I guess everyone's first thought will be that they can use this with prosthetics so someone with a fake limb can actually feel. But, I don't see mention of how this could possibly connect to human nerves. Is that kind of thing even possible?
This is something which is already done with some current prosthetic limbs. Nerve endings from severed limbs are surgically transplanted to convenient mounting locations. Simple pressure-sensitive structures on the surface of the prosthetic fingers then transmit a signal to the contacting device on the other end of the artificial limb, which in turn, transfer that data to the transplanted nerve ending, by applying equivalent pressure. The prosthetic device is stimulating the same nerves that the original hand did, so the user experiences the sensation as though he still had it, with no need to re-learn signal patterns. Some cutting-edge prosthetics can also pick up nerve signals, and move at the command of the mind, rather than requiring the user to do something more awkward, such as wearing a pressure-sensitive insole in his shoe, and adjusting his balance, every time he wants to lift a spoon to his mouth.
Obviously not all the families are gone, and Cuban cigars are still rather good. The Cuban cigar expertise is no longer unique to Cuba, however.
As for the quality of the tobacco, the change is the result of selective pollination. Older Cuban cigars tended to focus on darker leaves with bolder flavors, whereas the more recent trends have been on milder leaves. So you breed plants that produce more of the lighter-colored leaves near the top, than the darker-colored leaves near the bottom. The end result is that the tobacco doesn't have the same qualities as it did when Americans last enjoyed them freely.
Cubans used to grow very strong tobacco, and a great deal of their cigar rollers regarded themselves as artisans-- since they took a great deal of pride in their work, they produced very well-rolled cigars. Combine that with good tobacco with an unusually high nicotine content, and you get a cigar which is widely regarded as being among the best.
It is my understanding, however, that Cuban tobacco is not as strong, now. Also, a great deal of Cuba's foremost cigar-producing families fled Cuba, when Castro took over.
Actually, the need to surround yourself with others who believe as you do isn't limited to religion. If the only people you had contact with day in and day out were of the mind that the Earth is flat, then given a few years, you'd start to wonder about that, too. It has less to do with evidence, and more to do with social pressures. It takes an exceptionally stubborn mind to hold a uniquely held conviction for a long length of time.
As for the confusion issue, I remind you that people are, on the whole, quite dense, and prone to arbitrarily adapting their doctrine to fulfill their prior beliefs or current needs. The scriptures, on the other hand, have been observed to be virtually unaltered in the last two thousand years, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, found between 1947 and 1956. The Dead Sea Scrolls can't verify the New Testament, but regardless of the New Testament's status, I find that it contains much valid wisdom, anyway. So, as I've said-- evaluate it for yourself.
The New Hampshire Union Leader says Dubois's suit contends he suffered permanent brain damage.
I, for one, would like some evidence that the brain damage didn't occur long before the incident.
In all seriousness, why in the hell wasn't this guy in the special ed class? It's not clear to me that a person can make it to high school age, and still regard attaching electrical leads to one's own nipples as a good idea (something to be done, even), without legitimately being retarded. I'd like to stress that this occurred in April, toward the end of the school year, in a shop class, where he'd presumably been working with the equipment for several months. DERP.
I also hope to see the results of this case. I really can't see that a shop teacher can be expected to anticipate that his idiot students are going to play Paddle Machine with the school equipment, and especially when his students are, under law, nearly old enough to take care of themselves.
There's really no scientific definition for the soul. It's not clear whether it's unique to humans, or if everything has such a thing. It seems to be associated with an individual's consciousness and identity. Self-awareness is thought to be an emergent property of complex systems (such as the human brain), but it's difficult to wrap your mind around the idea of something which is essentially a computer, being able to develop its own elaborate software out of its own natural structure, and thus resulting in self-identity. Hence, the concept of a soul.
Something I'd like to point out about Christianity, is that it's a popular fallacy that the soul goes to Heaven or Hell after the body dies. I would guess that this sort of tradition was picked up from a pagan religion at some point by the Catholic church (the Catholics had a great PR department-- to ease the transition of pagans into their religion, they'd incorporate the pagans' traditions). In fact, the only description resembling the modern concept of "Heaven" in the whole of the Bible is an anecdote told by Jesus in the New Testament, where the place is referred to as "Abraham's Bosom" (which I suppose is an ambiguous name, as it could literally refer to Abraham, or perhaps a bit more metaphorically to the bosom of God, the Father). The only references to "Hell" are descriptions of places like Gehenna, which was the trash dump outside of Jerusalem, which was forever on fire. The actual described procedure of after-death existence, starts with a place called, "Sheol", which is described as being "Underground", and not in a neat, Elysium/Tartarus/Hades sort of a way. A person being in Sheol is said to be inactive and unaware of the passage of time, or, well, anything, really. There is no thought, no sensory perception, and not even enough awareness for there to be darkness, which, as it turns out, sounds a hell of a lot like being dead. The whole "Heaven or Hell" thing doesn't really even become involved until Judgment Day, when the dead are made to rise (no telling how this works, exactly), and everyone who has ever lived is individually held accountable for what they did in their lives. Those who are found worthy are given new bodies, and brought to Zion to live with God, and those who are found unworthy, the wicked, if you will, are cast into the "burning lake of fire", which is compared to Jerusalem's "Gehenna". I personally take the latter to mean that the wicked are merely disposed of, and it's not clear to me that there's an actual "eternity of suffering" as was so popularized by Dante's Inferno.
