Who cares if the times are unique? These are the times we are living. Should we be lese fare simply because it's "all happened before" like some cylon drama? I mean, what the hell is your point? You know, a guy broke into a house and shot a child. But it's been done before so lay off the dude. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with people? Don't you feel invested in your life?
"Is it democracy when the leaders deliberately ignore the known position of the voters?"
Yes, as long as the people can throw them out. Apathy is the enemy of democracy. The problem I see with the left wing is that they tend to see the government as the enemy so they work from outside the government trying to change things. The left needs to take control of the government and never let it go. It's where the power and money is, something the right wing understands. Anyway, in history, it's been worse:).
"All-in-all, this model has served me better than my previously-held one, but it is far less comforting and makes me feel very isolated."
heh:)
There will always be people smarter and dumber than you. So learn and teach:).
As for government, if you live in a democracy, the government is yours. But you need to participate, and not be alone and isolated. Any form of participation counts. Even just showing up at a town meeting. And of course, vote.
"At best, the UN reports say they havn't found anything and it isn't likely they would with the amount of cooperation Iraq was giving them."
The problem was that the CIA was illegally using the inspection teams as a method for gathering information for a coup attempt. Iraq ejected the US members of the team. The UN team was satisfied that Iraq posed no threat.
"At best, the UN reports say they havn't found anything and it isn't likely they would with the amount of cooperation Iraq was giving them. It doesn't say they don't have any."
Nor could it as they can't prove that kind of negative. All they can say is that after thorough investigation, they found nothing. Which is what they did and they were 100% correct in their findings. Note that to counter the avalanche of real data from people on the ground Bush used forged papers from Nigeria, which he might have got away with if Willson did not step up and call his bluff. WTF is wrong with people? A forged document against years worth of effort and data.
"Either way, it is wrong."
You are in a said sorry state if your going to believe, even at this date, with all the mountains of truth that now exist in reports, books, news articles, etc. that Bush somehow really thought Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the USA, and had WMDs.
Actually, you are the one that needs to provide proof. There never was any proof that weapons existed. There was proof that they did not exist (see the UN report). Bush was the one making extraordinary claims (check his record). He is the one who needs to provide the proof. Or at least he should have been forced to. Where were you when Bush was making his extraordinary claims? Front and center asking for a link?
The proof is obvious and not hard to find (search Google, read reports from the day, reports from now, etc.). basically, go do your own research. Or is it simply not important enough to you to spend a little time each week checking the facts behind the assertions?
They got their tax legislation too, so whats your point? In case you didn't know, the Bush fortune is tied to oil. Iraq and the middle east in general are full of oil. You can only get so much through taxes. Sometimes you need to mobilize the military.
I lived through it all, read as many sides of the arguments as I could find, and let me tell you, Bush lied. He and his administration lied bold faced and with full knowledge of what they were doing. I see that it pretty much breaks down as follows:
1. There are the double talking scheming lying bastards who run the current US administration, and those who support them
2. There are the voices of reason and logic
3. There are the confused masses in between
Finally, there is a rather uncomfortable addition for those in category #1, namely, the facts. The facts as the were and the facts as they are. None of them supporting anything camp 1 proclaims largely because they spend most of the time touting their "alternate interpretation of reality" theory.
This is the worst bunch of cronies to land in government in my life time. And I lived through Contra Gate and S&L. And really this is the same group as they were all tied to the two aforementioned scandals as well. These guys should be arrested, tried and exiled.
No need to backtrack, I actually agree with you. I just have come to the conclusion that money is mostly a red hearing, especially the way the left talks about it, like it's something to be scorned. It's the basis of our society like it or not. Everyone should grab as much of it as possible so as to empower their own cause and defund the opposition. This is what the hippies didn't understand. It's *your* government, so it's *your* money. Go get it!
