> No, you pray and find out for yourself, done sincerely, praying always hits it's mark
Bull, bull, bull. I will admit there may be some corrolation between prayer & a good outcome, but saying it "always hits it's mark" is flat-out wrong. Prayer does not always work, and even a devout Christian saying something like that is a contradiction of faith. What happened to "God works in myserious ways?" If God says it is time for someone to die, or whatever, it is time. No amount of praying would reverse that.
> It is a fact that US foreign policy is not motivated by benevolence
Oops, I left this out of my other reply.
You seem to imply that there is a single country government out there who is NOT motivated by selfish interests. THAT'S WHAT A GOVERNMENT DOES, it does what it can to benefit its people. You can claim the EU's stance of moral high ground, but it is bullshit, plain and simple. All countries try to help themselves however they can, even if it means screwing someone else. The difference, however, is that the U.S. can afford to piss off more people at once, whereas if a small country tried that, too many other countreis wouldn't like it, and would give them trouble -- each of those countries would be doing that because it is in the interests of its citizens. The U.S. government is very good at taking care of its citizens, as long as you don't do anything contrary to their morality. Then, of course, you get shipped off somewhere, but that's not the point here.
> It is a fact that US foreign policy is not motivated by benevolence
(1st, this has nothing to do with my comment, but I'll reply anyway) If you add the word "only," then I agree. I am sure there are some people there who are motivated by benevolence, just not the ones who make the final decisions. These people still have an impact on foreign policy, just not enough to fix the malevolence. BUT, this is my opinion. It does not mean it is a fact, and just because I agree with you, it does not mean you are correct either. They are opinions, whether you call it a fact or not. You don't know everyone (probably anyone) "in the know," so you do not know that there is no benevolence there. You just say there isn't because it makes you anti-republican, which is hip these days. And it makes you feel like a victim of the system, which is a fun pasttime as well. Making a statement does not make a fact.
> but are you willing to discuss the evidence, or are you just going to flame mindlessly?
Flame mindlessly? WTF? I wasn't flaming at all, I even said that I agreed with about everything said except for a three-letter suffix.
You seem to be the one who jumped up to yell at me without reading anything I actually said. That's what flaming is, Mr. Pot (and I don't mean Pol Pot).
I have no problem discussing evidence, I never said anything to the contrary. You are arguing a point that doesn't exist.
> the dictionary definition, which is predjudiced because it's written by people who are not themselves atheists
How the hell would you know THAT? Or are you just assuming? A dictionary, for all intents & purposes, IS the end-all/be-all resource. It doesn't matter WHO defines the terms, that's what they mean. You seem to be trying to weasel out of something by claiming a definitive source is invalid.
Seriously, if you can claim the provided definition of atheist is wrong, I can claim that your use of the word prejudiced is wrong, or any word you choose. As soon as you ignore the facts (which is precisely what a dictionary IS), a debate is impossible.
> If gas goes up to $100 a gallon, you can bet more people will bike to work or move closer to work,
I'll just point out that sometimes (Columbus, OH may be a good example) there are areas in a city that contains most of the business district, but not as much housing in the same place, so no, it is NOT an option to move closer to work. Also, if you have a family, moving is not a viable option at all. Sure, you can claim otherwise, but it is a big distraction in a family and causes trouble.
> just as they *choose* to go places and have jobs and go to the doctor.
Just like you *choose* to eat? Sure, you can choose not to do these things, but you may as well choose to kill yourself. It would be faster & less painful.
Yes, I had a point, but I didn't think it was subtle. My point was that you can't compare oil companies to MLB or other elective products, because (again, unless you live in a big city) if you choose not to buy gasoline, you basically choose to not have anything at all, and unless you get handouts or have some other non-mainstream income source, you will starve.
I didn't make any claim that oil companies are abusing the supposed "cartel" they have. I realize that, compared to inflation, gasoline prices are about as low as they have ever been. That, and the serious short-term price fluctuations, offer evidence that there is no collusion going on. I wasn't making any comment to that effect.
It probably didn't help that I wrote "captive customers" at the end, that was probably a mistake and just made my post less clear.
> you don't get to short-circuit that debate with a bald assertion.
I've never heard that debated, a grade has always meant "this is how well I know this subject." Sorry, you don't get to short-circuit reality with a claim that someone is debating it. People still debate that the world is 6000 years old. It doesn't mean that these people aren't completely wrong just because they still cling to their ignorance. Or, in the case of grades, the parents still cling to the idea that their child is perfect, so they try to redefine terms to make their child look smarter than they are.
