Simple. "Downtown" is central. As much of a pain as it might be to get downtown, it can be much more difficult to get from one suburb to another. Public transportation usually isn't even an option in this case. Also, don't forget about how many potential employees live in the city.
That said, there is a trend, at least in the Chicago metro area for companies to put offices in suburbs. They got big high rises in the middle of nowhere. ANd i'll tell you... they SUCK as far as location goes. The only things they have going for them is a cheaper leases and parking. A reverse commute can be just as nasty and, again, public transporation is not an option. It is a car or nothing. It is also more difficult to carpool becuase the chances of a friend going to work in the same area as you is slim.
Electrolysis does not work well on a large scale and it is inefficient. It is basically throwing perfectly good electricity away. kWh for kWh, electricity is far more valuable than a chemical fuel (even if you turn that chemical fuel back to electricity at some point). There is just no way to economically justify making fuel out of electricity. It would be like converting gold to iron... ok maybe, gold to silver.
I will not indict those who choose not to act violently. However, to assume that a violent response cannot be justified by an enlighted person is to capitulate to any threat, to be unwilling to sacrifice for others, to become adrift in the sea of morality.
Just because violence can be justified does not mean it is necessary.
If the answer to the first is yes and the answer to the second is no, I ask you to recall that nature, red in tooth and claw, lacks moral or ethical imperatives. Mankind does not, and therefore those actions of man which violate moral and ethical imperatives should be resisted as strongly, if not more so.
I refuse to answer the question because a) they are hypotheticals lacking sufficient detail and b) this isn't about whether or not I, personally, would chose violence in any given situation. ALso, remember that resistance doesn't necessarily imply violence.
You can argue that there is no good or evil in this world, or in any other.
I would not argue such a thing. That would be childish and naive. There are at least three perspectives on morality. There is pre-moral which can be seen in children and animals. There is the moral perspective, which is exemplified in your average human. There is the post-moral or trans-moral which is exemplified by more enlightened individuals.
However, the vast majority of humanity does not share that nihilistic viewpoint, and their disagreement with your perspective does not render their position irrelevant.
Indeed, the majority of humans have a "moral" perspective. It is hardly irrelevant. Although you are mistaken in thinking that it is nihilistic to not have a concept of good and evil. Nietzsche, for example, wrote about things "beyond" good and evil. Nihilism is trans-moral, not amoral or pre-moral. Not that I am a nihilist. I'm just correcting you.
(Calling your opposition polarized and adolescent is generally not the best way to conduct reasoned discourse, as you do not demonstrate respect for opposing viewpoints, only contempt.) Good and evil are convenient labels, perhaps too convenient. A simpler one is "us vs them," but that fails to indicate whether one believes one's actions are ethical and moral.
I use the term "adolescent" to imply that it is possible for people to develop a perspective that is more "adult" than seeing things as merely black, white, and gray. I'm sorry that the term "adolescent" carries negative connotations for you, but that is the most accurate term I can think of.
I agree that hope can prevent violence -- however, hope cannot preclude violence. At some point, there is a choice each of us will make regarding what we hold dear, and whether we hold that dearer than our very life.
I completely disagree that violence is never necessary, because the human condition is full of gray areas, and I've not experienced a truly always or never truth. Humans are way too unpredictable to say what they will always or never do -- provided the laws of physics aren't violated, there seems to be no triumph and no evil we are not capable of.
Where did you get the idea that I was talking about what humans would always or never do? I only said that violence is never necessary. Humans may or may not chose violence under a given set of circumstances, but it is still a choice to be made. If you feel forced or obligated to act violently, something is wrong. You can follow another to war, but make sure it is your choice to do so. And do not judge those who chose not to act violently.
I'm sure you've heard the saying that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Do you not believe that to be true?
I think it is the kind of saying that comes out of a polarized society fixated on adolescent concepts of good and evil.
Do you believe that wishing and hoping can prevent atrocity and oppression?
I believe hope is a lot more powerful as prevention than violence. As Isaac Asimov once wrote, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompotent." I believe our leaders are largely incompotent, but as Bob Dylan sang, the masters make the rules for the wise man and the fool.