Well, I used to think that the sheer amount of money needed to run a campaign was a problem. I'm more convinced now that it is not. The methods by which people are allowed to collect money are important but not necessarily capping total amounts or dolling out money for everyone who wants to run.
The reason is that if the money is collected in smallish amounts, it is actually a good reflection of popularity. Also it shows an effectiveness in communicating with the power establishment as well as a broad base (you can't get everything from the rich). So, in a capitalist society, money is an indicator of popular support. I would say that Obama is a good example of what can be done by a relatively new outsider in a short time if they are committed to winning the presidency.
Now people who simply bankrole their own campaigns throw the system out of whack. That should not be allowed at all.
So Jobs should have appended, "...except, of course, for the Xerox Star. We all remember the Xerox Star right?"
There were several little incubator projects or outright commercial failures for GUI's in the early 80's. Macintosh was the one that brought it to the world. They are the ones that got it right. That gives them some pretty significant bragging rights.
Thats why there are 12, so that if your in a situation where 12 of you're pears have already made up their minds about you you're pretty much fucked and probably for good cause. It would only take one to hang the jury.
As for the RIAA in this case, do you really think it would be a miscarriage of justice? And please don't belabor "due process" or some such nonsense. The breach is opened, time to slaughter them before it closes.
"Well, provided God has a plan. What if he gave us free will because he didn't want to have a plan..."
Exactly. But religious folks always talk of God's plan. They can not even consider God without speculating on His plan. One thing I try to do is take what religious people say at face value, without any of my own objections. Than I try to test the internal and external consistency of their beliefs, on their own terms. So if they say He has a plan, that's what I use. It's not like I know anything about God, his plan or lack there of. I'll let people who know such things educate me. Not that _you_ were making any such claims, we were just discussing the free vs. proprietary will of Angels. Next up will be how many we can pack on the head of a pin:).
But, the way the Old Testament reads, it does seem that even if God didn't have a plan, things did not go exactly as he had hoped.
Even if they (the religious folk) do not speak directly of God's plan, even "putting your trust in God" speaks indirectly to some plan or at least an inclination. Otherwise, what would they be putting their trust in? Uncertainty? Chaos? God having some plan does seem central to Biblical theology and thus morals and ethics.
"Imagine you're omnipotent and omniscient. Personally, I'd say the only real kind of enjoyment you have after a while is something that isn't predetermined."
I agree. I'll just throw out there that God probably exists outside of space/time, so I doubt the same restrictions apply, necessarily. This does contradict a statement I made in the previous post but I think this is the truer description. God's enjoyment of His creation is not dependent on non-determinism.
I find religion fascinating because it really is a powerful psychological tool that an individual can use to good effect in their lives. For example, a science minded intellectual might psych themselves out from doing something thinking of all the repercussions of failure. But a person who puts their faith in God in order to overcome fear will take action. Even if they are dumb as a post. Often taking action is the only difference between those who accomplish great things and those who do not. I think religion, whatever it is in a person, can be something that turns off the over analytical/fearful intellectual and ignites the base visceral drivers leading to action and elation. History not withstanding, it seems like a pretty useful tool.
"He also used other people to kill the Jews when they didn't behave, please don't forget a few tidbits, it might sound like something you don't want to imply."
Very true. I just find the sanctified genocides in The Holly Book amusing. I'm sick like that.
The argument that there is no free will for Angels is weak in that:
1. It does not eliminate the problem of Free Will for God's omniscience because Man definitely has it. So it's not helping any theo...logical arguments dealing with such contradictions.
2. It's likely trying to preserve Man's special place in God's creation. However, God already says to Man that he is above the rest. What more do they want?
3. Free Will in a completely deterministic Universe is a contradiction in itself. If God set some of the Angels up to fall, and manufactured basically every interesting detail in the Bible than it sort of bleaches out any moral message or meaning that we can derive from it. It also leaves God simply waiting for the end of a completely predictable movie, not that I can question how God spends His time. Also, believers could stop asking what God's plan is, it will happen no matter what they know, do, think or feel.
