I dont really care who youve voted for. Busting out the name calling you did earlier in the thread and the one sided criticism you launched into here is absurd, and deserves to be called out as such.
Claiming to be "unbiased' after calling romney a "cocksucker" (earlier) and a "prick" (this thread)? Unbiased my foot.
As I do not live in massachussets, I am not on top of such assertions. The problem is, whether Romney slacked off in the last year is a matter of opinion, not fact. That Obama resigned early is not, and as the complaint was "political opportunism", that seems awfully relevant in my book.
But I appreciate the "wanker" comment right after complaining about (imagined) strawmen: answer fallacies with fallacies, thatll show em.
If you read the "about us" on peacefire, he makes it pretty clear that his goal is to help minors circumvent filtering. What filtering? Why, filtering at libraries, schools, home computers, etc. But theres a big problem here: those computers dont belong to the minor, and thus the minor has absolutely no right to circumvent it-- it is likely, in fact, that doing so is a violation of whatever acceptable use policy is in place at said location.
Think about it: if these individuals owned / had the right to circumvent the filtering, how did it get on the computer in the first place? Why dont they just uninstall it?
Sorry, I fully support a parent's right to use filtering for their child, on a computer that the parent owns.
I am curious as to why engine breaking vs normal breaking would make a difference. As I understand it, slipping happens because of inertia, when you decelerate too quickly. I cannot think of a reason why it matters WHAT is robbing your car of speed, whether it is at your discs or in the engine or because you turned too quickly.
If Im mistaken here, I would love to understand why.
That he runs peacefire isnt necessarily a mark in his favor. The idea that people have a right to circumvent filtering on computers they do not own is about as equally shady as whats being discussed here.
Theres "fighting for an ideal", and theres "going over the edge".
But why go after Romney for "arguably" blowing off one out of his 4 years in office, and not after Obama who blew off 3 of 6? BOTH used it as a political stepping stone, this isnt unusual.
To address your second point, arguably the invasion of Iraq was unauthorized
Congress EXPLICITLY authorized both Iraq and Afghanistan. If you check the Iraq resolution, youll see that there were SEVERAL factors that (supposedly) led to its issuance. The idea that Bush had any "unauthorized" military actions is just stuff. Obama however had NO congressional approval for the deployment in Libya, despite complaining for years about the "illegal Bush wars".
Im not sure if you are lying due to lack of scruples, or are ignorant. According to wikipedia (and, im sure, public record), Romney filed to register a presidential campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission on his penultimate day in office as governor.[225] His term ended January 4, 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Tenure.2C_2003.E2.80.9307 , last line before the next section)
Heres the real irony / hypocrisy: Barack Obama really DIDNT finish out his term due to the presidential election. He was elected in 2005, and resigned in 2008-- only halfway thru his term. Normally, this really isnt a big deal, and noone I know (even republicans) made a stink about that because its not unusual for presidential candidates.
But I point it out because of the hilarity and hypocrisy-- you accuse Romney of something that not he, but Obama did. Its actually kind of like how Obama blamed bush for "unauthorized wars" (despite them being authorized), and then launched an unauthorized military action of his own.
Thanks for that lesson in edifying political discourse. Im sure if more people in congress stopped insinuating that they hate each other and simply adopted your tack on this, things would all be so much smoother.
No offense has been taken, and I hope you take none from my response. But your post displays a profound ignorance about religion, what it teaches, its history, and the motivations behind believers
For starters so that you know where Im coming from, Im protestant, and my current convictions place me in a Southern Baptist church-- there is no formal heirarchy beyond the congregation and the elders, and in almost all things the congregation as a whole has the last word. I believe catholocism as a whole-- unlike other protestant denominations-- to be opposed to the core tenets of the faith; not going to go into it (its a long historical discussion), but I say that so you will not think i have some interest in defending them.
I dont think you are correct regarding the pope. Certainly I think his authority is a false one, but the reasons he is there are historical / theological . It is possible the pope doesnt actually believe those theological reasons, but I have a hard time imagining "power and control" being his sole motivations-- people everywhere have a need to feel justified. Again, I disagree regarding the condom issue, but the reason is not what you say it is.
You claim it is selfish for me to try to get others to believe what I believe-- but you can only say that by assuming at the outset that my beliefs are false. But I dont believe them to be false, and what I believe is what determines whether something is selfish (done for self-serving reasons). Given what I believe, it is in fact selfish to avoid sharing what I believe because I fear other's reactions-- I am placing my own fears above what I believe to be their highest good.
At the core, all of your comments demonstrate pretty neatly that the lenses you view the world through will color EVERYTHING. You believe "the church" (as if it were one entity) is devoted to trying to perpetuate itself above all other concerns, and to control others as a secondary goal; this means that ANYTHING you see in the church will be interpreted in that light. I think at some point you will run into the fact that those lenses are going to tell you things that fly in the face of reality.