> I thought the purpose of classes was to learn stuff, not to reward behavior of one kind or another.
Isn't motivational grading just rewarding a behavior? If I can get an A with no effort, but I get a B because I didn't put more effort than necessary into it, then you are punishing because of a behavior. If you mark a B paper to an A because of hard work, you are rewarding a behavior -- working hard.
It's not a great explanation, but I feel that equal rights extends to individuals just as much as it extends to minorities or women. Same pay for the same job, same grade for the same paper. It may be slightly unfair to compare less-than-perfect students with a minority, but I believe it gets the point across.
> I never win more than a certain amount until I inevitably start to lose everything, which makes me want to throw the damn phone against the floor of the bus.
Those are features added by the marketing department: the more frustrated you become with a phone, the more likely you become to destroy it, therefore being forced to buy a new one. Unfortunately, however, you are hooked on these maddeningly aggravating games, so have to buy a phone from the same company. It's all too easy...
Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement?
on
FSF Subpoenaed by SCO
·
· Score: 1
> This, of course, being only one of the many things SCOG doesn't understand about the GPL.
Exchange "GPL" for the word "law," and your statements becomes much truer.
> Employers perceive abilities when they hire you, and working below their perceptions is always a risk
I disagree, in a way. The employer has a job that needs to be done. Anyone who can get it done efficiently deserves the job. HOWEVER, someone who does it MORE efficiently should have more opportunity for advancement and payraise.
The problem you point out is not a problem of employer's perception, but a problem of some doofus lieing on his resume. If I said I can write multiprocessor compilers, then can't when asked to, I obviously lied, which is generally a violation of the employment contract and I deserve to be fired. If I said I could, I get there & can, I do not deserve to be fired. If I had the ability to do it twice as fast, but choose not to, the employer has no right to fire you, as long as you aren't pokey (excessively slow) about it.
> An ability is worthless if the person who has it doesn't use it and extend it.
Let's say I am a stone cutter. I've apprenticed for years, and read just about everything there is to read. I know my shit, but I am lucky enough to be able to do it without much thought, just because of my innate artistic skill. I make a decent living because of my abilities. I don't feel like extending it, but is it still worthless? Not at all.
> It's a penalty for being lazy.
Hey, here's a message from the real world: please come back.
Two people can do the same work, but one takes half the time to do it. Which one is going to be hired? By your logic, the "lazy" one.
The problem is that you mistake efficiency for laziness. Punishing those with ability is punishing those who are more efficient. Efficiency should be the goal, not something to be punished for.
I am lucky enough to be able to slack a bit and read/. because I am pretty efficient at what I do. I don't expect to be fired and replaced by someone dumber just so that they spread the same 6 hours of work into 8 hours. That means they are inept, not deserving of a payraise.
A grade is used to show how well you know a subject. If I knew a subject completely before starting the class & wrote the same level of paper as someone who studied his ass off, we deserve the same grade. He should not be given a better grade than me just because he waited for this particular class to learn a subject. Why am I judged differently because I took the initiative to learn the information earlier than I absolutely had to?
No, schools are not there to make you feel good about yourself (that's obvious), they are there to make sure you know the minimum information to pass a class. That'a a D. Then, if you know more, you get a better grade. The amount of work you put into it is irrelevant. In fact, if you put more work into it than you should have, it means you are not doing well, and once you get into the "real world," where you have strict deadlines, you don't have the option of getting paid more just because you worked harder for the same result. The exact OPPOSITE is true, in fact.
School should help people prepare for life. If someone is given a grade they did not deserve, they are being improperly trained how to work.
A problem, however, is with the PARENTS. Many students are C students, that's all there is to it. But they get all high & mighty towards the school if they see their child work very hard for a low grade. They figure their child isn't good enough if they don't have all As, but that they deserve them just for hard work.
If life had a payrate based on how hard you worked, vs. your productivity, I would start working as an astrophysicist. I wouldn't get anything done, since I know nothing about the work, but I would sure as hell work my ass off. Do you think anyone wants an employee like that? (I mean the lack of knowledge -- everyone wants a hard worker, if they know enough).
> Bzzt wrong. There is no such thing as a 'cola nut'
Y'know, you might want to verify your facts before you start ranting & making yourself look like a complete ass. There is such a thing as a Kola nut, and not all cola drinks are completely artificial. There may even be all-natural ones -- my father made real root beer & vanilla creme sodas (with natural ingredients) when I was young, and I don't believe the process of making Cola is completely different.