The biggest purpose that the New Testament pushes for the establishment of a church, is to create a social grouping not just for people to worship together (though from a psychological standpoint, it's important to surround yourself with others who believe as you do, if only to keep yourself from thinking that you're crazy for your faith), but also to create a collective community that will have the resources to assist in improving the circumstances for the larger community surrounding them. An individual generally can't do much more than give a few dollars to a homeless man, or mend a fence here and there. A larger group, however, can organize food drives, operate a soup kitchen, and see to it that all the yards of the elderly are well taken care of. A good, properly prioritized congregation can have a tremendous positive effect on its surroundings. If you ever have a hankering to engage in charity work, a church is always a good place to start.
I've chosen a religious path which I can reconcile with the demonstrable scientific facts which I am aware of. If you can demonstrate the science, then I am willing to accept it, and if it conflicts with I religious view that I possess, then I will have to re-evaluate that view. I will not argue against that which is proven.
People try to use their religion to explain everything in their world, and that's when it conflicts with science. I believe that my religion explains very little about my world, and that there are only a very few key points that it is important for me take from it. Anything beyond those few key points are unimportant to my faith, and if I really feel I need an explanation for those things, then I am free to seek those answers through science and logic.
You believe that all religions are based purely in fiction. I submit that many religions have some basis in truth, and that some may be closer to the truth than others. There is a great deal more that we do not know about the universe, than that which we do know. In both religion and science, people need to acknowledge that not everything is explained. There are very large regions of doubt and uncertainty in both realms of knowledge.
I believe that people go much too far when they seek science from their religions. I believe that people act foolishly, when they cling to religious beliefs that conflict directly with facts that can be demonstrated. I believe that people act foolishly when they hold strongly to religious principles which have no fundamental grounding in the scriptures which form the base of their religion.
In the end, only you can determine for yourself, what set of beliefs is right for you, but I would urge you to make your decisions based on the scriptures of your candidate religions, and not the stereotypes associated with them, nor the drivel of some idiot evangelist.
One of the large problems with religion, is that people use it to justify their prejudices. For the sake of example, Christian scriptures, and the New Testament in particular, promotes friendship and kindness to everyone, regardless of who they are and what they do. Somehow, people are able to build doctrine around these scriptures, which justify the bombing of abortion clinics, or the hatred of Jews and those of African decent. It makes absolutely no sense, but people feel vindicated about this sort of belligerent ideology, because someone has shown them which individual passages to take out of context and focus on. It really seems to me, as though people start with bad ideas and build their religion around that, rather than building their ideas around their religion.
By definition, religion can have no solid proof. It wouldn't be faith, if we could prove the whole thing scientifically. Personally, when I encounter a discrepancy between my faith and my science, then I can only assume that my understanding of one or the other is incorrect. Science has a history of being wrong, and faith has a history of being misinterpreted. I am comfortable with worshiping God, without really understanding precisely what He is.
At the end of the day, one has to acknowledge that something, be it anywhere from inanimate to super-intelligent, at some point in history, had the capacity to cause the universe to exist. From there, you can either choose to make no opinion of what that thing is/was, or pick a religious view that you can reconcile with demonstrable science.
That's certainly a worthwhile pattern to look into. If the pattern remains consistent between wealthy drinkers VS wealthy abstainers, and impoverished drinkers VS impoverished abstainers, then that indicates that income is not a contribution to the trend. If it is instead found that only the wealthy enjoy these benefits of alcohol, then we can conclude that the benefits have little to do with the alcohol, and probably have substantially more to do with the ability to afford better health care services. If the study data did not include wealth measures, then we can make no assumptions of the impact (or lack thereof) that finance has on longevity in relation to alcohol consumption. Another study would have to be conducted.
The Karate Kid also promoted responsible behavior over being a jerk. Furthermore, that movie came out in a time when the adults were substantially less sensitive, and law suits not nearly so much of a concern. The same behavior now, might be handled quite a bit more harshly.
I believe I pointed out that the difference is priorities. When you have disassociated collections of people with various priorities, those whose priorities are compatible will eventually group together. This may result in some arbitrary competitiveness between two similar groups, and this is also an aspect of human nature, and the precise thing which makes professional sports so popular. This is the entire point of the study. That people will group together according to priorities.