Plus many other Christian web pages filled with breathless mumbo jumbo on the subject.
If you take free will away from the Angels than you would need to take it away from Man. Both made decisions that went against God's will.
As for omniscient vs. omnipotent, it's the age old question, "Could God create an object so massive that He could not move it". The point is that God can _do_ whatever He wants. If He wants to create something he does not control, nothing will stop him. But as Bill Cosby's dad said to him, "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out." Nothing is stopping him from snuffing out the whole creation experiment either. He may not know what you'll do next, but he may also kill you (or help you). Although he would never kill you directly. In the Bible at least, he used the Jews to do his killing. But I digress.
God gave humans and angels Free Will, something not even He could divine. Than he apnked us for using it, but thats another story. Actually, it's The Story.
The point is to stop using Linux as if it were a mac. XWindows solved the "OMFG! so many windows" problem by creating more desktops. Put gimp on a desktop and you don;t need to worry about layered windows. Mac "solved" it by having windows pop in and out of existance.
The difference is that with Physics, what you see is what you get. With religion, what you get has nothing to do with what you observe. It's more like what you would like to be true. Or what you fear is true. Or what your to lazy to figure out.
Writing code is the same as blue printing. Builders construct whatever is blueprinted, exactly to design specification. The compiler does this job in computer science. Both builders will report errors to the designers.
Coding will never be as you describe, for the reasons I describe.
Just to put a fine point on what the other poster said, construction phase of software development is already automated, it;s called compile time. Everything else *is* archetecture and design. So really, the build phase is already free.
You are a dope. I see you have your fanatical view on reality. Here is mine: we should strip you of your planetary citizen ship and fire you on rocket into deep space along with all of your idiotic cohorts.
"Taxing the rich more is unfair. These people who have made millions earned their money. They deserve to keep the money they earn. They have worked hard to educate themselves. They worked day and night and they have sacrificed time with their families. The rich worked so very hard to make their millions so support themselves and family."
What delusional world are you from? I'll point to the a la mode rich jackass to refute this claim: George W. Bush. Rich brat extreme.
"Government has NO RIGHT to take THEIR MONEY from them to pay welfare to some poor ass person at McDonald's that can't even do their job right."
I have never had a problem ordering at McDonalds.
"I walk into fast food places and retail stores and all I see people who can't work."
[Now the psychosis is starting to show]. Yet these stores function and make billions for those hard working rich folks who pay their employees as little as they can, with as few benefits as they can get away with.
"Government should not and has no right to distribute wealth to anyone. It is not their job. Their job is protect us from foreign countries and provide the infrastructure necessary to survive. And by infrastructure I mean water, electricity, natural gas, roads and etc. Americans are not entitled to the money they have not earned. They are not entitled to free education. They are not entitled to free health care. Read the US Constitution."
You have no idea what Government is for. As for the Constitution, I'll just point you to this: "For the people, by the people".
"Fair Tax is fair because it a sales tax. People only pay what they want to pay."
You mean people only pay for what they want to *buy*. What is it with you people who think that "consumerism" is the central function of human existence. You can not base a tax code on consumerism. You need to tax the wealth of the nation.
Hopefully you will grow out of your juvenile world view. Unfortunately, someone will probably take your place.
Thats what I was thinking. But would'nt it be even sweeter if he told the oil compaines he was going to fuck them, and than went ahead and did it? Would certainly restore my faith in American democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares if the times are unique? These are the times we are living. Should we be lese fare simply because it's "all happened before" like some cylon drama? I mean, what the hell is your point? You know, a guy broke into a house and shot a child. But it's been done before so lay off the dude. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with people? Don't you feel invested in your life?
Kind Regards
Except that the summary has the funniest line I've seen all week:
:)
"If Vista's uptake trend continues, it should pass Mac OS X in Web usage share by the end of August."
