I wish I knew the following from day one on entering the business world:
Most decisions are made out of fear. Unless you are the boss/owner, you don't want to make any decision with negative consequences.
I think in this scenario management doesn't see any upside. I'm not fully articulating this. They may not want to be complete leeches, but they aren't incentivized to care.
Adding an -ism to the end of a word completely changes the concept. Doing something communally and sharing is not the same as being forced to share by the government.
With 3D (and starting with Mortal Kombat fighters) things started to get horribly complicated, as another poster pointed out. You threw the ball, you were the ball, you were the football player catching the ball.
But none of this made the game better long-term.
I think the Wii solved this by making the controller much more intuitive. Right now, I'm having a ton of fun on the iPhone with a game called iFighter. It's a ton of fun. And 2D. But 2D with the accelerometer.
While I'm glad they are setting this movie in the future, my enthusiasm has been diminished by the cancellation. Seriously, I need to make sure I don't get too attached to any show on that network.
Being skeptical of scientists giving dogmatic claims of incredibly complex weather systems with billions of variables, known and unknown, sounds like Denier talk to me. Either that or you are obviously under the employ of oil companies, Dick Cheney or you are the guy who controls Karl Rove's weather machine. The one Bush used to destroy New Orleans.
Well put, but there is a significant portion of the population that believes global warming/C02 costs fall somewhere on the spectrum between none and completely overblown.
According to atheistic presuppositions do you believe what you wrote because it is true or because the atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way?
In regards to the laws of physics: if you do not assume they are grounded and sustained by God, you have no reason to assume they won't change in the future. Again, you need to read David Hume on this point.
And you miss the point about laws of logic. Materialists use them. They are immaterial.
I believe the scientific process and theism go hand in hand. On the other hand, atheists have to be inconsistent with the outworking of their atheism. To use your language, the atheist not only has to make concessions but has to capitulate.
If you believe God orders and sustains the universe, what would be inconsistent with theism and science? Now inconsistent with science-ism? Yes.
Now an atheist who assumes that we weren't put here for any particular reason should assume that we weren't designed for any particular reason. We weren't designed to apprehend truth. The thoughts in our heads are just atoms bouncing around in our heads in accordance with the laws of physics & chemistry. The best you could say is that our mind is designed to pick up chicks.
So if we have no basis for assuming the truth of our thoughts, how is atheism consistent with science?
And it doesn't stop there. You have laws of physics hanging in mid-air not supported by anything. No reason to assume they will stay the same (see David Hume atheist philosopher if you disagree). You have immaterial laws of logic that a materialist tries to use.
And even worse you have people like Dennett who try to be consistent with their atheism and then go on to say that the concept of self is an illusion. But go the whole way and ask who is arguing what.
Frankly, I've never run into an atheist who operates completely consistently with his own atheism. It's an impossible task.
Not only that. If you have the temerity to plead your case because you actually think you are innocent, you'll have legal bills out the nose. And if you lose, you'll be gone for a long, long time.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I knew the following from day one on entering the business world:
Most decisions are made out of fear. Unless you are the boss/owner, you don't want to make any decision with negative consequences.
I think in this scenario management doesn't see any upside. I'm not fully articulating this. They may not want to be complete leeches, but they aren't incentivized to care.
I think I read somewhere that Oracle doesn't like Microsoft.
Adding an -ism to the end of a word completely changes the concept. Doing something communally and sharing is not the same as being forced to share by the government.
With 3D (and starting with Mortal Kombat fighters) things started to get horribly complicated, as another poster pointed out. You threw the ball, you were the ball, you were the football player catching the ball.
But none of this made the game better long-term.
I think the Wii solved this by making the controller much more intuitive. Right now, I'm having a ton of fun on the iPhone with a game called iFighter. It's a ton of fun. And 2D. But 2D with the accelerometer.
While I'm glad they are setting this movie in the future, my enthusiasm has been diminished by the cancellation. Seriously, I need to make sure I don't get too attached to any show on that network.