Then I imagine you would willingly all of your worldly possessions and promise to obey every instruction of the first person to threaten violence unto you.
A polarized mind might imagine that, sure.
I guess the first mugger who ever asks for your wallet is in for a real treat.
Well, I'm certainly not going kill someone (or get killed) over a wallet. That's for sure. I've been mugged. And it sucked. But I don't regret that nobody died in the process.
Oh, wait, violence is only necessary provided humans act nobly in all cases.
Violence is never necessary. It is an option. I'm not saying it is an option I would never choose under any circumstances. I'm merely saying that it isn't necessary. You need to take a Valium and calm down or something.
The futility you so blithely refer to is what we like to call the human condition. I certainly hope you get used to the fact that it does not live up to your expectations before you do something rash.
Rash? You mean like chewing someone out in a Slashdot thread for no good reason? I believe I was the one who illuminated the futility. Clearly *I* am not the one with the high expectations.
The only thing worth dying for is life itself. The problem with Shakespeare's words is that they imply a false dichotomy. War is not necessary, therefore one need not necessarily choose between valor and cowardice. True futility lies in being bound by necessity.
It is good for small ISPs who don't have a lot of peers. It obviously isn't meant for high bandwidth core inernet routers. Also, OpenBGPD might be good for businesses that need to manage multiple internet connections to different ISPs. BGP is the only way to go if you actually want to have real connectivity redundancy. It isn't uncommon.
ou are misinformed. Yes, I realize that the US is attacking Al Qaida but they did not replace "Russia" as a threat. There is a huge difference between Russia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Please do your history.
BTW, I do realize that there is a difference between Russia and the USSR. But "Russia" was seen by most as the center and/or source of whatever the USSR represented. Pardon me for not wording it to your liking. You should have understood what I meant.
You are misinformed. Yes, I realize that the US is attacking Al Qaida but they did not replace "Russia" as a threat. There is a huge difference between Russia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Please do your history.
In terms of having a "bad guy" to go after and justify increased military spending, they most certainly have replaced Russia. Bush and Co. have even made a point of letting us know that this will be a long war (like the cold war, 'cept different) I am not saying they are the same in terms of the kind of threat they appear to pose.
Also, Al Qaida and its fellow terrorist organizations are a valid threat. They are potentailly the most dangerous threat in the world today. The current world political system is stable, with a large hegemony on top. The only real threat is a target that has no defined point to attack. The fear is that Al Qaida will develop into independant cells that do not depend on other cells for resources to operate. This will be horrible for the US because these cells can operate anywhere in the world. Al Qaida also has shown that they can affect the elections (Spain), and the target of the greatest power in world history (US attacking Afghanistan). If the US attacking Afghanistan with large, worldwide support is a mistake or an example of attacking an illegitimate threat, then say so. At least back this up with evidence and reason though. I am referring to the work of distinguished political scientists such as Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and James Morrow. You are referring to Michael Moore and Pearl Jam, 2 huge intellectual powerhouse college grads... Please continue your bitterness. It is amusing.
Well gee, ya got me. Your condescension trumps my bitterness. I can't compete.
If you are referring to the "War Against Terror" as saying that it does not exist, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
It doesn't exist because you can't go to war with a noun. It only exists insofar as the government tells you it exists. And they'll use it to justify anything they can. Whether it be the militarization of space or the invasion of Iraq.
Terror is a major threat that has been around for hundreds of years.
"Terror" is merely a tactic used by small organizations to fight powers too large to engage directly. It *has* been around for hundreds of years, and it won't go away by going to war with it. Going to war with "terror" is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Those responsible (Al Qaida) are a large, coherent, independant group with clear motivations.
They are neither coherent nor independant. al-Qaida is a phantom enemy taking the place of Russia as the world's latest "major" threat. They aren't new. There is no reason why they should scare us now more than they did 10 years ago.
The media is responsible for creating the fear and justifying the spending, not the government
Apparently you missed the Bush campaign ad, for example, featuring wolves representing the terrorist threat. Or perhaps you've never heard Dick Cheney speak.
As was evident in the last election, many people see that Terror is a legitimate threat.
Because the Bush campaign spent so much money milking 9/11 for everything it was worth... politically speaking. Bush won because he played on people's fears... whether it be fear of gays or terror.