You couldn't make that **** up.
"Is it democracy when the leaders deliberately ignore the known position of the voters?"
:).
Yes, as long as the people can throw them out. Apathy is the enemy of democracy. The problem I see with the left wing is that they tend to see the government as the enemy so they work from outside the government trying to change things. The left needs to take control of the government and never let it go. It's where the power and money is, something the right wing understands. Anyway, in history, it's been worse
Kind Regards
"All-in-all, this model has served me better than my previously-held one, but it is far less comforting and makes me feel very isolated."
:)
:).
heh
There will always be people smarter and dumber than you. So learn and teach
As for government, if you live in a democracy, the government is yours. But you need to participate, and not be alone and isolated. Any form of participation counts. Even just showing up at a town meeting. And of course, vote.
Kind Regards
"At best, the UN reports say they havn't found anything and it isn't likely they would with the amount of cooperation Iraq was giving them."
The problem was that the CIA was illegally using the inspection teams as a method for gathering information for a coup attempt. Iraq ejected the US members of the team. The UN team was satisfied that Iraq posed no threat.
"At best, the UN reports say they havn't found anything and it isn't likely they would with the amount of cooperation Iraq was giving them. It doesn't say they don't have any."
Nor could it as they can't prove that kind of negative. All they can say is that after thorough investigation, they found nothing. Which is what they did and they were 100% correct in their findings. Note that to counter the avalanche of real data from people on the ground Bush used forged papers from Nigeria, which he might have got away with if Willson did not step up and call his bluff. WTF is wrong with people? A forged document against years worth of effort and data.
"Either way, it is wrong."
You are in a said sorry state if your going to believe, even at this date, with all the mountains of truth that now exist in reports, books, news articles, etc. that Bush somehow really thought Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the USA, and had WMDs.
Kind Regards
Actually, you are the one that needs to provide proof. There never was any proof that weapons existed. There was proof that they did not exist (see the UN report). Bush was the one making extraordinary claims (check his record). He is the one who needs to provide the proof. Or at least he should have been forced to. Where were you when Bush was making his extraordinary claims? Front and center asking for a link?
The proof is obvious and not hard to find (search Google, read reports from the day, reports from now, etc.). basically, go do your own research. Or is it simply not important enough to you to spend a little time each week checking the facts behind the assertions?
Kind Regards
They got their tax legislation too, so whats your point? In case you didn't know, the Bush fortune is tied to oil. Iraq and the middle east in general are full of oil. You can only get so much through taxes. Sometimes you need to mobilize the military.
Kind Regards
I lived through it all, read as many sides of the arguments as I could find, and let me tell you, Bush lied. He and his administration lied bold faced and with full knowledge of what they were doing. I see that it pretty much breaks down as follows:
1. There are the double talking scheming lying bastards who run the current US administration, and those who support them
2. There are the voices of reason and logic
3. There are the confused masses in between
Finally, there is a rather uncomfortable addition for those in category #1, namely, the facts. The facts as the were and the facts as they are. None of them supporting anything camp 1 proclaims largely because they spend most of the time touting their "alternate interpretation of reality" theory.
This is the worst bunch of cronies to land in government in my life time. And I lived through Contra Gate and S&L. And really this is the same group as they were all tied to the two aforementioned scandals as well. These guys should be arrested, tried and exiled.
Kind Regards
"I guess I was just..."
No need to backtrack, I actually agree with you. I just have come to the conclusion that money is mostly a red hearing, especially the way the left talks about it, like it's something to be scorned. It's the basis of our society like it or not. Everyone should grab as much of it as possible so as to empower their own cause and defund the opposition. This is what the hippies didn't understand. It's *your* government, so it's *your* money. Go get it!
Well, I used to think that the sheer amount of money needed to run a campaign was a problem. I'm more convinced now that it is not. The methods by which people are allowed to collect money are important but not necessarily capping total amounts or dolling out money for everyone who wants to run.