Regarding your generalizations of church structure, you should know that there are a huge number of churches and denominations that have no central heirarchy. "Fundamentalists" tend (AFAIK) to be those who eschew such heirarchies, because any claimed biblical support for it is going to be very tenuous. Presbyterians arent even a single unit-- theres PCA and PCUSA and the difference between them is night and day, and they have separate heirarchies.
You are trying to generalize things that simply cannot be generalized, and its leading you to believe things that are as a matter of fact (not opinion) false, such as your interpretation of church structure.
It really is incredible: in every slashdot story, at least once someone busts out a well constructed strawman ready for kindling. Its not even the same person every time.
I was raising what I saw as a major flaw in the reasoning that "religion is OK, just dont bother anyone else with it"-- which is that if you believe your religion to be true, its hard to justify NOT telling someone about it.
Regarding portion of population and religion, I would recommend you check out the various gallup polls on "what people say they believe" versus polls that ask specifics ("do you believe in a personal god"; "whens the last time you opened your holy book", "whens the last time you gathered with others of your faith", etc). You might be shocked by how many claim to believe something but yet it oddly has no impact whatsoever on their life.
Just because you have a particularly weak and inefficient switch doesnt mean thats par for course. 40w would be about right for a high-end 3000-series Cisco which WOULD do all that fancy stuff (except generally DHCP is NOT something you want your switch doing, since it is distinctly Layer 3; not sure if even 3000-series switches do dhcp).
And for the record, if your switch is non-blocking, its doing 9.6gbit/second of traffic at 24 ports and 100mbit port speed (full duplex=200mbit/port *24 ports). Good luck at getting a tiny fraction of that speed out of a wireless access point. Switches tend to scale really well with multiple hosts, and dont have to worry about collisions; WAPs tend to scale incredibly badly, partly because they do have to worry about collisions.
That 40W switch does things like VLAN, QoS, etc that I rather imagine the Linksys would choke on. that 40W switch probably also handles 48-96gbit/s of traffic, which I KNOW that linksys cant handle.
Bigger problem: Im not aware of a "non-blocking" wireless AP.
I didnt answer your other questions, so I will do so:
Why do you think so many congregations are told they need to try and bring people in to the church if they want to do their bit to ensure they are a good Christian?
"Congregations are told"? By whom? Does this include mine? Are you painting us all with the same brush as if all congregations are equal (despite believing WIDELY divergent things)?
All of that aside: If we truly believe that hearing the gospel is necessary for someone to avoid eternal judgement-- why would we NOT encourage them to come hear the message preached?
Why do you think they run adoption agencies that prioritise religious adopting couples other than to ensure the child is brought up in a religious environment?
No, but it at least goes to explain why you have a refusal to accept what is pretty obvious to everyone else that isn't blinkered by such beliefs
So it was an ad hominem: Instead of focusing on what I said, you are diverting attention to ME. In case you were not aware, this is a fallacy.
that the sort of organisation you follow doesn't exist for altruistic reasons but acts only to sustain it's own existence
You know absolutely nothing about what my religious beliefs are. That you are so quick to assume so many things about it neatly demonstrates the bias I was talking about.
True on the 55-45; that is a mistake on my part, but is not terribly relevant: 10% more fructose in a drink with 1/10th of a pound of sugar-- which do you suppose is the problematic factor?
As for that report: To make sure the high-performance liquid chromatography tests were accurate, the researchers also sent samples of pure fructose, pure glucose and pure sucrose. The test detected 9.9 grams of fructose in a 10-gram sample of fructose, 9.8 grams of glucose in a 10-gram sample of glucose, and 9 grams of sucrose in a 10-gram sample of sucrose. Not terribly impressed if their liquid chromatography is 10% off in its measurements. It throws the entirety of their other claims (which rest on ~10% discrepancies in the measured fructose) into question, as they are all within margin of error.
My objection is that I am unaware of any evidence that the protestant church of the 1900s in germany was exercising control over the populace, hence the "spurious".
Yes, I am religious. Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?
Slashdot Mirror
I dont really care who youve voted for. Busting out the name calling you did earlier in the thread and the one sided criticism you launched into here is absurd, and deserves to be called out as such.
Claiming to be "unbiased' after calling romney a "cocksucker" (earlier) and a "prick" (this thread)? Unbiased my foot.
As I do not live in massachussets, I am not on top of such assertions. The problem is, whether Romney slacked off in the last year is a matter of opinion, not fact. That Obama resigned early is not, and as the complaint was "political opportunism", that seems awfully relevant in my book.