Here's a typical use case: you want to make a network "security box" that includes firewall, proxy, web server, email, wiki, irc. Now, conventionally you put all these services in the same Linux system (or whatever OS you use). Using Xen you run all of the services in their own virtual machine, so that if the firewall gets compromised, for instance, an attacker cannot get access to other parts of your system.
Who in their right mind would ever consider putting a firewall, email, web server, and IRC on the same box? A *firewall* for God's sakes. I wouldn't put that combination together on any one box, even with Xen 2.0.
Oh, another use case I just thought of too: how about a 'hidden' Linux OS on your Windows box that does all your email, browsing, and other Internet work that you want to keep secure. Click the icon, up pops Mozilla, except it's running in a different virtual OS.
Yeah, but what if your ISP just happens to give your account root access and some scripting exploit is found for pine and a phisher edits your ISP's/etc/host file and you try to use lynx to access your bank account? What are ya gonna do THEN tough guy?
Sure sure, in buddhism you achieve your 'enlightment', maybe you get moderated even and your karma will dictate what will happen to you in your next life. And you accepted this on faith because some Indian born guy who was shrewed enough to become a king in China said so. Well, it is unacceptable to me. I don't believe there is reincarnation or soul of any sort, period.
Buddha? King in China???? Where the heck did you learn that? Or did you mean "like a king?" FYI, Buddhism isn't about "faith." It is a series techniques that permit one to explore the deeper truths of existence and to get the the root cause of suffering. Also, Buddha rejected the idea of a soul. But I guess you wouldn't care about any of that.
I am a realist.
You sound more like a nihilist. Except that a good nihilist would reject even science. You should read some Nietzsche sometime. I bet you'd like it. Maybe it would get you out of the existential hole that you have dug for yourself.
Anyone basing their live on an unprovable believe system is an idiot.
Another of your scientificly proven facts? Or do you just have faith in this sentiment? If only you knew how much of who you are and what you believe in is "unprovable." You're no less an idiot than anyone else.
My live has enough meaning in it for me to happilly continue, I am sorry that you need to believe in something bigger than simple existance to feel happy or whatever it is you are trying to feel.
It isn't about what I "need" to believe. It is just a matter of what I do believe. It is about who I am and what fits my personality. I am not going to reject what I have experienced to be true (or at least plausable) based on some nihilist wannabe's idea of what an idiot is. Living a hollow shell of a life is hardly an alternative to what I may or may not have faith in right now.
But there is no process, there is a huge leap of faith that a religious system requires one to take in order to 'answer' the questions. And what are the answers? - Because god says so.
I'm sorry that you have such a limited and negative experience of what religion is. I happen to consider myself Buddhist and none of my "answers" come down to anything resembling "because God says so." You do seem to have a rather closed mind. Or is it just ignorance?
Those are not answers, those are like a comfort blanket that one puts over his/her head to get away from reality because they are so scared of the simple truth of it, that there is no reason for them to exist and do what they do beyond a random set of events.
That is the "truth," huh? You came to this miraculous conclusion through the scientific method? Or perhaps it is just your personal comfort blanket.
"ID" isn't trying to do *anything*. - well, if you read the article (wasn't that my point, read the f.king article before arguing with me.)
I read the damn article. Why are you being such a presumptuous prick? I didn't need that atricle to tell me about ID and Creationism.
You would see that ID is on its way into establishing itself as a 'scientific approach' for the masses.
Why do you keep treating ID as some autonomous entity?
again, you did not read the article. ID is a facade, it is a hook used to push the same ideas of creationism and ultimately christian believes into a public education system.
I knew what ID was before reading it. ID is more than a facade. It is a valid philosophical idea that has been hijacked by Creationists who do not represent religion as a whole. I'm sorry that your disdain for anything religious blinds you to this fact.
that is not what ID says. They say that evolution is not valid and should not be taken as a good working theory.
No... that is what Creationists say. ID merely states that a higher power planned and/or guided whatever this world has come to be. It does not, theoretically, exclude evolution in any way. Nor does it deny the validity of the scientific method as a whole.