> something tells me that most of the people here don't even hit operating temperatures on that amount of caffeine
You know the reason people "need" so much caffiene, don't you? BECAUSE THEY DRINK SO F&^$ING MUCH CAFFIENE. If you didn't swill down 10 gallons of coffee a day, you wouldn't need it any more, after you broke your addiction & withdrawals. All this stuff about "I can't stay awake in the morning without caffiene" is bullshit. GET SOME gOD DAMNED SLEEP, and maybe (oh, what an amazing insight) you wouldn't be so tired! Try recording Adult Swim instead of staying up until 3AM, then watch it after work.
Wake up at 7AM? Go to sleep at 11 or so, just for shits and giggles. See what happens. I know you (not you, per se) think you only need four hours of sleep, but that is obviously not the case if you are tired EVERY MORNING. Christ, people, feeling tired all the time means there is something wrong with you, it does NOT mean it's time for your daily hit. Eat reasonably (I'm not saying become a vegetarian or anything), don't drink so much shit, and you'll feel better pretty soon.
One or two cups a day is okay, but more than that is an addiction, plain & simple. That's about all there is to say about caffiene & the addicts that chug it.
I said: > > The definition of atheist: one who DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD So you replied: > Except that not the actual definition of "atheist"
Formal definition: atheism:
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Disbelief is defined as "Refusal or reluctance to believe."
Sounds pretty much the same to me, unless you mean the definition that means "immoral," which is clearly not the case here. The only possible way you are right is if you mean that instead of denying it outright, you are just reluctant to believe. Either way, you are either saying, or swaying towards saying, "there is no God."
If you take the "doctrine" definition, it's the same as denying it.
Just because you don't like the choice of words, it does not mean that the words are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
> No, you pray and find out for yourself, done sincerely, praying always hits it's mark
Bull, bull, bull. I will admit there may be some corrolation between prayer & a good outcome, but saying it "always hits it's mark" is flat-out wrong. Prayer does not always work, and even a devout Christian saying something like that is a contradiction of faith. What happened to "God works in myserious ways?" If God says it is time for someone to die, or whatever, it is time. No amount of praying would reverse that.
> I'm not a marketing genius.
The classic ploy of undermarketing yourself to make people curious. You ARE a marketing genius!!!
> by Mr Guy
> I also run all the crime in the United States from my secret lair
That explains a lot. All along we were blaming "The Man," but it was, in fact, "Mr Guy." It's all becoming clearer...
Mod parent down, -1 completely worthless. Doesn't everyone know it was a pun? Duh. That's almost as lame as "Me, sarcastic? Noooooooo."
> It is a fact that US foreign policy is not motivated by benevolence
Oops, I left this out of my other reply.
You seem to imply that there is a single country government out there who is NOT motivated by selfish interests. THAT'S WHAT A GOVERNMENT DOES, it does what it can to benefit its people. You can claim the EU's stance of moral high ground, but it is bullshit, plain and simple. All countries try to help themselves however they can, even if it means screwing someone else. The difference, however, is that the U.S. can afford to piss off more people at once, whereas if a small country tried that, too many other countreis wouldn't like it, and would give them trouble -- each of those countries would be doing that because it is in the interests of its citizens. The U.S. government is very good at taking care of its citizens, as long as you don't do anything contrary to their morality. Then, of course, you get shipped off somewhere, but that's not the point here.
> It is a fact that US foreign policy is not motivated by benevolence
(1st, this has nothing to do with my comment, but I'll reply anyway) If you add the word "only," then I agree. I am sure there are some people there who are motivated by benevolence, just not the ones who make the final decisions. These people still have an impact on foreign policy, just not enough to fix the malevolence. BUT, this is my opinion. It does not mean it is a fact, and just because I agree with you, it does not mean you are correct either. They are opinions, whether you call it a fact or not. You don't know everyone (probably anyone) "in the know," so you do not know that there is no benevolence there. You just say there isn't because it makes you anti-republican, which is hip these days. And it makes you feel like a victim of the system, which is a fun pasttime as well. Making a statement does not make a fact.
> but are you willing to discuss the evidence, or are you just going to flame mindlessly?
Flame mindlessly? WTF? I wasn't flaming at all, I even said that I agreed with about everything said except for a three-letter suffix.
You seem to be the one who jumped up to yell at me without reading anything I actually said. That's what flaming is, Mr. Pot (and I don't mean Pol Pot).
I have no problem discussing evidence, I never said anything to the contrary. You are arguing a point that doesn't exist.