But I appreciate the "wanker" comment right after complaining about (imagined) strawmen: answer fallacies with fallacies, thatll show em.
If you read the "about us" on peacefire, he makes it pretty clear that his goal is to help minors circumvent filtering. What filtering? Why, filtering at libraries, schools, home computers, etc. But theres a big problem here: those computers dont belong to the minor, and thus the minor has absolutely no right to circumvent it-- it is likely, in fact, that doing so is a violation of whatever acceptable use policy is in place at said location.
Think about it: if these individuals owned / had the right to circumvent the filtering, how did it get on the computer in the first place? Why dont they just uninstall it?
Sorry, I fully support a parent's right to use filtering for their child, on a computer that the parent owns.
parking brakes are supposed to be fairly terrible at stopping a car in motion.
I am curious as to why engine breaking vs normal breaking would make a difference. As I understand it, slipping happens because of inertia, when you decelerate too quickly. I cannot think of a reason why it matters WHAT is robbing your car of speed, whether it is at your discs or in the engine or because you turned too quickly.
If Im mistaken here, I would love to understand why.
That he runs peacefire isnt necessarily a mark in his favor. The idea that people have a right to circumvent filtering on computers they do not own is about as equally shady as whats being discussed here.
Theres "fighting for an ideal", and theres "going over the edge".
But why go after Romney for "arguably" blowing off one out of his 4 years in office, and not after Obama who blew off 3 of 6? BOTH used it as a political stepping stone, this isnt unusual.
To address your second point, arguably the invasion of Iraq was unauthorized
Not at all, no it wasnt. Iraq had their own congressional authorization, distinct from the one for Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Congress EXPLICITLY authorized both Iraq and Afghanistan. If you check the Iraq resolution, youll see that there were SEVERAL factors that (supposedly) led to its issuance. The idea that Bush had any "unauthorized" military actions is just stuff. Obama however had NO congressional approval for the deployment in Libya, despite complaining for years about the "illegal Bush wars".
And Obama ducked out on the last 3 years of his senate term. Wheres your moral outrage with Obama?
Oh, right, it only extends to one half of the aisle. Way to stay unbiased and non-partisan.
He didn't even finish the term he was elected to.
Im not sure if you are lying due to lack of scruples, or are ignorant. According to wikipedia (and, im sure, public record),
Romney filed to register a presidential campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission on his penultimate day in office as governor.[225] His term ended January 4, 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Tenure.2C_2003.E2.80.9307 , last line before the next section)
Heres the real irony / hypocrisy: Barack Obama really DIDNT finish out his term due to the presidential election. He was elected in 2005, and resigned in 2008-- only halfway thru his term. Normally, this really isnt a big deal, and noone I know (even republicans) made a stink about that because its not unusual for presidential candidates.
But I point it out because of the hilarity and hypocrisy-- you accuse Romney of something that not he, but Obama did. Its actually kind of like how Obama blamed bush for "unauthorized wars" (despite them being authorized), and then launched an unauthorized military action of his own.
Thanks for that lesson in edifying political discourse. Im sure if more people in congress stopped insinuating that they hate each other and simply adopted your tack on this, things would all be so much smoother.
Thanks for making slashdot a better place.
For one I can install a network sniffer on it to gain passwords
Not if youre using a secure application like SSH, which was his point.
No offense has been taken, and I hope you take none from my response. But your post displays a profound ignorance about religion, what it teaches, its history, and the motivations behind believers
For starters so that you know where Im coming from, Im protestant, and my current convictions place me in a Southern Baptist church-- there is no formal heirarchy beyond the congregation and the elders, and in almost all things the congregation as a whole has the last word. I believe catholocism as a whole-- unlike other protestant denominations-- to be opposed to the core tenets of the faith; not going to go into it (its a long historical discussion), but I say that so you will not think i have some interest in defending them.
I dont think you are correct regarding the pope. Certainly I think his authority is a false one, but the reasons he is there are historical / theological . It is possible the pope doesnt actually believe those theological reasons, but I have a hard time imagining "power and control" being his sole motivations-- people everywhere have a need to feel justified. Again, I disagree regarding the condom issue, but the reason is not what you say it is.
You claim it is selfish for me to try to get others to believe what I believe-- but you can only say that by assuming at the outset that my beliefs are false. But I dont believe them to be false, and what I believe is what determines whether something is selfish (done for self-serving reasons). Given what I believe, it is in fact selfish to avoid sharing what I believe because I fear other's reactions-- I am placing my own fears above what I believe to be their highest good.
At the core, all of your comments demonstrate pretty neatly that the lenses you view the world through will color EVERYTHING. You believe "the church" (as if it were one entity) is devoted to trying to perpetuate itself above all other concerns, and to control others as a secondary goal; this means that ANYTHING you see in the church will be interpreted in that light. I think at some point you will run into the fact that those lenses are going to tell you things that fly in the face of reality.