As far as I am concerned there is no place for multiple explanations where one is sufficient.
Too bad. The world is full of multiple explanations for things. You can be close minded and dismiss all but your own perfered explanations, but then you are no better than the religious fanatics that you seem to despise.
Occam's Razor (that became overused, didn't it) but it applies. I don't want a doctor monitoring someone's heart try to come up with as many as possible explanations that are in different planes. I want him to use a proven and working method of coming up with one good model for what is going on and acting upon it.
Personally, I want a doctor who understands the problem on many different levels... a doctor who understands the biological, psychological, and perhaps the philosophical aspects to good health. But whatever.
Honestly, I can't really blame religious fanatics for defending their faith from nihilists like yourself. I know I don't want to see the world turned into an empty, meaningless, technological dystopia. You're no better than they are.
So, lets make a deal. You find someone who'll jump off a cliff and will fly on faith and I'll happily jump off that same cliff. Only I'll have something stronger than faith - A parachute.
Did you even read what I wrote or did you stop at "The problem with scientists...?" You totally missed the point. I proposed a way in which science and religion can, and do, work together... or at least without confict. Regarding your little "deal." Even if you have a parachute, you're gonna need at least a little faith in it openning correctly after you jump. Most people will at least make a token appeal to "God" before they jump. So there you have science and religion working together. Man builds parachute. Man says a little prayer before jumping. No conflict.
First of all science does not explain everything. Not yet anyway,
This is a statement of opinion and a matter of faith on your part.
it is religion that claims that it has answers to everything.
Not all religions. Not even eall Christian sects. The fact that many scientists are capable of living rich religious lives is evidence of this.
Secondly, the scientific method is not a believe system.
It can be. Especially if you start asserting that science will eventually explain everything. That is a belief. True science is not a belief system. It is merely a set of rules and procedures.
It was established as a meaningful way to describe and predict reality.
And religion is established as a meaningful way to descibe ones place in teh world and to deal, psychologically, with reality.
The prediction matters, that's how everything works
Ok, that is how everythign works. How does science tell us why it works that way it does? Does science even BEGIN to address the deeper mystical yernings of man? No. It can't. It isn't designed to. You can say that a mystical experience or yearning is caused by such and such receptor in the brain, but does that tell us what it means? Why do we have such feelings? Science can tell us how we have such feelings, but it can't say why or what its ultimate purpose is.
Another point is this: you did not read the article. Why do you even bother answering to my comments? How do I know you did not read the article? Because you contradict what the article is saying about ID. The article is showing that ID is trying to create a perception that ID is based on a scientific approach, which is clearly false.
"ID" isn't trying to do *anything*. "ID" is just an idea that may or may not have been hijacked by Creationist for their own goals. The fact is that ID doesn't necessarily have anything do with Creationism. Look, I feel that Creationist are generally deluded morons too, but I don't let that give ID a bad name. To say that a god created or planned evolution is a perfectly valid assersion that does not contradict science. Creationism, with or without ID, does contradict science. Science is clearly the winner here if only because Creationsts are out of their league.
And by the way, I can just as easily say that you are closed minded, but I don't do that because I alow you your right to your religious believe. But I am 100% against indocrination of such believes into a public education system.
Nice of you to assume I am a creationist. Hell, I'm not even Christian. But I do keep an open mind and accept that there can be multple correct explainations for the same thing... especially when those two explanations are working on totally different levels.
Personally, I don't have much problem with kids hearing about Creation in schools. I'd just rather they hear about it in the context of Comparative Religion and not Biology.
I am tired of people telling me that I should have 'an open mind' for the possibility of the supernatural. I have an open mind. When you provide examples, collect data, create theory, test theory against data and provide statistically sound results that your theory supports the reality and when you publish your findings so that the rest of us can do the same thing on our own. Then I will accept your version of reality. Until then my mind is just that - open for a scientific process.