> the dictionary definition, which is predjudiced because it's written by people who are not themselves atheists
How the hell would you know THAT? Or are you just assuming? A dictionary, for all intents & purposes, IS the end-all/be-all resource. It doesn't matter WHO defines the terms, that's what they mean. You seem to be trying to weasel out of something by claiming a definitive source is invalid.
Seriously, if you can claim the provided definition of atheist is wrong, I can claim that your use of the word prejudiced is wrong, or any word you choose. As soon as you ignore the facts (which is precisely what a dictionary IS), a debate is impossible.
> If gas goes up to $100 a gallon, you can bet more people will bike to work or move closer to work,
I'll just point out that sometimes (Columbus, OH may be a good example) there are areas in a city that contains most of the business district, but not as much housing in the same place, so no, it is NOT an option to move closer to work. Also, if you have a family, moving is not a viable option at all. Sure, you can claim otherwise, but it is a big distraction in a family and causes trouble.
> just as they *choose* to go places and have jobs and go to the doctor.
Just like you *choose* to eat? Sure, you can choose not to do these things, but you may as well choose to kill yourself. It would be faster & less painful.
Yes, I had a point, but I didn't think it was subtle. My point was that you can't compare oil companies to MLB or other elective products, because (again, unless you live in a big city) if you choose not to buy gasoline, you basically choose to not have anything at all, and unless you get handouts or have some other non-mainstream income source, you will starve.
I didn't make any claim that oil companies are abusing the supposed "cartel" they have. I realize that, compared to inflation, gasoline prices are about as low as they have ever been. That, and the serious short-term price fluctuations, offer evidence that there is no collusion going on. I wasn't making any comment to that effect.
It probably didn't help that I wrote "captive customers" at the end, that was probably a mistake and just made my post less clear.
> you don't get to short-circuit that debate with a bald assertion.
I've never heard that debated, a grade has always meant "this is how well I know this subject." Sorry, you don't get to short-circuit reality with a claim that someone is debating it. People still debate that the world is 6000 years old. It doesn't mean that these people aren't completely wrong just because they still cling to their ignorance. Or, in the case of grades, the parents still cling to the idea that their child is perfect, so they try to redefine terms to make their child look smarter than they are.
> I thought the purpose of classes was to learn stuff, not to reward behavior of one kind or another.
Isn't motivational grading just rewarding a behavior? If I can get an A with no effort, but I get a B because I didn't put more effort than necessary into it, then you are punishing because of a behavior. If you mark a B paper to an A because of hard work, you are rewarding a behavior -- working hard.
It's not a great explanation, but I feel that equal rights extends to individuals just as much as it extends to minorities or women. Same pay for the same job, same grade for the same paper. It may be slightly unfair to compare less-than-perfect students with a minority, but I believe it gets the point across.
> I never win more than a certain amount until I inevitably start to lose everything, which makes me want to throw the damn phone against the floor of the bus.
Those are features added by the marketing department: the more frustrated you become with a phone, the more likely you become to destroy it, therefore being forced to buy a new one. Unfortunately, however, you are hooked on these maddeningly aggravating games, so have to buy a phone from the same company. It's all too easy...
> This, of course, being only one of the many things SCOG doesn't understand about the GPL.
Exchange "GPL" for the word "law," and your statements becomes much truer.
> RMS's love letters from numerous female admirers
Isn't it illegal to ask for documents you know do not exist?
> Then what's the point of education, if not improving one's own abilities?
That IS the point of education. The point of grading, however is to show your level of competency, which a subjective grade does not show.
> Employers perceive abilities when they hire you, and working below their perceptions is always a risk
I disagree, in a way. The employer has a job that needs to be done. Anyone who can get it done efficiently deserves the job. HOWEVER, someone who does it MORE efficiently should have more opportunity for advancement and payraise.
The problem you point out is not a problem of employer's perception, but a problem of some doofus lieing on his resume. If I said I can write multiprocessor compilers, then can't when asked to, I obviously lied, which is generally a violation of the employment contract and I deserve to be fired. If I said I could, I get there & can, I do not deserve to be fired. If I had the ability to do it twice as fast, but choose not to, the employer has no right to fire you, as long as you aren't pokey (excessively slow) about it.
> An ability is worthless if the person who has it doesn't use it and extend it.
/. because I am pretty efficient at what I do. I don't expect to be fired and replaced by someone dumber just so that they spread the same 6 hours of work into 8 hours. That means they are inept, not deserving of a payraise.