To Whom It May Be Concerned:
Warner Bros., in an ill-advised attempt to promote Terminator Salvation, created a Skynet virus which aims to take over the world.
For some reason, it targets IIS.
We're doomed. Please head to the bomb shelter and the world will start again with a base of Microsoft employees.
thank you,
Management
But Mexico has/had soldiers on their southern border to prevent people from coming in.
Plus they have draconian immigration laws relative to the USA.
Their hypocrisy vis a vis their complaints about crackdowns on illegal immigration against their citizens is ignored.
Now, why do you think I'm praising Bush? There is nothing in my post to support that.
Being skeptical of scientists giving dogmatic claims of incredibly complex weather systems with billions of variables, known and unknown, sounds like Denier talk to me. Either that or you are obviously under the employ of oil companies, Dick Cheney or you are the guy who controls Karl Rove's weather machine. The one Bush used to destroy New Orleans.
All this fly does is attack these ants, and no other ant.
Eh.
The more time that goes on the less likely RNA is able to stay intact for the next phase of the RNA world.
And the fossil record looks like the Earth cools and almost immediately (geologically speaking) you get bacteria around 3.85 billion years ago.
So let's assume this pathway occurred in the primordial soup.
How long would ancient conditions let it stick around to advance to more steps?
Someone was actually allowed to be fired in France.
I wish it was only $150 million a week.
WSJ is an outstanding newspaper. Its news articles are unique and important and interesting. New York Post, not so much.
But I would also bet that a lot of success the WSJ has had online has to do with a lot of business expense accounts paying for it.
Well put, but there is a significant portion of the population that believes global warming/C02 costs fall somewhere on the spectrum between none and completely overblown.
Yeah, Christians don't riot and behead people. No one cares about their feelings.
A big European bureaucracy which kowtows to radicals who want to institute sharia law is how I envision this thing ending.
Oh no. Here comes the sternly worded letter if we don't comply.
On a serious note, they have a point.
According to atheistic presuppositions do you believe what you wrote because it is true or because the atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way?
In regards to the laws of physics: if you do not assume they are grounded and sustained by God, you have no reason to assume they won't change in the future. Again, you need to read David Hume on this point.
And you miss the point about laws of logic. Materialists use them. They are immaterial.
I believe the scientific process and theism go hand in hand. On the other hand, atheists have to be inconsistent with the outworking of their atheism. To use your language, the atheist not only has to make concessions but has to capitulate.
If you believe God orders and sustains the universe, what would be inconsistent with theism and science? Now inconsistent with science-ism? Yes.
Now an atheist who assumes that we weren't put here for any particular reason should assume that we weren't designed for any particular reason. We weren't designed to apprehend truth. The thoughts in our heads are just atoms bouncing around in our heads in accordance with the laws of physics & chemistry. The best you could say is that our mind is designed to pick up chicks.
So if we have no basis for assuming the truth of our thoughts, how is atheism consistent with science?
And it doesn't stop there. You have laws of physics hanging in mid-air not supported by anything. No reason to assume they will stay the same (see David Hume atheist philosopher if you disagree). You have immaterial laws of logic that a materialist tries to use.
And even worse you have people like Dennett who try to be consistent with their atheism and then go on to say that the concept of self is an illusion. But go the whole way and ask who is arguing what.
Frankly, I've never run into an atheist who operates completely consistently with his own atheism. It's an impossible task.
Not only that. If you have the temerity to plead your case because you actually think you are innocent, you'll have legal bills out the nose. And if you lose, you'll be gone for a long, long time.
Can't shout "fire" and cause a panic. You can't order someone murdered. You can't incite a riot or violence. Slander and libel have civil penalties.
The right to bear arms can be limited when someone is insane.
Rights are limited all the time.
I understand your concerns, which is why I included MSN. It would capture grandmom who just opens up IE.
But I would let statistical/polling experts figure out the details. But I think the general idea holds.
He'll probably get a bunch of spam for Cialis.
Excuse me, C1@lis. Need to get this post through the spam filters.