Brilliant, however one small nitpick: "[The Holy Spirit] S/He's" God the Father is specificly refered to as male, as is Jesus. However, in the origanal Hebrew and Greek both nouns are female. Just refer to her as such and stop the confusion, please?
Any person who honestly holds that in exactly 144 hours the world was created deserves to be a eunuch. "If your hand causes you to sin cut it off..." Yeah.
You have created a paper tiger and then destroyed it, wow. Axioms the basis for reason require faith. Please read Descartes about the validity of the senses before you continue to post in this thread.
"The difference between scientific faith and relgious faith is that science is willing to change its dogma if it finds a counter example, but most religions will deny the counter example if it disagrees with dogma. But even religions gradually change belief over time, witness the Catholic churces acceptance of evolution."
While the origanal rejection of Evolution claimed to be based on dogma, it was not. The Church, blately realized this and changed their stance bot their dogma. Please be clear in this diferance. The Church also disagreed with science on determinism, that was dogmatic, that was shown to be false.
The company of which Paul McCartney is the principle owner, MPL Communications Inc, is suing MP3.com. We frequently represent Microsoft as Bill Gates, why not do the same to Paul McCartney?
A statement even came from his personal publisist about the suit.
Disclaimer these are the writing of a thinking Christian. In this discussion I stipulate the majority Christian dogma as true. I am willing to debate many of them and enjoy a good and interesting discussion in this point. However, that is not the focus of this post. If that is what you wish to discuss, my email address is NateCuster@Nospam.Hotmail.com. Now to begin my rant.
The question of what parts of the bible are metaphorical is a good one! I would answer with St. Augustine's line:
"Take the literal parts literally, and the metaphorical parts metaphorically."
This implies too important points:
1) There are parts of the bible that are literal. 2) There are parts of the bible that are metaphorical.
If anyone disagrees with the second statement, ask them this: Are they an eunuch? To quote "If you hand causes you to sin cut it off... etc."
The bible is a historical document. That is not often debated. But it is a document, that means that the normal rules for literary analysis still apply. For example some parts of the bible are poetry, they deserve to be read as such, not literal fact.
To answer the question you posed at the end:
"Can I have my cake and eat it to?"
Yes! One may note that while the timing is a bit off, the general order of the creation story matches up almost exactly with the big bang. To quote John for a second "In the beginning was the word" A word is a thought, mental neurons firing electrical impulses. Energy. To paraphrase the Big Bang, during the first moment an infinite amount of energy was confined in an single point. Creation ex nilho if you ask me.
Lastly I would ask if one inconsistency void forty plus chapters?
Nate Custer
P.S. While I have not read Freeman Dyson's book, his mentor, Feynman's book is quite good.
I may be wrong, but I belive that Compaq came out with a machine that had the moniter encapsulated just like the IMac, the most noteable change the Imac made to this design was to include a semitransparent cover. And remove the floppy drive. I forget the name, but it came out in 95 (?). Anybody got more info?
I sure hope so. If they do require drivers, they can be rewritten to map the buttons to slashdot, linux.com, etc. Imagine some virus that replaces the driver with the one mentioned above. Or even with a simple device driver used in Linux for email, web browsing, etc.
I understand that the idea of AOL is repugnent to allmost any self-respecting geek. But this has been done before, why the special reaction now? AOL is doning exactly what they hace been doing for years, making the internet(or at least a dialup network) stupid.
While the comment was in jest it betrays a problem that bothers me. As a high school student, who earns his spending money by providing tech support for a broad network of friends and family I found his comments to be very offensive.
More than that, it is simply bad business practice. I have earned more repeat business by telling a person: "I can't fix this, but here is someone who can" than any other way. I recently got a job writing client/server crypto breaking software for a professor simply because of it. When he proposed the project I told him I did not know enough to do it. He responded that he trusted me to give him something that worked exactly as he wanted it to, and that was worth paying me to learn how to do it. If had not been honest with the fellow he would have gone elsewhere. I get more jobs saying, I don't know how to do that but I could in X weeks than by looking directly at my resume.
Nate Custer
Re:Tough to find jobs months ahead of time.
on
Finding a Linux Job
·
· Score: 1
The other way to do this is to do your crap jobs as early as possible. I have spent the past three years working crap computer jobs (mainly during the summer). With each job they get less stupid and more fun. Except for a brief stint in Tech Support, which was horrible.