I wouldn't be so quick to take that attitude. The fact is that we're already teaching as fact, things which have not been proven, including the overall theory of evolution. It's a good theory, and many parts of it may be right on. On the whole, however, there is a great deal of work that still must be done to refine it, until we can demonstrate all parts of it by experiment or evidence. Until such a time, it is still only a theory, and it needs to be taught as such-- scientific extrapolation has been dead wrong before, and it can still be dead wrong, now. To lower one's standards just to accept a popular idea only makes one a worse scientist. The scientifically minded must remain skeptical, if science is not become another religion.
On the other side of the coin, it's fine if they want to teach creationism, but at the same time, they need to settle on a form of creationism that is strictly consistent with scripture, and encompasses the best interpretations of that scripture (there is, for example, no actual information in the Bible which points to the Earth being only 6,000 years old-- it's a postulation made on poor assumptions, from a book written in poetic prose). The trouble is that I really don't think that a science class can adequately cover the subject, without completely crowding out the science, because to produce a clear understanding of the scripture also requires a long discussion of the history of the culture that produced it, as well as the circumstances under which it was written. It would probably suffice in a science class to point out that, strictly speaking, the scriptures don't entirely contradict the theory of evolution. The Christian creation story describes the formation of the Earth in extremely vague terms, each stage requiring "the length of time it takes to accomplish a task", translated as a "day". It then goes on to say that mankind and all the animals of the Earth were made from dirt, which in a sense, evolution also posits. It might also be pointed out that the introduction of divine guidance makes evolution a great deal more practical by eliminating the aspects of baffling chance which produce complex sensory organs, such as the eye, from a previous dearth thereto.
The fact of the matter is that in the strictest sense, both sides are probably wrong about how we came to be what we are, and we need to remember this. There may be elements of truth on both sides, but we are unable to test this. Just exactly what is God? We don't really know. Based on what is described of Him, we understand Him to be a being of some sort, with the ability to cause the universe to occur from nothingness, which in itself, is a rather vague description, offering only a simple requirement for an entity to be identified as God. Just the same, evolution has some intricacies that haven't been worked out, and scientific theory is, by definition, quite fallible, hence, its distinction from fact.
Furthermore, there are a lot of people on both sides of this aisle that need to get their heads out of their asses, and stop the institutionalized instruction of bad understanding. Our children are not taught the difference between theory and fact, nor the difference between faith and fact. This world does, in fact, contain a great deal of ambiguity, and our children need to be taught how to accept that, and differentiate between what we do know, what we suspect, and what we are simply ignorant of.
Group A prefers the company of individuals with high standards for gameplay output, and take their game very seriously, possibly more so than their actual paying occupations; they are obsessive, not only regarding gear, but also in quality of strategy and tactics, right down to the sequence in which they deploy their special attacks. Being with each other, they can feel superior to others in the game. Group B, on the other hand, prefers a much more casual game experience, and though they are a bit rag-tag, they nevertheless help each other out here and there, but gravitate to each other mostly for the company. Group B understands that real people have real jobs, real families, and real life obligations. Group B just wants a group of friends that they can talk to while they grind, and maybe even do a little bit of RPing, and regard Group A as a bunch of fascist nut jobs.
In short, the difference between Group A and Group B is priorities. Both groups seek to enjoy the game, but neither group has the same concept of how the game should be enjoyed. One group is elitist, the other is very casual. There are likely several other groups between Group A and Group B, as well as groups that vary on completely different axises. A member of Group B would never be welcome in Group A, because he is not interested in maximizing the potential of his character. Meanwhile, a member of Group A would never be satisfied with the level of organization of group activities in Group B.
The only way I can conceive of to complete the game, is to get him to commit suicide; otherwise, your conversations with this virtual child can only continue indefinitely. I can only wonder if he has the naiveté necessary for this to be properly accomplished.
People are using their iPods in their cars. I'm sure that there are a growing number of people who are using portable 3G wireless access points in their cars to supply internet access for internet radio in their cars, as well (though I really can't justify that this number of people can possibly be significant, at this point in time, though this sort of thing may become more common, as the technology in question becomes more developed and affordable), not to mention XM radio.
The old outlets are still widely used, but that's not the point. The point is that they're quickly losing ground as music discovery tools. The internet is quickly taking over in that role, and the RIAA has completely failed to invest in this venue; they have attacked it instead, therefore, nailing the first nails in their coffin.
It's entirely possible that Phantasy Star Online will be included in the downloadable re-releases. Fans attending the launch party for Phantasy Star Zero this past November, were treated to a teleconference with Satoshi Sakai, where it was announced that Sega had something big in mind to celebrate PSO's 10th Anniversary, which is coming up at the end of this year. A downloadable re-release of the game could very well be their plan.
If that is the case, however, I really doubt that it will include online support, and I would expect it to be a port of the Xbox version of the game, which means no Episode IV. Then again, if they're polishing it up like they're talking about with Sonic Adventure and Crazy Taxi, then who knows? They could very well end up giving us a surprising amount of new content.
Nintendo 64's awesome-to-crap ratio was better. Mario, Banjo-Kazooie (twice), Zelda (twice), Goldeneye, Star Wars Racer, Fzero, Super Smash Bros, and on and on and on.