The reason is that if the money is collected in smallish amounts, it is actually a good reflection of popularity. Also it shows an effectiveness in communicating with the power establishment as well as a broad base (you can't get everything from the rich). So, in a capitalist society, money is an indicator of popular support. I would say that Obama is a good example of what can be done by a relatively new outsider in a short time if they are committed to winning the presidency.
Now people who simply bankrole their own campaigns throw the system out of whack. That should not be allowed at all.
Kind Regards
So Jobs should have appended, "...except, of course, for the Xerox Star. We all remember the Xerox Star right?"
There were several little incubator projects or outright commercial failures for GUI's in the early 80's. Macintosh was the one that brought it to the world. They are the ones that got it right. That gives them some pretty significant bragging rights.
Thats why there are 12, so that if your in a situation where 12 of you're pears have already made up their minds about you you're pretty much fucked and probably for good cause. It would only take one to hang the jury.
As for the RIAA in this case, do you really think it would be a miscarriage of justice? And please don't belabor "due process" or some such nonsense. The breach is opened, time to slaughter them before it closes.
-peace
High end gangsters pretty much set the trend for urban fashion. CEO's dress like fucking hill billy retards, or in a suit.
"Well, provided God has a plan. What if he gave us free will because he didn't want to have a plan..."
:).
Exactly. But religious folks always talk of God's plan. They can not even consider God without speculating on His plan. One thing I try to do is take what religious people say at face value, without any of my own objections. Than I try to test the internal and external consistency of their beliefs, on their own terms. So if they say He has a plan, that's what I use. It's not like I know anything about God, his plan or lack there of. I'll let people who know such things educate me. Not that _you_ were making any such claims, we were just discussing the free vs. proprietary will of Angels. Next up will be how many we can pack on the head of a pin
But, the way the Old Testament reads, it does seem that even if God didn't have a plan, things did not go exactly as he had hoped.
Even if they (the religious folk) do not speak directly of God's plan, even "putting your trust in God" speaks indirectly to some plan or at least an inclination. Otherwise, what would they be putting their trust in? Uncertainty? Chaos? God having some plan does seem central to Biblical theology and thus morals and ethics.
"Imagine you're omnipotent and omniscient. Personally, I'd say the only real kind of enjoyment you have after a while is something that isn't predetermined."
I agree. I'll just throw out there that God probably exists outside of space/time, so I doubt the same restrictions apply, necessarily. This does contradict a statement I made in the previous post but I think this is the truer description. God's enjoyment of His creation is not dependent on non-determinism.
I find religion fascinating because it really is a powerful psychological tool that an individual can use to good effect in their lives. For example, a science minded intellectual might psych themselves out from doing something thinking of all the repercussions of failure. But a person who puts their faith in God in order to overcome fear will take action. Even if they are dumb as a post. Often taking action is the only difference between those who accomplish great things and those who do not. I think religion, whatever it is in a person, can be something that turns off the over analytical/fearful intellectual and ignites the base visceral drivers leading to action and elation. History not withstanding, it seems like a pretty useful tool.
-peace
"He also used other people to kill the Jews when they didn't behave, please don't forget a few tidbits, it might sound like something you don't want to imply."
Very true. I just find the sanctified genocides in The Holly Book amusing. I'm sick like that.
The argument that there is no free will for Angels is weak in that:
1. It does not eliminate the problem of Free Will for God's omniscience because Man definitely has it. So it's not helping any theo...logical arguments dealing with such contradictions.
2. It's likely trying to preserve Man's special place in God's creation. However, God already says to Man that he is above the rest. What more do they want?
3. Free Will in a completely deterministic Universe is a contradiction in itself. If God set some of the Angels up to fall, and manufactured basically every interesting detail in the Bible than it sort of bleaches out any moral message or meaning that we can derive from it. It also leaves God simply waiting for the end of a completely predictable movie, not that I can question how God spends His time. Also, believers could stop asking what God's plan is, it will happen no matter what they know, do, think or feel.