My first project was organizing the software cabinet, and checking out the companies licensing position. By the end of the summer, I was macro programming for clients. By the end of the next year, I was writing database apps, and maintaining a database server.
I lucked out, I convinced my boss to hire me on expected skills. He thought I would make a good programmer. He also did everything he could to make me one. Congrats on getting a good job without a CS degree. I found it very hard to be taken seriously without a High School diploma, much less a CS degree.
The only thing I can add is network, network, network. Making contacts can get you more important and interesting jobs. And search a lot at small start-ups. They will be more likely to give you a chance.
The point I was making was not that Germans = Nazis, but that the idea that most Germans were not Nazis, that Nazis were an extremely small subset of Germany is patently false.
Your accusation of Racism is particularly upsetting however. I am the grandson of two families that emigrated from Germany after WWI, including a Jewish family on one side. Members of my family died in the holocaust. While you discuss abstract terms, I present facts and eyewitness accounts. My grandfather left Germany, just after Hitler was elected (He is Jewish). He has told me of the systemic racism that was prevalent in Germany at the time.
However, I also speak fluent German, have visited there for two summers, and have some great friends in Germany. Now I am not implying that all Germans were neither Nazis nor racists. However, to be fair, the Nazi party was the largest party in Germany, the majority of the population was at least complacent. They liked the fact that Hitler restored dignity to Germany, made them feel important, and reversed the economic chaos, slowed inflation and spawned many great scientists (The wonderful line about why the US won the space race "Our Germans were better than your Germans." comes to mind.)
"However, overstating the consequences to such a degree does nothing but radicalize your position, making for a weaker argument. Which was my original point."
You make a good point; the point made above was a slightly different one, which you seem to have missed. Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is done to show how horrible a argument can be. The argument is not "If we allow this, somehow we will cause another holocaust." But, "This is the same mentality that was present here and that mentality ought to change." Again it is not radicalizing the position but shocking the reader and forcing the reader to question the basis of his or her argument. Which is implied to be false. This method does not relate to the argument itself but the presentation of it. Your criticism cannot be of the argument itself that has not been changed in the slightest but, instead with the presentation of that argument.
When I wrote this I had been up for about 33 hours strait, and did not communicate the argument with the lucidity I desired. For that you have my apologies.
Nate Custer
P.S. One other interesting stat. There were 11 million people killed in the holocaust, 5 million were Jews, 4 million were Catholics, 2 million were Gays, Gypsies, and the Handicapped. They don't teach that anymore.
"On August 19, 1934, 95% of the Germans who were registered to vote went to the polls and 90% (38 million) of adult German citizens voted to give Adolf Hitler complete and total authority to rule Germany as he saw fit. Only 4.25 million Germans voted against this transfer of power to a totalitarian regime."
William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
They voted for Mien Kampf they knew what they were votng for.
The point that was being made was greater than patent infignment. It was dealing with complantancy towards imoral acts. Assuming this is an immoral act, the diferance is one of scale alone.
"Let's use art as an example. You paint a picture. Do you own the painting? Yes; you bought the materials and made the painting. You build a sculpture; do you own it? Yes; again you bought the materials and used them. But let's say you record a CD. Certainly you own the CD. But how do you own sound, even a specific configuration thereof? Or let's say you write a book; you certainly own the book, but how do you own words? You write a piece of software; how do you own thought? You build something; you own what you have built, but how do you own the concept of whatever it is you have made? "
Now, you are getting into aesthetics. Arts values is not in the canvas, the oil, or in the case of music the sounds. It is the emotional communication that occours when you view art. The first two notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and Hail to the Victors (The theme song for University of Michigan) are exactly the same. However no has ever confused on with the other. By the same token the subject, method, style of The Thinker and David are the same however the aesthitic event that happens when both are view is not the same.
I sell the profits of my experience on a daily basis. I am compensated because my experience can be applied to add value. Music can do the same thing. A copy of a painting can create the same aesthetic experience as the original. If I was to download your resume, and give it to a company with my name on it, would that be fraudulent? I would be gaining profit from experience that is not my own.