The problem with many scientists and even lay people, is that they assume that science is the only valid way of knowing the world. You have a closed mind in the sense that you expect everyone to comform to your rigid rules of "proof" otherwise it is complete bullshit. The reality is that intelligent design has nothing to do with science and anyone who pretends that it does, is a fool. Faith is a very valid way of knowing the world, but it isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with a scientific view. Intelligent design simply proposes that a god has/had some hand in the developement of the universe. If science finds that the universe developed through evolution, the simplest conclusion (from a religious perspective) is that God made it that way. You can have a scientific explaination and a mystical explaination for the same thing. They are working on totally different levels. Science on the emperical/physical and religion on the subjective and intersubjective. You don't have to give up a scientific view of the universe to accept a religious view. Only the ignorant try to use religion or science to explain everything.
This certainly won't quell the arguments from the creationists either as there just isn't enough evidence to prove that the "supreme being" didn't plan this all along...
Evolution doesn't preclude intelligent design. Who is to say that God doesn't have a hand in evolution or that it wasn't "planned." Such proppositions are simply outside the domain of science. Science need not contradic religion and vise versa. They CAN coexist nicely. There are many religions around the world, for example, that happily accept creation stories as myth and not literal truths. Personally, I have no idea how a literal interpretation of Creation could be useful. It is so rich with symbolism and metaphor. That is where the interesting stuff is.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, there is a trend, at least in the Chicago metro area for companies to put offices in suburbs. They got big high rises in the middle of nowhere. ANd i'll tell you... they SUCK as far as location goes. The only things they have going for them is a cheaper leases and parking. A reverse commute can be just as nasty and, again, public transporation is not an option. It is a car or nothing. It is also more difficult to carpool becuase the chances of a friend going to work in the same area as you is slim.
-matthew
-matthew
Just because violence can be justified does not mean it is necessary.
If the answer to the first is yes and the answer to the second is no, I ask you to recall that nature, red in tooth and claw, lacks moral or ethical imperatives. Mankind does not, and therefore those actions of man which violate moral and ethical imperatives should be resisted as strongly, if not more so.
I refuse to answer the question because a) they are hypotheticals lacking sufficient detail and b) this isn't about whether or not I, personally, would chose violence in any given situation. ALso, remember that resistance doesn't necessarily imply violence.
You can argue that there is no good or evil in this world, or in any other.
I would not argue such a thing. That would be childish and naive. There are at least three perspectives on morality. There is pre-moral which can be seen in children and animals. There is the moral perspective, which is exemplified in your average human. There is the post-moral or trans-moral which is exemplified by more enlightened individuals.
However, the vast majority of humanity does not share that nihilistic viewpoint, and their disagreement with your perspective does not render their position irrelevant.
Indeed, the majority of humans have a "moral" perspective. It is hardly irrelevant. Although you are mistaken in thinking that it is nihilistic to not have a concept of good and evil. Nietzsche, for example, wrote about things "beyond" good and evil. Nihilism is trans-moral, not amoral or pre-moral. Not that I am a nihilist. I'm just correcting you.
(Calling your opposition polarized and adolescent is generally not the best way to conduct reasoned discourse, as you do not demonstrate respect for opposing viewpoints, only contempt.) Good and evil are convenient labels, perhaps too convenient. A simpler one is "us vs them," but that fails to indicate whether one believes one's actions are ethical and moral.
I use the term "adolescent" to imply that it is possible for people to develop a perspective that is more "adult" than seeing things as merely black, white, and gray. I'm sorry that the term "adolescent" carries negative connotations for you, but that is the most accurate term I can think of.
I agree that hope can prevent violence -- however, hope cannot preclude violence. At some point, there is a choice each of us will make regarding what we hold dear, and whether we hold that dearer than our very life.
I agree with this.
-matthew
Where did you get the idea that I was talking about what humans would always or never do? I only said that violence is never necessary. Humans may or may not chose violence under a given set of circumstances, but it is still a choice to be made. If you feel forced or obligated to act violently, something is wrong. You can follow another to war, but make sure it is your choice to do so. And do not judge those who chose not to act violently.
I'm sure you've heard the saying that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Do you not believe that to be true?
I think it is the kind of saying that comes out of a polarized society fixated on adolescent concepts of good and evil.
Do you believe that wishing and hoping can prevent atrocity and oppression?
I believe hope is a lot more powerful as prevention than violence. As Isaac Asimov once wrote, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompotent." I believe our leaders are largely incompotent, but as Bob Dylan sang, the masters make the rules for the wise man and the fool.
