Most likely, the "proper" (maybe the true?) name of "God" is unutterable. "Jehova", "Yahweh", "G-d", &c. are all non-blasphemous (and also utterable) pointers to the proper name.
The role of (organized) religion in society has little or nothing to do with the validity of faith-based belief systems.
"Since television is also an opiate of the masses, anyone who claims to enjoy a particular television program must be a fool and a dupe."
Sounds good to me, but you'll probably want to defend your Discovery/History Channel documentaries right about now. Hell, you'll probably want to defend the Simpsons, Futurama, and Monty Python, too.
Does it make you feel superior to know that you don't subscribe to a "mythology"? Do you have any empirical evidence that your sense of superiority is somehow truer or more justified than the Xtian sense of superiority?
Your User# is significantly more impressive than your wit. Please take a few minutes to experience the shame and humiliation enjoyed by those who realize they've opened their mouths but have nothing to say... thank you. Have a nice day!
Re:It seems to me...
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 3, Redundant
It's not that he's using Google, but that other people using Google don't find his site.
According to the article, his complaint is twofold: Google favors popular, established sites over young or unpopular sites. Also, he fears the cookie.
I am Slashdot's complete lack of interest in his problems.
You should be warned that using the strings "Stephen Wolfram" and "A New Kind Of Science" in the same sentence might make you look like a clueless idiot.
These guys can tell you more about the anti-Wolfram position.
You're forgetting that this is about what the owners of the pipe (broadband, in this case) want to do with their property. It sounds like the owners are leaning towards using their pipe to support a bizarre cable-style "programming" business model. In effect, the broadband internet is only big enough for whomever the owners want to do business with. Anybody who doesn't want to do their particular brand of "business" won't get to play at all.
There's nothing wrong with porn, or sex for that matter, that your hypothetical middle schooler needs to be shielded from.
Excellent! Tell me where your hypothetical middle schooler is, because I've got some scat donkey porn featuring unwilling 13-year old girls that I'd like to expose him to!
Just out of curiosity, what do you think middle-schoolers should be shielded from, and why?
What's the purpose of being free of the cycle of life and death if you're still bound to your mortal remains? And if you are still bound to your mortal remains, how come you're not experiencing life from the fossilized remains of a 30,000 year old proto-lemur corpse or something?
Reminds me of a Larry Niven short story. It's set in mission control room (KSC, if I remember right), where a bunch of technicians, administrators, and VIPs are watching the telemetry from their latest unmanned probe.
The first bit of weirdness is that the probe is in orbit around a planet in another star system, transmitting its readings from there to earth.
The second bit of weirdness is that half the people in mission control are aliens, from the world the probe has reached.
The third bit of weirdness is the aliens have donated their advanced FTL travel technology to the project, making a rapid travel time and realtime communication with the probe possible.
The kicker is that the aliens are amazed by the humans' success with robotic and teleoperation technology--to throw an unmanned device across lightyears of space into orbit around a distant body with pinpoint precision, and have all its instruments work and return accurate readings upon arrival, is far beyond the aliens' own capabilities.
The mission is a demonstration of human precision engineering and automation technology, prior to an exchange of tech: human robotics for alien FTL. Both parties believe they are getting the better end of the deal.
Certainly universities should offer choice, and most, if not all, do (even MIT allows you to major in Humanities!), but don't force students to take course that have absolutely no relevance to a person's chosen profession.
Don't forget that your college degree is a claim made by your college that you have been educated to a particular standard. When you list that degree on your resume, your employer assumes certain things, based on their knowledge of that educational standard. Choose as many courses as you can, by all means, but keep in mind that a large part of what your tuition is paying for is an official document that guarantees your education meets the standards understood by your employer.
sure, CIV was hard... but did it compare to the bac? no.
No? Damn. I figured that beating the Zulus to Alpha Centauri would be worth a Bachelor's degree for sure. Guess there are some things the Civilopedia can't teach you after all.