If you copy a CD, then sell it to someone else, you are not repaying the artist for both the experience and the skill he showed in communicating that emotion.
"The counterargument, though, is that copyright and IP rights in general are not natural rights in the same way that other property rights are."
Let me offer a counter example. If I am a farmer, is the produce my farm my property? Of course. They precedent is this: The products of my property are my property. This was used to justify the idea that slaves' children were also slaves, and owned by the parents owner. Note that the argument that slaves kids were not slaves, was never made. The understood that as long as a slave was a person's property, the offspring were also property.
By the same token, the products of your mind are considered your property. No one can argue your mind is not your property, thus the argument that IP is not property fails.
Locke spent a long time crystallizing English Common Laws' precedent, into a consistent system of property law. Which is exactly what is system is based on.
Hobbes on the other hand, argued that property was created by society and thus owned by it. If you want to use a respected philosopher in your argument he is much better suited.
Sir, you certainly need to do some reading on political science. I would suggest you start with Hobbes, then Locke, then once you have the intellectual basis for both the British parliamentary system and the US constitution.
The rights a government must protect are those natural rights, Life and Property. Neither of those are being imposed upon by the legislation. All other rights are given up. For example, you give the government the right to prosecute murder. If you best friend is murdered, you cannot under the law kill in vengeance. You have given up the right to vengeance. You give up the right to justice; you trust the government to accomplish that. Now I am not saying that the government always gives justice.
Government's sole job is to protect life and property, any thing more than that is inviting the abuse, that many if the people here are afraid will happen.
"Since the government is the most dangerous aggressor, it must be constrained the most severely."
You don't constrain the government, when it is abusive you have three choices: 1) Revolt. While this seems extreme, if you don't take control of your own destiny, only you are to blame. 2) Leave. The law does not apply to you if you are no longer a citizen. 3) Accept it. If you don't change the government, or change your citizenship, you have to accept the law as is.
Would you please explain the problem that this causes. Are you planning to do anything that you really don't want the government knowing about?
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection. This is what is happening. If you don't like it, leave the country.
Now, the idea of forcing you to give them your key, with a two year jail term if you don't give them it, even if you just lost it is a bit excessive. However, if the government knows you have kiddie porn on your computer, but as they are walking in you encrypt it, should they be able to force you to give them the key? If they can't then you will go free and a child molester is on the streets. Is that safety?
In the same token an, tell comm company is like a post office, they just deliver phone usage. Now if it you find it ok for a phone to be tapped, why not let your mail be read too? What is the diferance?
I am relatively new to slashdot, and I like Linux as much as your next geek but; the answer to this is simple. The people were drawn to computers because of games. Even Bill Gates stared out that way. These people want to find that same desire in their new vice Linux. That way they can regain their childhood ideals. That is why they get so geeked out when any game news what so ever is posted.
I am still a child (legally at least) so I don't need that any more. But there are many for whom it does matter. That is why it is news here.
"I honestly don't believe that our country today is what the founding lawyers had in mind."
Yes, you are right, the founding fathers designed a system that did *not* trust the common people. They put almost all of the true power (treaties, judgment of Impeachment, etc.) in the senate. Which was designed not to be elected by the people. But by the intelligentsia, the aristocrats, the men who knew what they were doing.
What has changed fundamentally is that we are living in a true democracy, (or at least very close to it). It is governed by polls (the people's vote), and by those who want to buy or influence the people's opinion.
The problems you point out are caused by those who are behaving as capitalism shows them they should, for their own interests. You can't fault them for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Brilliant, however one small nitpick:
"[The Holy Spirit] S/He's"
God the Father is specificly refered to as male, as is Jesus. However, in the origanal Hebrew and Greek both nouns are female. Just refer to her as such and stop the confusion, please?
Best regards,
Nate Custer
Any person who honestly holds that in exactly 144 hours the world was created deserves to be a eunuch. "If your hand causes you to sin cut it off..." Yeah.
You have created a paper tiger and then destroyed it, wow. Axioms the basis for reason require faith. Please read Descartes about the validity of the senses before you continue to post in this thread.
Nate Custer
Please look up the dictionary defonition of axiom. Then grok Godel's imcompleateness therom, then join in the discusion as an educated person.