Regarding your generalizations of church structure, you should know that there are a huge number of churches and denominations that have no central heirarchy. "Fundamentalists" tend (AFAIK) to be those who eschew such heirarchies, because any claimed biblical support for it is going to be very tenuous. Presbyterians arent even a single unit-- theres PCA and PCUSA and the difference between them is night and day, and they have separate heirarchies.
You are trying to generalize things that simply cannot be generalized, and its leading you to believe things that are as a matter of fact (not opinion) false, such as your interpretation of church structure.
It means the students keep accidentally their classes, and the school is looking for a solution.
It really is incredible: in every slashdot story, at least once someone busts out a well constructed strawman ready for kindling. Its not even the same person every time.
Color me impressed.
I was raising what I saw as a major flaw in the reasoning that "religion is OK, just dont bother anyone else with it"-- which is that if you believe your religion to be true, its hard to justify NOT telling someone about it.
Regarding portion of population and religion, I would recommend you check out the various gallup polls on "what people say they believe" versus polls that ask specifics ("do you believe in a personal god"; "whens the last time you opened your holy book", "whens the last time you gathered with others of your faith", etc). You might be shocked by how many claim to believe something but yet it oddly has no impact whatsoever on their life.
Just because you have a particularly weak and inefficient switch doesnt mean thats par for course. 40w would be about right for a high-end 3000-series Cisco which WOULD do all that fancy stuff (except generally DHCP is NOT something you want your switch doing, since it is distinctly Layer 3; not sure if even 3000-series switches do dhcp).
And for the record, if your switch is non-blocking, its doing 9.6gbit/second of traffic at 24 ports and 100mbit port speed (full duplex=200mbit/port *24 ports). Good luck at getting a tiny fraction of that speed out of a wireless access point. Switches tend to scale really well with multiple hosts, and dont have to worry about collisions; WAPs tend to scale incredibly badly, partly because they do have to worry about collisions.
That 40W switch does things like VLAN, QoS, etc that I rather imagine the Linksys would choke on. that 40W switch probably also handles 48-96gbit/s of traffic, which I KNOW that linksys cant handle.
Bigger problem: Im not aware of a "non-blocking" wireless AP.
I didnt answer your other questions, so I will do so:
Why do you think so many congregations are told they need to try and bring people in to the church if they want to do their bit to ensure they are a good Christian?
"Congregations are told"? By whom? Does this include mine? Are you painting us all with the same brush as if all congregations are equal (despite believing WIDELY divergent things)?
All of that aside: If we truly believe that hearing the gospel is necessary for someone to avoid eternal judgement-- why would we NOT encourage them to come hear the message preached?
Why do you think they run adoption agencies that prioritise religious adopting couples other than to ensure the child is brought up in a religious environment?
Who is this "they" you keep talking of?
No, but it at least goes to explain why you have a refusal to accept what is pretty obvious to everyone else that isn't blinkered by such beliefs
So it was an ad hominem: Instead of focusing on what I said, you are diverting attention to ME. In case you were not aware, this is a fallacy.
that the sort of organisation you follow doesn't exist for altruistic reasons but acts only to sustain it's own existence
You know absolutely nothing about what my religious beliefs are. That you are so quick to assume so many things about it neatly demonstrates the bias I was talking about.
Bullocks. Who defines which personal convictions are allowed, and which arent?
Is it your assumption that I am against religion, simply because I am posting on slashdot?
I suppose that WOULD be true for the majority of users.
True on the 55-45; that is a mistake on my part, but is not terribly relevant: 10% more fructose in a drink with 1/10th of a pound of sugar-- which do you suppose is the problematic factor?
As for that report:
To make sure the high-performance liquid chromatography tests were accurate, the researchers also sent samples of pure fructose, pure glucose and pure sucrose. The test detected 9.9 grams of fructose in a 10-gram sample of fructose, 9.8 grams of glucose in a 10-gram sample of glucose, and 9 grams of sucrose in a 10-gram sample of sucrose.
Not terribly impressed if their liquid chromatography is 10% off in its measurements. It throws the entirety of their other claims (which rest on ~10% discrepancies in the measured fructose) into question, as they are all within margin of error.
My objection is that I am unaware of any evidence that the protestant church of the 1900s in germany was exercising control over the populace, hence the "spurious".
Yes, I am religious. Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?
Muslim, christian, jew, whatever. you've ALL killed people in the past for not believing in your specific brand of invisible sky wizard insanity.
Remind me how many genocides were perpetrated by religious belief in the past 100 years?
Specifics please.