire Bible is more or less pointless without the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, because it's the story of God's redemption of man because of man's sin.
There's nothing in the Quran-burning that I can tell that points toward that end.
I'm not speaking against the idea that Christianity isn't supposed to be offensive - particularly about sin (if God is Who He we believe He says He is, He does rather have the right to define sin); and there were certainly times when it got people riled up, but there was usually a purpose - Christ was showing how the Jewish leadership were going with the letter, and not the Spirit of the law; and the couple were seeking power and influence because of what they had seen occur earlier and thought they could buy their way in.
However, there just isn't any reason along those lines to burn a batch of books.
Slashdot Mirror
You're sounding very elitist, and I think that you're wrong on many accounts.
Yes, training in certain trades may not take that long, but becoming a good craftsman or mechanic takes years of experience. Simply because a guy doesn't spend 4-8 years getting his engineering degree doesn't mean what he does for a living isn't hard.
Have you looked at the studies done about vaccinations, particularly on autism? I know that "correlation is not causation" and such, but there's been some pretty extensive analysis about vaccines for kids and certain conditions, and its pretty statistically evident that vaccines probably cause little to no harm, and are far more helpful as a whole.
Drug-wise, you may be right. Vaccines, not so much.
I was thinking along the same lines - stuff like this only gives the anti-immunozation people more ammunition.
Well, IF we had to land some guys on an asteroid to deal with it, would you want practical blue-collar types who aren't afraid to work with their hands and have the muscle to get stuff done, or techno-weenies pushing buttons and not able to deal with something on the outside if it breaks?
Not that it's quite that dichotomy, but those "teabaggers" you ridicule aren't as stupid as you think that their politics are.
No, you CAN have 2 cars instead of 1 because you have room to park them. You may use more gas, but I've noticed that it can be cheaper in the countryside - a major nonfactor. You also may have less maintenance - less start and stop traffic, and no road-salting like in the big northern cities, which degrades the undercarriage.
Taxes are less across the board, and I have a choice and the responsibility on where my money goes. My local politicians also tend to at least be a little more reliable and aren't the big spenders that the cities have.
Food? Whatever. It's not that much more expensive, and I have better access to the fresh stuff.
Schools suck everywhere. That's a function of parenting and teachers, not money. DC throws more money at schools than anywhere else and they continue to be terrible.
Starbucks? Who needs that? I brew my own - better - for far less a cup. Don't need Whole Foods. Lived decently without it so far.
It's not so bad staying home all day when you actually like where you live and aren't cramped up by all the noise and smog and people.
Internet? It gets better every year. Also lived without it for a while.
Somewhat healthier in the boonies - cleaner environment overall. Less stress. Nicer people.
Limited open source for electronic voting may be a good answer. The code shouldn't be proprietary, but I've no problem with private corps coming up with it. The code should be able to be essentially peer-reviewed by the public in some manner, but probably not created that way.
This is almost not news. There's been a de facto cyber-war with the Chinese going on for years now; just neither side talks much about it openly.
"Free" was a bad word choice - I was going more for probably whatever the true definition of "Piracy" is, with people downloading content that they SHOULD be paying for.
Wow. Thanks for the encouragement to convince me to consider your opinion.
Seriously, I'm not "a dick." I'm honestly seeking to understand the issue because I'm automatically suspicious of whatever the hard left tends to push (which is net neutrality) AND I'm suspicious of its opponents (big business). So I'm looking to find what the real truth is.
I get on because I'm a Sci-fi fan, into a handful of other "geeky" stuff, and I parse the lingo. Plus, halfway decent political and religious debates.
I mostly get the network neutrality argument now, at least from the proponent side.
As a non-hard techie with only a cursory understanding of the issue, here's my concern about network neutrality (or lack thereof).
My real concern is that the proponents of network neutrality just want to be able to have unabated access to download music and movies and porn without paying for them - that there's no real "freedom" issues at hand; it's just people wanting free stuff.
Maybe someone can address this without modding me as a troll, but I honestly WANT some of those people to have more restricted access.
I guess the affect for someone like me is that most of my internet viewing is something like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc, and whether or not the cost of streaming media should be passed on to me as the end user.
Or I could just be wrong across the board.
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these!
That's the reverse standard. If God is Who the Christians claim He is, then He's perfect in His decision making - so, in that sense, there must have been some purpose for Him allowing it to become corrupted that ALSO fits into the idea that it is part of His plan; NOT that there is some fault with Him.
What if it was all corrupted and He was justified in doing so?
This one is labeled "story." About a journalist quitting because she can't find any.
Life goes on. It's as if we were supposed to lament a journalist quitting?
So....was that legal advice?
Most of modern science is the result of hundreds of years of research by people who were religious to some extent.
Yes, because people had less of an understanding back in the day of how stuff actually works. Being religious was also compulsory in those days. Bach, one of my favorite composers, glorified god in his music while he was fooling around with maidens in wine cellars and beating up his musicians in street fights. Anyway, back to your point. Religion is stifling "modern science" rather than advancing it forward. We all know what happened to Persia after Islam, and about Europe in the dark ages, etc. I think it's safe to say that the world as a whole would be much more advanced if magical thinking was abolished somewhere in its history.
Actually, there's a lot of science that WOULDN'T have happened without the Roman Catholic Church oversight and requirement for set standards. Remember, they never said Galileo was wrong, just that he was a jerk.
*citation needed*
Actually, I think that what you stated is the true genius of wikipedia - not necessarily the finished product, but the PROCESS of how that product evolves over time.
On historical matters, it also shows that maybe we CAN'T know the whole story because, even in today's world, facts can be dubious things.
Wow, you missed something in college. Historiography is essentially "checking your sources" and looking at how history was written. It's not some off-the-wall media term or something. Every historian does (or should do) it.
Jumping in here - absolutely correct, though there is no strict mandate against self-defense in the Bible (the "turn the other cheek" thing is about a personal attack, not protecting from real physical harm or property, or not defending someone else).
I guess that I'm describing the Gospel as broader than just what occurs in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - that the Bible is one big story, not a bunch of them thrown together.
I get the wrath argument, but the scale is a little small and doesn't really accomplish anything.
Ugh, sorry, but you have a complete misconception about "worshiping the same God." The ideas are pretty distinct - in Christianity, God isn't a callous arbiter that weighs our good actions against our bad ones. Islam is VERY "works"-based, where I would have to do a ton of good stuff to find favor with Allah. Christianity is the opposite - I am favored by God, who enables me to do good with proper motivations, without fear of having to earn something and wonder if I have done enough.
Actually, from what Christ pointed out on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-25), the Gospel IS the entirety of Christianity. The entire Bible is more or less pointless without the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, because it's the story of God's redemption of man because of man's sin.
There's nothing in the Quran-burning that I can tell that points toward that end.
I'm not speaking against the idea that Christianity isn't supposed to be offensive - particularly about sin (if God is Who He we believe He says He is, He does rather have the right to define sin); and there were certainly times when it got people riled up, but there was usually a purpose - Christ was showing how the Jewish leadership were going with the letter, and not the Spirit of the law; and the couple were seeking power and influence because of what they had seen occur earlier and thought they could buy their way in.
However, there just isn't any reason along those lines to burn a batch of books.