Nate Custer
"The difference between scientific faith and relgious faith is that science is willing to change its dogma if it finds a counter example, but most religions will deny the counter example if it disagrees with dogma. But even religions gradually change belief over time, witness the Catholic churces acceptance of evolution."
While the origanal rejection of Evolution claimed to be based on dogma, it was not. The Church, blately realized this and changed their stance bot their dogma. Please be clear in this diferance. The Church also disagreed with science on determinism, that was dogmatic, that was shown to be false.
Nate Custer
But record companies make a lot of cash from the CD, do they deserve cash to?
Nate Custer
From the article:
``This represents the first lawsuit against MP3.com's undertaken by independent publishing companies,'' McCartney's spokesman
If it does not involve him at all, why is his personal spokeman talking about?
Nate Custer
This is not the artist's label
The company of which Paul McCartney is the principle owner, MPL Communications Inc, is suing MP3.com. We frequently represent Microsoft as Bill Gates, why not do the same to Paul McCartney?
A statement even came from his personal publisist about the suit.
Nate Custer
Not to nip pick a lot more, I was refering to the specific shape of the IMac, the very design it claimed as a trademark.
Nate Custer
Disclaimer these are the writing of a thinking Christian. In this discussion I stipulate the majority Christian dogma as true. I am willing to debate many of them and enjoy a good and interesting discussion in this point. However, that is not the focus of this post. If that is what you wish to discuss, my email address is NateCuster@Nospam.Hotmail.com. Now to begin my rant.
... etc."
The question of what parts of the bible are metaphorical is a good one! I would answer with St. Augustine's line:
"Take the literal parts literally, and the metaphorical parts metaphorically."
This implies too important points:
1) There are parts of the bible that are literal.
2) There are parts of the bible that are metaphorical.
If anyone disagrees with the second statement, ask them this: Are they an eunuch? To quote "If you hand causes you to sin cut it off
The bible is a historical document. That is not often debated. But it is a document, that means that the normal rules for literary analysis still apply. For example some parts of the bible are poetry, they deserve to be read as such, not literal fact.
To answer the question you posed at the end:
"Can I have my cake and eat it to?"
Yes! One may note that while the timing is a bit off, the general order of the creation story matches up almost exactly with the big bang. To quote John for a second "In the beginning was the word" A word is a thought, mental neurons firing electrical impulses. Energy. To paraphrase the Big Bang, during the first moment an infinite amount of energy was confined in an single point. Creation ex nilho if you ask me.
Lastly I would ask if one inconsistency void forty plus chapters?
Nate Custer
P.S. While I have not read Freeman Dyson's book, his mentor, Feynman's book is quite good.
DNA shows the existance of a soul?
Please explain!
Nate Custer
I may be wrong, but I belive that Compaq came out with a machine that had the moniter encapsulated just like the IMac, the most noteable change the Imac made to this design was to include a semitransparent cover. And remove the floppy drive. I forget the name, but it came out in 95 (?). Anybody got more info?
Nate Custer
I sure hope so. If they do require drivers, they can be rewritten to map the buttons to slashdot, linux.com, etc. Imagine some virus that replaces the driver with the one mentioned above. Or even with a simple device driver used in Linux for email, web browsing, etc.
I understand that the idea of AOL is repugnent to allmost any self-respecting geek. But this has been done before, why the special reaction now? AOL is doning exactly what they hace been doing for years, making the internet(or at least a dialup network) stupid.
Nate Custer
While the comment was in jest it betrays a problem that bothers me. As a high school student, who earns his spending money by providing tech support for a broad network of friends and family I found his comments to be very offensive.
More than that, it is simply bad business practice. I have earned more repeat business by telling a person: "I can't fix this, but here is someone who can" than any other way. I recently got a job writing client/server crypto breaking software for a professor simply because of it. When he proposed the project I told him I did not know enough to do it. He responded that he trusted me to give him something that worked exactly as he wanted it to, and that was worth paying me to learn how to do it. If had not been honest with the fellow he would have gone elsewhere. I get more jobs saying, I don't know how to do that but I could in X weeks than by looking directly at my resume.
Nate Custer
The other way to do this is to do your crap jobs as early as possible. I have spent the past three years working crap computer jobs (mainly during the summer). With each job they get less stupid and more fun. Except for a brief stint in Tech Support, which was horrible.