Star Wars Episode I Racer? Are you serious? The game prominently featured flying vehicles, that, by some wild, drug-induced stretch of the imagination, slide when they encounter an ice patch! Just how does a vehicle powered by thrust, rather than friction, lose control on ice? The whole thing seems an incredible example of a generic game engine given custom graphics to match a franchise, and then pushed out the door.
There are many people who feel offended by religion. I'm not sure what the largest problem is, but a proper atheist should be indifferent to a religious symbol standing out in the middle of a desert, rather than militantly demanding its removal. The same goes for the generic mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Hostility toward these things indicates that a person is, in some way, offended, or perhaps even threatened by the notion of God. A religious view makes the person uncomfortable, and there's nothing for it, but to lash out at it with anger.
I am aware of two schools of thought on the subject. On the one hand, a lot of people stumble when they try to work out why God would allow such suffering in the world. On the other hand, there are those who view religion as Douglas Adams did-- the theologists are prepared to accept nonsense in the place of logic, and as well, they will argue logic with nonsense. If you are a logically-minded person, then this sort of approach to the universe is simply unacceptable.
Personally, I tend to concern myself more with the things that I don't know, than the things that I do. I accept science as something that can be demonstrated, but sometimes misunderstood. Likewise, I accept religious matters as something that cannot be demonstrated, and is usually misunderstood. When the Bible claims that God created the world, I accept that, but I also observe that the Bible is rather vague on the details. I also observe that the Bible says that man was created from the dust of the Earth, and that the theory of Evolution also suggests more or less the same thing, if in more mechanical detail and with substantially less metaphor.
The problem held by those who think as Douglas Adams did, is that to them, religion and science must be mutually exclusive, and it is exacerbated by a long history of religious leaders seeking to create a complete view of the universe based on limited religious texts and notions. What must be understood, is that it is not the realm of religion to explain the universe-- only to explain how best to handle your soul (which is, in itself, poorly defined, but generally recognized as being very important). Just the same, it is the realm of science to explore what we don't know, and little by little, fill that unfathomable chasm. Inherently, neither can outright contradict the other, in much the same way that mathematics cannot inherently contradict an apple. At best, one can describe the other, but that's as far as it goes.
As for the problem held by the former group, those who have ethical complaints about God, well, those issues are addressed in Judeo-Christian traditions, by the book of Job, the fundamental point of which, is that God understands a great deal more about the horribly complex interactions of the population of the world and their environments, and without that level of understanding, we cannot possibly understand what is ultimately for the greater good, with perfect accuracy. The death of a righteous man may eventually lead to the repentance of an unrighteous man, or the general salvation of another person well down the line, who is unrelated. Just the same, the unexpected death of a dear loved one may result in the abrupt transformation of those who were near to him, causing them to ask questions of themselves that they otherwise would not have explored, or forcing them to rely on themselves in ways that they previously would not have; in either case, forcing them to improve. The results or benefits are generally not apparent to those involved, but in the end, it's difficult to tell what is ultimately good, and what is ultimately evil-- things are not so clean-cut. With regard to his soul, a righteous man has put his affairs in order, and he has nothing of consequence left to do for himself in this world (except perhaps, to teach others what he has learned), but an unrighteous man has yet still, a great deal of work to do before he can die in peace. If it requires the death of a righteous man, to inspire an unrighteous man to seek his salvation, then it is a bargain price well-paid.
Beyond that, if they are the same, then it may not be coincidence at all. One planet's life may have been seeded by the other, or both come from another common origin, whether deliberately by intelligent beings, or indeliberately by chance.
Speaking as a native Central Californian, I must say that I absolutely agree with you. Our state's economy is one of the worst in the union, despite the presence of Silicon Valley, and the bulk of our nation's entertainment industry. Our coastal region in particular, is full of incredibly creative people, but the majority of them have some very strange ideas about how the world works.
It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans, despite what certain professional liars may have told you.
Banks were required by the Community Reinvestment Act to relax their standards for lending to minorities. These were bad loans that federal law required banks to make. The law was originally put in place by Jimmy Carter, and has since been revised back and forth by both Bushes and President Clinton.
It's not the sole cause of our economy's poor state, but it's a critical factor that has brought us to where we are, now.
The age of consent in the United States varies from state to state. Age of consent in the United States ranges from 16 to 18, and in some states, under mitigating circumstances, can be as young as 14.
When I consider the opinions held by myself, my friends, and virtually every last one of my peers when I was in high school, I'm not convinced that teenagers, on the whole, are really qualified of making any decision that will have an impact on the rest of their lives. We do have to draw the line somewhere though, and I suppose that any age from 16 to 21 is as good as anything.
Many states also allow minors to possess and consume alcohol under various circumstances where a responsible adult family member is present. I think you'll find that laws of this sort typically stick within a fairly close tolerance throughout Western cultures.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess everyone's first thought will be that they can use this with prosthetics so someone with a fake limb can actually feel. But, I don't see mention of how this could possibly connect to human nerves. Is that kind of thing even possible?