Kind Regards,
peace
Angels have free will or else they would not have been able to rebel against God.
e nces_of_free_will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel#Consequ
Plus many other Christian web pages filled with breathless mumbo jumbo on the subject.
If you take free will away from the Angels than you would need to take it away from Man. Both made decisions that went against God's will.
As for omniscient vs. omnipotent, it's the age old question, "Could God create an object so massive that He could not move it". The point is that God can _do_ whatever He wants. If He wants to create something he does not control, nothing will stop him. But as Bill Cosby's dad said to him, "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out." Nothing is stopping him from snuffing out the whole creation experiment either. He may not know what you'll do next, but he may also kill you (or help you). Although he would never kill you directly. In the Bible at least, he used the Jews to do his killing. But I digress.
-peace
God gave humans and angels Free Will, something not even He could divine. Than he apnked us for using it, but thats another story. Actually, it's The Story.
-peace
Thats why we call it GNU/Linux, not Linux.
-peace
The point is to stop using Linux as if it were a mac. XWindows solved the "OMFG! so many windows" problem by creating more desktops. Put gimp on a desktop and you don;t need to worry about layered windows. Mac "solved" it by having windows pop in and out of existance.
Kind Regards
The difference is that with Physics, what you see is what you get. With religion, what you get has nothing to do with what you observe. It's more like what you would like to be true. Or what you fear is true. Or what your to lazy to figure out.
You are wrong.
Writing code is the same as blue printing. Builders construct whatever is blueprinted, exactly to design specification. The compiler does this job in computer science. Both builders will report errors to the designers.
Coding will never be as you describe, for the reasons I describe.
Just to put a fine point on what the other poster said, construction phase of software development is already automated, it;s called compile time. Everything else *is* archetecture and design. So really, the build phase is already free.
Kind Regards
You are a dope. I see you have your fanatical view on reality. Here is mine: we should strip you of your planetary citizen ship and fire you on rocket into deep space along with all of your idiotic cohorts.
And we could still have a tea party in Boston.
"Taxing the rich more is unfair. These people who have made millions earned their money. They deserve to keep the money they earn. They have worked hard to educate themselves. They worked day and night and they have sacrificed time with their families. The rich worked so very hard to make their millions so support themselves and family."
What delusional world are you from? I'll point to the a la mode rich jackass to refute this claim: George W. Bush. Rich brat extreme.
"Government has NO RIGHT to take THEIR MONEY from them to pay welfare to some poor ass person at McDonald's that can't even do their job right."
I have never had a problem ordering at McDonalds.
"I walk into fast food places and retail stores and all I see people who can't work."
[Now the psychosis is starting to show]. Yet these stores function and make billions for those hard working rich folks who pay their employees as little as they can, with as few benefits as they can get away with.
"Government should not and has no right to distribute wealth to anyone. It is not their job. Their job is protect us from foreign countries and provide the infrastructure necessary to survive. And by infrastructure I mean water, electricity, natural gas, roads and etc. Americans are not entitled to the money they have not earned. They are not entitled to free education. They are not entitled to free health care. Read the US Constitution."
You have no idea what Government is for. As for the Constitution, I'll just point you to this: "For the people, by the people".
"Fair Tax is fair because it a sales tax. People only pay what they want to pay."
You mean people only pay for what they want to *buy*. What is it with you people who think that "consumerism" is the central function of human existence. You can not base a tax code on consumerism. You need to tax the wealth of the nation.
Hopefully you will grow out of your juvenile world view. Unfortunately, someone will probably take your place.
Kind Regards
Thats what I was thinking. But would'nt it be even sweeter if he told the oil compaines he was going to fuck them, and than went ahead and did it? Would certainly restore my faith in American democracy.