My first project was organizing the software cabinet, and checking out the companies licensing position. By the end of the summer, I was macro programming for clients. By the end of the next year, I was writing database apps, and maintaining a database server.
I lucked out, I convinced my boss to hire me on expected skills. He thought I would make a good programmer. He also did everything he could to make me one. Congrats on getting a good job without a CS degree. I found it very hard to be taken seriously without a High School diploma, much less a CS degree.
The only thing I can add is network, network, network. Making contacts can get you more important and interesting jobs. And search a lot at small start-ups. They will be more likely to give you a chance.
Best regards,
Nate Custer
The point I was making was not that Germans = Nazis, but that the idea that most Germans were not Nazis, that Nazis were an extremely small subset of Germany is patently false.
Your accusation of Racism is particularly upsetting however. I am the grandson of two families that emigrated from Germany after WWI, including a Jewish family on one side. Members of my family died in the holocaust. While you discuss abstract terms, I present facts and eyewitness accounts. My grandfather left Germany, just after Hitler was elected (He is Jewish). He has told me of the systemic racism that was prevalent in Germany at the time.
However, I also speak fluent German, have visited there for two summers, and have some great friends in Germany. Now I am not implying that all Germans were neither Nazis nor racists. However, to be fair, the Nazi party was the largest party in Germany, the majority of the population was at least complacent. They liked the fact that Hitler restored dignity to Germany, made them feel important, and reversed the economic chaos, slowed inflation and spawned many great scientists (The wonderful line about why the US won the space race "Our Germans were better than your Germans." comes to mind.)
"However, overstating the consequences to such a degree does nothing but radicalize your position, making for a weaker argument. Which was my original point."
You make a good point; the point made above was a slightly different one, which you seem to have missed. Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is done to show how horrible a argument can be. The argument is not "If we allow this, somehow we will cause another holocaust." But, "This is the same mentality that was present here and that mentality ought to change." Again it is not radicalizing the position but shocking the reader and forcing the reader to question the basis of his or her argument. Which is implied to be false. This method does not relate to the argument itself but the presentation of it. Your criticism cannot be of the argument itself that has not been changed in the slightest but, instead with the presentation of that argument.
When I wrote this I had been up for about 33 hours strait, and did not communicate the argument with the lucidity I desired. For that you have my apologies.
Nate Custer
P.S. One other interesting stat. There were 11 million people killed in the holocaust, 5 million were Jews, 4 million were Catholics, 2 million were Gays, Gypsies, and the Handicapped. They don't teach that anymore.
"On August 19, 1934, 95% of the Germans who were registered to vote went to the polls and 90% (38 million) of adult German citizens voted to give Adolf Hitler complete and total authority to rule Germany as he saw fit. Only 4.25 million Germans voted against this transfer of power to a totalitarian regime."
William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
They voted for Mien Kampf they knew what they were votng for.
The point that was being made was greater than patent infignment. It was dealing with complantancy towards imoral acts. Assuming this is an immoral act, the diferance is one of scale alone.
"Let's use art as an example. You paint a picture. Do you own the painting? Yes; you bought the materials and made the painting. You build a sculpture; do you own it? Yes; again you bought the materials and used them. But let's say you record a CD. Certainly you own the CD. But how do you own sound, even a specific configuration thereof? Or let's say you write a book; you certainly own the book, but how do you own words? You write a piece of software; how do you own thought? You build something; you own what you have built, but how do you own the concept of whatever it is you have made? "
Now, you are getting into aesthetics. Arts values is not in the canvas, the oil, or in the case of music the sounds. It is the emotional communication that occours when you view art. The first two notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and Hail to the Victors (The theme song for University of Michigan) are exactly the same. However no has ever confused on with the other. By the same token the subject, method, style of The Thinker and David are the same however the aesthitic event that happens when both are view is not the same.
I sell the profits of my experience on a daily basis. I am compensated because my experience can be applied to add value. Music can do the same thing. A copy of a painting can create the same aesthetic experience as the original. If I was to download your resume, and give it to a company with my name on it, would that be fraudulent? I would be gaining profit from experience that is not my own.