Let's say I am a stone cutter. I've apprenticed for years, and read just about everything there is to read. I know my shit, but I am lucky enough to be able to do it without much thought, just because of my innate artistic skill. I make a decent living because of my abilities. I don't feel like extending it, but is it still worthless? Not at all.
> It's a penalty for being lazy.
Hey, here's a message from the real world: please come back.
Two people can do the same work, but one takes half the time to do it. Which one is going to be hired? By your logic, the "lazy" one.
The problem is that you mistake efficiency for laziness. Punishing those with ability is punishing those who are more efficient. Efficiency should be the goal, not something to be punished for.
I am lucky enough to be able to slack a bit and read
> If grading is intended as a motivator
A grade is used to show how well you know a subject. If I knew a subject completely before starting the class & wrote the same level of paper as someone who studied his ass off, we deserve the same grade. He should not be given a better grade than me just because he waited for this particular class to learn a subject. Why am I judged differently because I took the initiative to learn the information earlier than I absolutely had to?
No, schools are not there to make you feel good about yourself (that's obvious), they are there to make sure you know the minimum information to pass a class. That'a a D. Then, if you know more, you get a better grade. The amount of work you put into it is irrelevant. In fact, if you put more work into it than you should have, it means you are not doing well, and once you get into the "real world," where you have strict deadlines, you don't have the option of getting paid more just because you worked harder for the same result. The exact OPPOSITE is true, in fact.
School should help people prepare for life. If someone is given a grade they did not deserve, they are being improperly trained how to work.
A problem, however, is with the PARENTS. Many students are C students, that's all there is to it. But they get all high & mighty towards the school if they see their child work very hard for a low grade. They figure their child isn't good enough if they don't have all As, but that they deserve them just for hard work.
If life had a payrate based on how hard you worked, vs. your productivity, I would start working as an astrophysicist. I wouldn't get anything done, since I know nothing about the work, but I would sure as hell work my ass off. Do you think anyone wants an employee like that?
(I mean the lack of knowledge -- everyone wants a hard worker, if they know enough).
> I prefer soda made from hops.
I prefer pork soda. Nothing like sippin' them cans o' swine.
> Bzzt wrong. There is no such thing as a 'cola nut'
Y'know, you might want to verify your facts before you start ranting & making yourself look like a complete ass. There is such a thing as a Kola nut, and not all cola drinks are completely artificial. There may even be all-natural ones -- my father made real root beer & vanilla creme sodas (with natural ingredients) when I was young, and I don't believe the process of making Cola is completely different.
> something tells me that most of the people here don't even hit operating temperatures on that amount of caffeine
You know the reason people "need" so much caffiene, don't you? BECAUSE THEY DRINK SO F&^$ING MUCH CAFFIENE. If you didn't swill down 10 gallons of coffee a day, you wouldn't need it any more, after you broke your addiction & withdrawals. All this stuff about "I can't stay awake in the morning without caffiene" is bullshit. GET SOME gOD DAMNED SLEEP, and maybe (oh, what an amazing insight) you wouldn't be so tired! Try recording Adult Swim instead of staying up until 3AM, then watch it after work.
Wake up at 7AM? Go to sleep at 11 or so, just for shits and giggles. See what happens. I know you (not you, per se) think you only need four hours of sleep, but that is obviously not the case if you are tired EVERY MORNING. Christ, people, feeling tired all the time means there is something wrong with you, it does NOT mean it's time for your daily hit. Eat reasonably (I'm not saying become a vegetarian or anything), don't drink so much shit, and you'll feel better pretty soon.
One or two cups a day is okay, but more than that is an addiction, plain & simple. That's about all there is to say about caffiene & the addicts that chug it.
> It would be cool if people submitting stories assumed we are all clueless and gave us some hints
SBC doesn't stand for anything, so it would not have helped here.
> SBC (South-West)
That's not entirely true. SBC covers at least Eastern Ohio, and I believe all of it. That's pretty far east.
> It is wrong to attribute opinions to people which they don't actually hold, and that's precisely what you're doing.
I didn't tell you your opinion, I translated the opinion as written.
> > The definition of atheist: one who DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
So you replied:
> Except that not the actual definition of "atheist"
Formal definition:
atheism:
- Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
- The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Disbelief is defined as "Refusal or reluctance to believe."Sounds pretty much the same to me, unless you mean the definition that means "immoral," which is clearly not the case here. The only possible way you are right is if you mean that instead of denying it outright, you are just reluctant to believe. Either way, you are either saying, or swaying towards saying, "there is no God."
If you take the "doctrine" definition, it's the same as denying it.
Just because you don't like the choice of words, it does not mean that the words are wrong.