(yeah, I can quote people too! :-)
-matthew
Yes.
Then I imagine you would willingly all of your worldly possessions and promise to obey every instruction of the first person to threaten violence unto you.
A polarized mind might imagine that, sure.
I guess the first mugger who ever asks for your wallet is in for a real treat.
Well, I'm certainly not going kill someone (or get killed) over a wallet. That's for sure. I've been mugged. And it sucked. But I don't regret that nobody died in the process.
Oh, wait, violence is only necessary provided humans act nobly in all cases.
Violence is never necessary. It is an option. I'm not saying it is an option I would never choose under any circumstances. I'm merely saying that it isn't necessary. You need to take a Valium and calm down or something.
The futility you so blithely refer to is what we like to call the human condition. I certainly hope you get used to the fact that it does not live up to your expectations before you do something rash.
Rash? You mean like chewing someone out in a Slashdot thread for no good reason? I believe I was the one who illuminated the futility. Clearly *I* am not the one with the high expectations.
-matthew
The only thing worth dying for is life itself. The problem with Shakespeare's words is that they imply a false dichotomy. War is not necessary, therefore one need not necessarily choose between valor and cowardice. True futility lies in being bound by necessity.
-matthew
It is good for small ISPs who don't have a lot of peers. It obviously isn't meant for high bandwidth core inernet routers. Also, OpenBGPD might be good for businesses that need to manage multiple internet connections to different ISPs. BGP is the only way to go if you actually want to have real connectivity redundancy. It isn't uncommon.
-matthew
I think, perhaps, I was trying to illuminate the futility of either option.
BTW, I do realize that there is a difference between Russia and the USSR. But "Russia" was seen by most as the center and/or source of whatever the USSR represented. Pardon me for not wording it to your liking. You should have understood what I meant.
-matthew
In terms of having a "bad guy" to go after and justify increased military spending, they most certainly have replaced Russia. Bush and Co. have even made a point of letting us know that this will be a long war (like the cold war, 'cept different) I am not saying they are the same in terms of the kind of threat they appear to pose.
Also, Al Qaida and its fellow terrorist organizations are a valid threat. They are potentailly the most dangerous threat in the world today. The current world political system is stable, with a large hegemony on top. The only real threat is a target that has no defined point to attack. The fear is that Al Qaida will develop into independant cells that do not depend on other cells for resources to operate. This will be horrible for the US because these cells can operate anywhere in the world. Al Qaida also has shown that they can affect the elections (Spain), and the target of the greatest power in world history (US attacking Afghanistan). If the US attacking Afghanistan with large, worldwide support is a mistake or an example of attacking an illegitimate threat, then say so. At least back this up with evidence and reason though. I am referring to the work of distinguished political scientists such as Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and James Morrow. You are referring to Michael Moore and Pearl Jam, 2 huge intellectual powerhouse college grads... Please continue your bitterness. It is amusing.
Well gee, ya got me. Your condescension trumps my bitterness. I can't compete.
I can't. Can you?
It doesn't exist because you can't go to war with a noun. It only exists insofar as the government tells you it exists. And they'll use it to justify anything they can. Whether it be the militarization of space or the invasion of Iraq.
Terror is a major threat that has been around for hundreds of years.
"Terror" is merely a tactic used by small organizations to fight powers too large to engage directly. It *has* been around for hundreds of years, and it won't go away by going to war with it. Going to war with "terror" is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Those responsible (Al Qaida) are a large, coherent, independant group with clear motivations.
They are neither coherent nor independant. al-Qaida is a phantom enemy taking the place of Russia as the world's latest "major" threat. They aren't new. There is no reason why they should scare us now more than they did 10 years ago.
The media is responsible for creating the fear and justifying the spending, not the government
Apparently you missed the Bush campaign ad, for example, featuring wolves representing the terrorist threat. Or perhaps you've never heard Dick Cheney speak.
As was evident in the last election, many people see that Terror is a legitimate threat.
Because the Bush campaign spent so much money milking 9/11 for everything it was worth... politically speaking. Bush won because he played on people's fears... whether it be fear of gays or terror.
-matthew .