If you copy a CD, then sell it to someone else, you are not repaying the artist for both the experience and the skill he showed in communicating that emotion.
Nate Custer
"The counterargument, though, is that copyright and IP rights in general are not natural rights in the same way that other property rights are."
Let me offer a counter example. If I am a farmer, is the produce my farm my property? Of course. They precedent is this: The products of my property are my property. This was used to justify the idea that slaves' children were also slaves, and owned by the parents owner. Note that the argument that slaves kids were not slaves, was never made. The understood that as long as a slave was a person's property, the offspring were also property.
By the same token, the products of your mind are considered your property. No one can argue your mind is not your property, thus the argument that IP is not property fails.
Locke spent a long time crystallizing English Common Laws' precedent, into a consistent system of property law. Which is exactly what is system is based on.
Hobbes on the other hand, argued that property was created by society and thus owned by it. If you want to use a respected philosopher in your argument he is much better suited.
Best regards,
Nate Custer
Sir, you certainly need to do some reading on political science. I would suggest you start with Hobbes, then Locke, then once you have the intellectual basis for both the British parliamentary system and the US constitution.
The rights a government must protect are those natural rights, Life and Property. Neither of those are being imposed upon by the legislation. All other rights are given up. For example, you give the government the right to prosecute murder. If you best friend is murdered, you cannot under the law kill in vengeance. You have given up the right to vengeance. You give up the right to justice; you trust the government to accomplish that. Now I am not saying that the government always gives justice.
Government's sole job is to protect life and property, any thing more than that is inviting the abuse, that many if the people here are afraid will happen.
"Since the government is the most dangerous aggressor, it must be constrained the most severely."
You don't constrain the government, when it is abusive you have three choices:
1) Revolt. While this seems extreme, if you don't take control of your own destiny, only you are to blame.
2) Leave. The law does not apply to you if you are no longer a citizen.
3) Accept it. If you don't change the government, or change your citizenship, you have to accept the law as is.
Best regards,
Nate Custer
Would you please explain the problem that this causes. Are you planning to do anything that you really don't want the government knowing about?
Do you trust the Prime Minister or not? Mr. Blair can send troops to war, yes? If he you trust him with life, you can't trust him with your privacy?
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection. This is what is happening. If you don't like it, leave the country.
Do you want protection or not?
Nate Custer
Would you please explain the problem that this causes. Are you planning to do anything that you really don't want the government knowing about?
When you enter a society you give up your rights, to gain protection. This is what is happening. If you don't like it, leave the country.
Now, the idea of forcing you to give them your key, with a two year jail term if you don't give them it, even if you just lost it is a bit excessive. However, if the government knows you have kiddie porn on your computer, but as they are walking in you encrypt it, should they be able to force you to give them the key? If they can't then you will go free and a child molester is on the streets. Is that safety?
Nate Custer
In the same token an, tell comm company is like a post office, they just deliver phone usage. Now if it you find it ok for a phone to be tapped, why not let your mail be read too? What is the diferance?
"Absolutely none of the first or second year students in the CS program at my school, modulo me, even know who Alan Turing is."
But would they pass a Turing test? If they don't then ignore them, they are not worth your time.
Nate Custer
I am relatively new to slashdot, and I like Linux as much as your next geek but; the answer to this is simple. The people were drawn to computers because of games. Even Bill Gates stared out that way. These people want to find that same desire in their new vice Linux. That way they can regain their childhood ideals. That is why they get so geeked out when any game news what so ever is posted.
I am still a child (legally at least) so I don't need that any more. But there are many for whom it does matter. That is why it is news here.
Best regards,
Nate Custer
"I honestly don't believe that our country today is what the founding lawyers had in mind."
Yes, you are right, the founding fathers designed a system that did *not* trust the common people. They put almost all of the true power (treaties, judgment of Impeachment, etc.) in the senate. Which was designed not to be elected by the people. But by the intelligentsia, the aristocrats, the men who knew what they were doing.
What has changed fundamentally is that we are living in a true democracy, (or at least very close to it). It is governed by polls (the people's vote), and by those who want to buy or influence the people's opinion.
The problems you point out are caused by those who are behaving as capitalism shows them they should, for their own interests. You can't fault them for that.
Nate Custer