This is something which is already done with some current prosthetic limbs. Nerve endings from severed limbs are surgically transplanted to convenient mounting locations. Simple pressure-sensitive structures on the surface of the prosthetic fingers then transmit a signal to the contacting device on the other end of the artificial limb, which in turn, transfer that data to the transplanted nerve ending, by applying equivalent pressure. The prosthetic device is stimulating the same nerves that the original hand did, so the user experiences the sensation as though he still had it, with no need to re-learn signal patterns. Some cutting-edge prosthetics can also pick up nerve signals, and move at the command of the mind, rather than requiring the user to do something more awkward, such as wearing a pressure-sensitive insole in his shoe, and adjusting his balance, every time he wants to lift a spoon to his mouth.
Obviously not all the families are gone, and Cuban cigars are still rather good. The Cuban cigar expertise is no longer unique to Cuba, however.
As for the quality of the tobacco, the change is the result of selective pollination. Older Cuban cigars tended to focus on darker leaves with bolder flavors, whereas the more recent trends have been on milder leaves. So you breed plants that produce more of the lighter-colored leaves near the top, than the darker-colored leaves near the bottom. The end result is that the tobacco doesn't have the same qualities as it did when Americans last enjoyed them freely.
Cubans used to grow very strong tobacco, and a great deal of their cigar rollers regarded themselves as artisans-- since they took a great deal of pride in their work, they produced very well-rolled cigars. Combine that with good tobacco with an unusually high nicotine content, and you get a cigar which is widely regarded as being among the best.
It is my understanding, however, that Cuban tobacco is not as strong, now. Also, a great deal of Cuba's foremost cigar-producing families fled Cuba, when Castro took over.
Actually, the need to surround yourself with others who believe as you do isn't limited to religion. If the only people you had contact with day in and day out were of the mind that the Earth is flat, then given a few years, you'd start to wonder about that, too. It has less to do with evidence, and more to do with social pressures. It takes an exceptionally stubborn mind to hold a uniquely held conviction for a long length of time.
As for the confusion issue, I remind you that people are, on the whole, quite dense, and prone to arbitrarily adapting their doctrine to fulfill their prior beliefs or current needs. The scriptures, on the other hand, have been observed to be virtually unaltered in the last two thousand years, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, found between 1947 and 1956. The Dead Sea Scrolls can't verify the New Testament, but regardless of the New Testament's status, I find that it contains much valid wisdom, anyway. So, as I've said-- evaluate it for yourself.
From the article:
The New Hampshire Union Leader says Dubois's suit contends he suffered permanent brain damage.
I, for one, would like some evidence that the brain damage didn't occur long before the incident.
In all seriousness, why in the hell wasn't this guy in the special ed class? It's not clear to me that a person can make it to high school age, and still regard attaching electrical leads to one's own nipples as a good idea (something to be done, even), without legitimately being retarded. I'd like to stress that this occurred in April, toward the end of the school year, in a shop class, where he'd presumably been working with the equipment for several months. DERP.
I also hope to see the results of this case. I really can't see that a shop teacher can be expected to anticipate that his idiot students are going to play Paddle Machine with the school equipment, and especially when his students are, under law, nearly old enough to take care of themselves.
There's really no scientific definition for the soul. It's not clear whether it's unique to humans, or if everything has such a thing. It seems to be associated with an individual's consciousness and identity. Self-awareness is thought to be an emergent property of complex systems (such as the human brain), but it's difficult to wrap your mind around the idea of something which is essentially a computer, being able to develop its own elaborate software out of its own natural structure, and thus resulting in self-identity. Hence, the concept of a soul.
Something I'd like to point out about Christianity, is that it's a popular fallacy that the soul goes to Heaven or Hell after the body dies. I would guess that this sort of tradition was picked up from a pagan religion at some point by the Catholic church (the Catholics had a great PR department-- to ease the transition of pagans into their religion, they'd incorporate the pagans' traditions). In fact, the only description resembling the modern concept of "Heaven" in the whole of the Bible is an anecdote told by Jesus in the New Testament, where the place is referred to as "Abraham's Bosom" (which I suppose is an ambiguous name, as it could literally refer to Abraham, or perhaps a bit more metaphorically to the bosom of God, the Father). The only references to "Hell" are descriptions of places like Gehenna, which was the trash dump outside of Jerusalem, which was forever on fire. The actual described procedure of after-death existence, starts with a place called, "Sheol", which is described as being "Underground", and not in a neat, Elysium/Tartarus/Hades sort of a way. A person being in Sheol is said to be inactive and unaware of the passage of time, or, well, anything, really. There is no thought, no sensory perception, and not even enough awareness for there to be darkness, which, as it turns out, sounds a hell of a lot like being dead. The whole "Heaven or Hell" thing doesn't really even become involved until Judgment Day, when the dead are made to rise (no telling how this works, exactly), and everyone who has ever lived is individually held accountable for what they did in their lives. Those who are found worthy are given new bodies, and brought to Zion to live with God, and those who are found unworthy, the wicked, if you will, are cast into the "burning lake of fire", which is compared to Jerusalem's "Gehenna". I personally take the latter to mean that the wicked are merely disposed of, and it's not clear to me that there's an actual "eternity of suffering" as was so popularized by Dante's Inferno.