Dead in war or living in fear. I'm not sure which is worse.
They're just friekin' screenshots! Give it a rest, troll.
By the time we figure out how to get to another planet like Earth, we sure as hell better have figured out how to live on Earth without messing it up.
Who in their right mind would ever consider putting a firewall, email, web server, and IRC on the same box? A *firewall* for God's sakes. I wouldn't put that combination together on any one box, even with Xen 2.0.
Oh, another use case I just thought of too: how about a 'hidden' Linux OS on your Windows box that does all your email, browsing, and other Internet work that you want to keep secure. Click the icon, up pops Mozilla, except it's running in a different virtual OS.
Sounds more like a job for VMWare.
-matthew
Emacs: The exception that proves the rule.
Yeah, but what if your ISP just happens to give your account root access and some scripting exploit is found for pine and a phisher edits your ISP's /etc/host file and you try to use lynx to access your bank account? What are ya gonna do THEN tough guy?
From what I understand, their primary customer is AOL. So as long as AOL is OK with this, I don't imagine it will be a big problem.
Buddha? King in China???? Where the heck did you learn that? Or did you mean "like a king?" FYI, Buddhism isn't about "faith." It is a series techniques that permit one to explore the deeper truths of existence and to get the the root cause of suffering. Also, Buddha rejected the idea of a soul. But I guess you wouldn't care about any of that.
I am a realist.
You sound more like a nihilist. Except that a good nihilist would reject even science. You should read some Nietzsche sometime. I bet you'd like it. Maybe it would get you out of the existential hole that you have dug for yourself.
Anyone basing their live on an unprovable believe system is an idiot.
Another of your scientificly proven facts? Or do you just have faith in this sentiment? If only you knew how much of who you are and what you believe in is "unprovable." You're no less an idiot than anyone else.
My live has enough meaning in it for me to happilly continue, I am sorry that you need to believe in something bigger than simple existance to feel happy or whatever it is you are trying to feel.
It isn't about what I "need" to believe. It is just a matter of what I do believe. It is about who I am and what fits my personality. I am not going to reject what I have experienced to be true (or at least plausable) based on some nihilist wannabe's idea of what an idiot is. Living a hollow shell of a life is hardly an alternative to what I may or may not have faith in right now.
-matthew
I'm sorry that you have such a limited and negative experience of what religion is. I happen to consider myself Buddhist and none of my "answers" come down to anything resembling "because God says so." You do seem to have a rather closed mind. Or is it just ignorance?
Those are not answers, those are like a comfort blanket that one puts over his/her head to get away from reality because they are so scared of the simple truth of it, that there is no reason for them to exist and do what they do beyond a random set of events.
That is the "truth," huh? You came to this miraculous conclusion through the scientific method? Or perhaps it is just your personal comfort blanket.
"ID" isn't trying to do *anything*. - well, if you read the article (wasn't that my point, read the f.king article before arguing with me.)
I read the damn article. Why are you being such a presumptuous prick? I didn't need that atricle to tell me about ID and Creationism.
You would see that ID is on its way into establishing itself as a 'scientific approach' for the masses.
Why do you keep treating ID as some autonomous entity?
again, you did not read the article. ID is a facade, it is a hook used to push the same ideas of creationism and ultimately christian believes into a public education system. I knew what ID was before reading it. ID is more than a facade. It is a valid philosophical idea that has been hijacked by Creationists who do not represent religion as a whole. I'm sorry that your disdain for anything religious blinds you to this fact.
that is not what ID says. They say that evolution is not valid and should not be taken as a good working theory.
No... that is what Creationists say. ID merely states that a higher power planned and/or guided whatever this world has come to be. It does not, theoretically, exclude evolution in any way. Nor does it deny the validity of the scientific method as a whole.
As far as I am concerned there is no place for multiple explanations where one is sufficient.
Too bad. The world is full of multiple explanations for things. You can be close minded and dismiss all but your own perfered explanations, but then you are no better than the religious fanatics that you seem to despise.
Occam's Razor (that became overused, didn't it) but it applies. I don't want a doctor monitoring someone's heart try to come up with as many as possible explanations that are in different planes. I want him to use a proven and working method of coming up with one good model for what is going on and acting upon it.