He's not making fun of you because of your sense of humor. He's making fun of you because your understanding of women does not extend beyond that stale old joke, and because you're not aware of this (or any other) limit to your knowledge. HTH.
Okay, let's talk about you for a moment: you seem to believe that "spawning" is a good thing. Care to give some reasons in support of your opinion?
After all (if I may talk about myself for just a few pixels more), I did submit a few vaguely coherent arguments in support of my own views. Or does the "consideration for others" that you're so proud of teaching your children not extend to your own self?
Maybe you should spell it out for me, since I don't see what your point is at all. As far as I can tell, you seem to be saying that a) self-centeredness is bad, and that b) having children and/or tolerating other people's children is a valuable improvement over this self-centeredness. Neither clause seems obviously correct to me.
Why should I be? There's no benefit I gain from existing that would even be necessary if I didn't exist. Given the huge cost involved, I certainly hope my parents are glad they decided to spawn! Me? I'm simply trying to make the best of a situation I didn't ask for, had little or no control over during the formative period (say, inception-to-adulthood), and would never have missed if I'd never been born (since there would be no "me" to miss things). So while I do enjoy my life more than not, I can't find any logical reason to be grateful for my own instantiation.
I'm on call 24x7, and yet I go to movie theatres all the time. I simply leave my phone on vibrate and excuse myself if I see the call is work-related (caller ID).
"On call" doesn't automatically mean "interrupts performances with loud ring tones and in-theater phone conversations".
This guy has a lot to say about writing software, managing developers, and running a small business. While I haven't seen his results firsthand, I'd be surprised if you found a way to better them.
RTFA: Graham clearly believes that highly efficient filters at the inbox level will have the long-term effect of making spam unprofitable for most spammers.
Sure, in the short term you don't reduce your bandwidth costs, but imagine if a significant percentage of the population were using trained Bayesian probability filters! So little spam would get through that nobody would bother sending it anymore.
Your criteria for judging these alternatives ("convincing", "beautiful", and "thought-provoking") are all subjective. This makes your argument extremely strong.
Oh, wait... no it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you've lost me. Are you saying that you believe in Jesus, and you just disagree with the Xtian fundamentalist teachings?
Most likely, the "proper" (maybe the true?) name of "God" is unutterable. "Jehova", "Yahweh", "G-d", &c. are all non-blasphemous (and also utterable) pointers to the proper name.
Assuming there is such an entity, of course.
The role of (organized) religion in society has little or nothing to do with the validity of faith-based belief systems.
"Since television is also an opiate of the masses, anyone who claims to enjoy a particular television program must be a fool and a dupe."
Sounds good to me, but you'll probably want to defend your Discovery/History Channel documentaries right about now. Hell, you'll probably want to defend the Simpsons, Futurama, and Monty Python, too.
Does it make you feel superior to know that you don't subscribe to a "mythology"? Do you have any empirical evidence that your sense of superiority is somehow truer or more justified than the Xtian sense of superiority?
Fair enough. I apologize, and withdraw my jump. I was amazed by the extreme nature of the offense, and in a moment of weakness I acted foolishly.
Me? I'm just waiting for a cure for fucking apostrophe misuse.
Your User# is significantly more impressive than your wit. Please take a few minutes to experience the shame and humiliation enjoyed by those who realize they've opened their mouths but have nothing to say... thank you. Have a nice day!
It's not that he's using Google, but that other people using Google don't find his site.
According to the article, his complaint is twofold: Google favors popular, established sites over young or unpopular sites. Also, he fears the cookie.
I am Slashdot's complete lack of interest in his problems.
These guys can tell you more about the anti-Wolfram position.
You're forgetting that this is about what the owners of the pipe (broadband, in this case) want to do with their property. It sounds like the owners are leaning towards using their pipe to support a bizarre cable-style "programming" business model. In effect, the broadband internet is only big enough for whomever the owners want to do business with. Anybody who doesn't want to do their particular brand of "business" won't get to play at all.
Excellent! Tell me where your hypothetical middle schooler is, because I've got some scat donkey porn featuring unwilling 13-year old girls that I'd like to expose him to!