The biggest purpose that the New Testament pushes for the establishment of a church, is to create a social grouping not just for people to worship together (though from a psychological standpoint, it's important to surround yourself with others who believe as you do, if only to keep yourself from thinking that you're crazy for your faith), but also to create a collective community that will have the resources to assist in improving the circumstances for the larger community surrounding them. An individual generally can't do much more than give a few dollars to a homeless man, or mend a fence here and there. A larger group, however, can organize food drives, operate a soup kitchen, and see to it that all the yards of the elderly are well taken care of. A good, properly prioritized congregation can have a tremendous positive effect on its surroundings. If you ever have a hankering to engage in charity work, a church is always a good place to start.
I've chosen a religious path which I can reconcile with the demonstrable scientific facts which I am aware of. If you can demonstrate the science, then I am willing to accept it, and if it conflicts with I religious view that I possess, then I will have to re-evaluate that view. I will not argue against that which is proven.
People try to use their religion to explain everything in their world, and that's when it conflicts with science. I believe that my religion explains very little about my world, and that there are only a very few key points that it is important for me take from it. Anything beyond those few key points are unimportant to my faith, and if I really feel I need an explanation for those things, then I am free to seek those answers through science and logic.
You believe that all religions are based purely in fiction. I submit that many religions have some basis in truth, and that some may be closer to the truth than others. There is a great deal more that we do not know about the universe, than that which we do know. In both religion and science, people need to acknowledge that not everything is explained. There are very large regions of doubt and uncertainty in both realms of knowledge.
I believe that people go much too far when they seek science from their religions. I believe that people act foolishly, when they cling to religious beliefs that conflict directly with facts that can be demonstrated. I believe that people act foolishly when they hold strongly to religious principles which have no fundamental grounding in the scriptures which form the base of their religion.
In the end, only you can determine for yourself, what set of beliefs is right for you, but I would urge you to make your decisions based on the scriptures of your candidate religions, and not the stereotypes associated with them, nor the drivel of some idiot evangelist.
One of the large problems with religion, is that people use it to justify their prejudices. For the sake of example, Christian scriptures, and the New Testament in particular, promotes friendship and kindness to everyone, regardless of who they are and what they do. Somehow, people are able to build doctrine around these scriptures, which justify the bombing of abortion clinics, or the hatred of Jews and those of African decent. It makes absolutely no sense, but people feel vindicated about this sort of belligerent ideology, because someone has shown them which individual passages to take out of context and focus on. It really seems to me, as though people start with bad ideas and build their religion around that, rather than building their ideas around their religion.
By definition, religion can have no solid proof. It wouldn't be faith, if we could prove the whole thing scientifically. Personally, when I encounter a discrepancy between my faith and my science, then I can only assume that my understanding of one or the other is incorrect. Science has a history of being wrong, and faith has a history of being misinterpreted. I am comfortable with worshiping God, without really understanding precisely what He is.
At the end of the day, one has to acknowledge that something, be it anywhere from inanimate to super-intelligent, at some point in history, had the capacity to cause the universe to exist. From there, you can either choose to make no opinion of what that thing is/was, or pick a religious view that you can reconcile with demonstrable science.
That's certainly a worthwhile pattern to look into. If the pattern remains consistent between wealthy drinkers VS wealthy abstainers, and impoverished drinkers VS impoverished abstainers, then that indicates that income is not a contribution to the trend. If it is instead found that only the wealthy enjoy these benefits of alcohol, then we can conclude that the benefits have little to do with the alcohol, and probably have substantially more to do with the ability to afford better health care services. If the study data did not include wealth measures, then we can make no assumptions of the impact (or lack thereof) that finance has on longevity in relation to alcohol consumption. Another study would have to be conducted.
The Karate Kid also promoted responsible behavior over being a jerk. Furthermore, that movie came out in a time when the adults were substantially less sensitive, and law suits not nearly so much of a concern. The same behavior now, might be handled quite a bit more harshly.
I believe I pointed out that the difference is priorities. When you have disassociated collections of people with various priorities, those whose priorities are compatible will eventually group together. This may result in some arbitrary competitiveness between two similar groups, and this is also an aspect of human nature, and the precise thing which makes professional sports so popular. This is the entire point of the study. That people will group together according to priorities.
I wouldn't be so quick to take that attitude. The fact is that we're already teaching as fact, things which have not been proven, including the overall theory of evolution. It's a good theory, and many parts of it may be right on. On the whole, however, there is a great deal of work that still must be done to refine it, until we can demonstrate all parts of it by experiment or evidence. Until such a time, it is still only a theory, and it needs to be taught as such-- scientific extrapolation has been dead wrong before, and it can still be dead wrong, now. To lower one's standards just to accept a popular idea only makes one a worse scientist. The scientifically minded must remain skeptical, if science is not become another religion.