Personally, I want a doctor who understands the problem on many different levels... a doctor who understands the biological, psychological, and perhaps the philosophical aspects to good health. But whatever.
Honestly, I can't really blame religious fanatics for defending their faith from nihilists like yourself. I know I don't want to see the world turned into an empty, meaningless, technological dystopia. You're no better than they are.
-matthew
Did you even read what I wrote or did you stop at "The problem with scientists...?" You totally missed the point. I proposed a way in which science and religion can, and do, work together... or at least without confict. Regarding your little "deal." Even if you have a parachute, you're gonna need at least a little faith in it openning correctly after you jump. Most people will at least make a token appeal to "God" before they jump. So there you have science and religion working together. Man builds parachute. Man says a little prayer before jumping. No conflict.
-matthew
This is a statement of opinion and a matter of faith on your part.
it is religion that claims that it has answers to everything.
Not all religions. Not even eall Christian sects. The fact that many scientists are capable of living rich religious lives is evidence of this.
Secondly, the scientific method is not a believe system.
It can be. Especially if you start asserting that science will eventually explain everything. That is a belief. True science is not a belief system. It is merely a set of rules and procedures.
It was established as a meaningful way to describe and predict reality.
And religion is established as a meaningful way to descibe ones place in teh world and to deal, psychologically, with reality.
The prediction matters, that's how everything works
Ok, that is how everythign works. How does science tell us why it works that way it does? Does science even BEGIN to address the deeper mystical yernings of man? No. It can't. It isn't designed to. You can say that a mystical experience or yearning is caused by such and such receptor in the brain, but does that tell us what it means? Why do we have such feelings? Science can tell us how we have such feelings, but it can't say why or what its ultimate purpose is.
Another point is this: you did not read the article. Why do you even bother answering to my comments? How do I know you did not read the article? Because you contradict what the article is saying about ID. The article is showing that ID is trying to create a perception that ID is based on a scientific approach, which is clearly false.
"ID" isn't trying to do *anything*. "ID" is just an idea that may or may not have been hijacked by Creationist for their own goals. The fact is that ID doesn't necessarily have anything do with Creationism. Look, I feel that Creationist are generally deluded morons too, but I don't let that give ID a bad name. To say that a god created or planned evolution is a perfectly valid assersion that does not contradict science. Creationism, with or without ID, does contradict science. Science is clearly the winner here if only because Creationsts are out of their league.
And by the way, I can just as easily say that you are closed minded, but I don't do that because I alow you your right to your religious believe. But I am 100% against indocrination of such believes into a public education system.
Nice of you to assume I am a creationist. Hell, I'm not even Christian. But I do keep an open mind and accept that there can be multple correct explainations for the same thing... especially when those two explanations are working on totally different levels.
Personally, I don't have much problem with kids hearing about Creation in schools. I'd just rather they hear about it in the context of Comparative Religion and not Biology.
-matthew
The problem with many scientists and even lay people, is that they assume that science is the only valid way of knowing the world. You have a closed mind in the sense that you expect everyone to comform to your rigid rules of "proof" otherwise it is complete bullshit. The reality is that intelligent design has nothing to do with science and anyone who pretends that it does, is a fool. Faith is a very valid way of knowing the world, but it isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with a scientific view. Intelligent design simply proposes that a god has/had some hand in the developement of the universe. If science finds that the universe developed through evolution, the simplest conclusion (from a religious perspective) is that God made it that way. You can have a scientific explaination and a mystical explaination for the same thing. They are working on totally different levels. Science on the emperical/physical and religion on the subjective and intersubjective. You don't have to give up a scientific view of the universe to accept a religious view. Only the ignorant try to use religion or science to explain everything.
-matthew
Evolution doesn't preclude intelligent design. Who is to say that God doesn't have a hand in evolution or that it wasn't "planned." Such proppositions are simply outside the domain of science. Science need not contradic religion and vise versa. They CAN coexist nicely. There are many religions around the world, for example, that happily accept creation stories as myth and not literal truths. Personally, I have no idea how a literal interpretation of Creation could be useful. It is so rich with symbolism and metaphor. That is where the interesting stuff is.
-matthew