Just out of curiosity, what do you think middle-schoolers should be shielded from, and why?
What's the purpose of being free of the cycle of life and death if you're still bound to your mortal remains? And if you are still bound to your mortal remains, how come you're not experiencing life from the fossilized remains of a 30,000 year old proto-lemur corpse or something?
Reminds me of a Larry Niven short story. It's set in mission control room (KSC, if I remember right), where a bunch of technicians, administrators, and VIPs are watching the telemetry from their latest unmanned probe. The first bit of weirdness is that the probe is in orbit around a planet in another star system, transmitting its readings from there to earth. The second bit of weirdness is that half the people in mission control are aliens, from the world the probe has reached. The third bit of weirdness is the aliens have donated their advanced FTL travel technology to the project, making a rapid travel time and realtime communication with the probe possible. The kicker is that the aliens are amazed by the humans' success with robotic and teleoperation technology--to throw an unmanned device across lightyears of space into orbit around a distant body with pinpoint precision, and have all its instruments work and return accurate readings upon arrival, is far beyond the aliens' own capabilities. The mission is a demonstration of human precision engineering and automation technology, prior to an exchange of tech: human robotics for alien FTL. Both parties believe they are getting the better end of the deal.
Don't forget that your college degree is a claim made by your college that you have been educated to a particular standard. When you list that degree on your resume, your employer assumes certain things, based on their knowledge of that educational standard. Choose as many courses as you can, by all means, but keep in mind that a large part of what your tuition is paying for is an official document that guarantees your education meets the standards understood by your employer.
No? Damn. I figured that beating the Zulus to Alpha Centauri would be worth a Bachelor's degree for sure. Guess there are some things the Civilopedia can't teach you after all.
He's not making fun of you because of your sense of humor. He's making fun of you because your understanding of women does not extend beyond that stale old joke, and because you're not aware of this (or any other) limit to your knowledge. HTH.
And then what? The original scientists will sue him for violating the DMCA?
No, we're definitely off topic.
After all (if I may talk about myself for just a few pixels more), I did submit a few vaguely coherent arguments in support of my own views. Or does the "consideration for others" that you're so proud of teaching your children not extend to your own self?
[blonde]
tee-hee
[/blonde]
Maybe you should spell it out for me, since I don't see what your point is at all. As far as I can tell, you seem to be saying that a) self-centeredness is bad, and that b) having children and/or tolerating other people's children is a valuable improvement over this self-centeredness. Neither clause seems obviously correct to me.
Why should I be? There's no benefit I gain from existing that would even be necessary if I didn't exist. Given the huge cost involved, I certainly hope my parents are glad they decided to spawn! Me? I'm simply trying to make the best of a situation I didn't ask for, had little or no control over during the formative period (say, inception-to-adulthood), and would never have missed if I'd never been born (since there would be no "me" to miss things). So while I do enjoy my life more than not, I can't find any logical reason to be grateful for my own instantiation.
I'm on call 24x7, and yet I go to movie theatres all the time. I simply leave my phone on vibrate and excuse myself if I see the call is work-related (caller ID).
"On call" doesn't automatically mean "interrupts performances with loud ring tones and in-theater phone conversations".
This guy has a lot to say about writing software, managing developers, and running a small business. While I haven't seen his results firsthand, I'd be surprised if you found a way to better them.
True, but if you implemented it at the institutional level (corp mailservers, ISPs, &c.), then t3H stUpiDz won't even know what they're missing!
RTFA: Graham clearly believes that highly efficient filters at the inbox level will have the long-term effect of making spam unprofitable for most spammers.
Sure, in the short term you don't reduce your bandwidth costs, but imagine if a significant percentage of the population were using trained Bayesian probability filters! So little spam would get through that nobody would bother sending it anymore.
Your criteria for judging these alternatives ("convincing", "beautiful", and "thought-provoking") are all subjective. This makes your argument extremely strong. Oh, wait... no it doesn't.