On the other side of the coin, it's fine if they want to teach creationism, but at the same time, they need to settle on a form of creationism that is strictly consistent with scripture, and encompasses the best interpretations of that scripture (there is, for example, no actual information in the Bible which points to the Earth being only 6,000 years old-- it's a postulation made on poor assumptions, from a book written in poetic prose). The trouble is that I really don't think that a science class can adequately cover the subject, without completely crowding out the science, because to produce a clear understanding of the scripture also requires a long discussion of the history of the culture that produced it, as well as the circumstances under which it was written. It would probably suffice in a science class to point out that, strictly speaking, the scriptures don't entirely contradict the theory of evolution. The Christian creation story describes the formation of the Earth in extremely vague terms, each stage requiring "the length of time it takes to accomplish a task", translated as a "day". It then goes on to say that mankind and all the animals of the Earth were made from dirt, which in a sense, evolution also posits. It might also be pointed out that the introduction of divine guidance makes evolution a great deal more practical by eliminating the aspects of baffling chance which produce complex sensory organs, such as the eye, from a previous dearth thereto.
The fact of the matter is that in the strictest sense, both sides are probably wrong about how we came to be what we are, and we need to remember this. There may be elements of truth on both sides, but we are unable to test this. Just exactly what is God? We don't really know. Based on what is described of Him, we understand Him to be a being of some sort, with the ability to cause the universe to occur from nothingness, which in itself, is a rather vague description, offering only a simple requirement for an entity to be identified as God. Just the same, evolution has some intricacies that haven't been worked out, and scientific theory is, by definition, quite fallible, hence, its distinction from fact.
Furthermore, there are a lot of people on both sides of this aisle that need to get their heads out of their asses, and stop the institutionalized instruction of bad understanding. Our children are not taught the difference between theory and fact, nor the difference between faith and fact. This world does, in fact, contain a great deal of ambiguity, and our children need to be taught how to accept that, and differentiate between what we do know, what we suspect, and what we are simply ignorant of.
Group A prefers the company of individuals with high standards for gameplay output, and take their game very seriously, possibly more so than their actual paying occupations; they are obsessive, not only regarding gear, but also in quality of strategy and tactics, right down to the sequence in which they deploy their special attacks. Being with each other, they can feel superior to others in the game. Group B, on the other hand, prefers a much more casual game experience, and though they are a bit rag-tag, they nevertheless help each other out here and there, but gravitate to each other mostly for the company. Group B understands that real people have real jobs, real families, and real life obligations. Group B just wants a group of friends that they can talk to while they grind, and maybe even do a little bit of RPing, and regard Group A as a bunch of fascist nut jobs.
In short, the difference between Group A and Group B is priorities. Both groups seek to enjoy the game, but neither group has the same concept of how the game should be enjoyed. One group is elitist, the other is very casual. There are likely several other groups between Group A and Group B, as well as groups that vary on completely different axises. A member of Group B would never be welcome in Group A, because he is not interested in maximizing the potential of his character. Meanwhile, a member of Group A would never be satisfied with the level of organization of group activities in Group B.
The only way I can conceive of to complete the game, is to get him to commit suicide; otherwise, your conversations with this virtual child can only continue indefinitely. I can only wonder if he has the naiveté necessary for this to be properly accomplished.
People are using their iPods in their cars. I'm sure that there are a growing number of people who are using portable 3G wireless access points in their cars to supply internet access for internet radio in their cars, as well (though I really can't justify that this number of people can possibly be significant, at this point in time, though this sort of thing may become more common, as the technology in question becomes more developed and affordable), not to mention XM radio.
The old outlets are still widely used, but that's not the point. The point is that they're quickly losing ground as music discovery tools. The internet is quickly taking over in that role, and the RIAA has completely failed to invest in this venue; they have attacked it instead, therefore, nailing the first nails in their coffin.
It's entirely possible that Phantasy Star Online will be included in the downloadable re-releases. Fans attending the launch party for Phantasy Star Zero this past November, were treated to a teleconference with Satoshi Sakai, where it was announced that Sega had something big in mind to celebrate PSO's 10th Anniversary, which is coming up at the end of this year. A downloadable re-release of the game could very well be their plan.
If that is the case, however, I really doubt that it will include online support, and I would expect it to be a port of the Xbox version of the game, which means no Episode IV. Then again, if they're polishing it up like they're talking about with Sonic Adventure and Crazy Taxi, then who knows? They could very well end up giving us a surprising amount of new content.
The last time Sony tried to redesign the PlayStation controller, they wound up with a Batarang.
Nintendo 64's awesome-to-crap ratio was better. Mario, Banjo-Kazooie (twice), Zelda (twice), Goldeneye, Star Wars Racer, Fzero, Super Smash Bros, and on and on and on.
Star Wars Episode I Racer? Are you serious? The game prominently featured flying vehicles, that, by some wild, drug-induced stretch of the imagination, slide when they encounter an ice patch! Just how does a vehicle powered by thrust, rather than friction, lose control on ice? The whole thing seems an incredible example of a generic game engine given custom graphics to match a franchise, and then pushed out the door.
That is almost exactly five 9's of up-time. Sounds like they met the standard guarantee.
There are many people who feel offended by religion. I'm not sure what the largest problem is, but a proper atheist should be indifferent to a religious symbol standing out in the middle of a desert, rather than militantly demanding its removal. The same goes for the generic mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Hostility toward these things indicates that a person is, in some way, offended, or perhaps even threatened by the notion of God. A religious view makes the person uncomfortable, and there's nothing for it, but to lash out at it with anger.
I am aware of two schools of thought on the subject. On the one hand, a lot of people stumble when they try to work out why God would allow such suffering in the world. On the other hand, there are those who view religion as Douglas Adams did-- the theologists are prepared to accept nonsense in the place of logic, and as well, they will argue logic with nonsense. If you are a logically-minded person, then this sort of approach to the universe is simply unacceptable.
Personally, I tend to concern myself more with the things that I don't know, than the things that I do. I accept science as something that can be demonstrated, but sometimes misunderstood. Likewise, I accept religious matters as something that cannot be demonstrated, and is usually misunderstood. When the Bible claims that God created the world, I accept that, but I also observe that the Bible is rather vague on the details. I also observe that the Bible says that man was created from the dust of the Earth, and that the theory of Evolution also suggests more or less the same thing, if in more mechanical detail and with substantially less metaphor.
The problem held by those who think as Douglas Adams did, is that to them, religion and science must be mutually exclusive, and it is exacerbated by a long history of religious leaders seeking to create a complete view of the universe based on limited religious texts and notions. What must be understood, is that it is not the realm of religion to explain the universe-- only to explain how best to handle your soul (which is, in itself, poorly defined, but generally recognized as being very important). Just the same, it is the realm of science to explore what we don't know, and little by little, fill that unfathomable chasm. Inherently, neither can outright contradict the other, in much the same way that mathematics cannot inherently contradict an apple. At best, one can describe the other, but that's as far as it goes.
As for the problem held by the former group, those who have ethical complaints about God, well, those issues are addressed in Judeo-Christian traditions, by the book of Job, the fundamental point of which, is that God understands a great deal more about the horribly complex interactions of the population of the world and their environments, and without that level of understanding, we cannot possibly understand what is ultimately for the greater good, with perfect accuracy. The death of a righteous man may eventually lead to the repentance of an unrighteous man, or the general salvation of another person well down the line, who is unrelated. Just the same, the unexpected death of a dear loved one may result in the abrupt transformation of those who were near to him, causing them to ask questions of themselves that they otherwise would not have explored, or forcing them to rely on themselves in ways that they previously would not have; in either case, forcing them to improve. The results or benefits are generally not apparent to those involved, but in the end, it's difficult to tell what is ultimately good, and what is ultimately evil-- things are not so clean-cut. With regard to his soul, a righteous man has put his affairs in order, and he has nothing of consequence left to do for himself in this world (except perhaps, to teach others what he has learned), but an unrighteous man has yet still, a great deal of work to do before he can die in peace. If it requires the death of a righteous man, to inspire an unrighteous man to seek his salvation, then it is a bargain price well-paid.
Beyond that, if they are the same, then it may not be coincidence at all. One planet's life may have been seeded by the other, or both come from another common origin, whether deliberately by intelligent beings, or indeliberately by chance.
Speaking as a native Central Californian, I must say that I absolutely agree with you. Our state's economy is one of the worst in the union, despite the presence of Silicon Valley, and the bulk of our nation's entertainment industry. Our coastal region in particular, is full of incredibly creative people, but the majority of them have some very strange ideas about how the world works.
No, none of the women of the house have developed an abrupt interest in professional golfers, but thank you, anyway.
It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans, despite what certain professional liars may have told you.
Banks were required by the Community Reinvestment Act to relax their standards for lending to minorities. These were bad loans that federal law required banks to make. The law was originally put in place by Jimmy Carter, and has since been revised back and forth by both Bushes and President Clinton.
It's not the sole cause of our economy's poor state, but it's a critical factor that has brought us to where we are, now.
The age of consent in the United States varies from state to state. Age of consent in the United States ranges from 16 to 18, and in some states, under mitigating circumstances, can be as young as 14.
When I consider the opinions held by myself, my friends, and virtually every last one of my peers when I was in high school, I'm not convinced that teenagers, on the whole, are really qualified of making any decision that will have an impact on the rest of their lives. We do have to draw the line somewhere though, and I suppose that any age from 16 to 21 is as good as anything.
Many states also allow minors to possess and consume alcohol under various circumstances where a responsible adult family member is present. I think you'll find that laws of this sort typically stick within a fairly close tolerance throughout Western cultures.