Wow, do you realize that you've just confirmed the stereo type that women have absolutely no sense of logic?
Do you realize that such a horribly gross, over-reaching generalization nullified the ability of any credible person to take anything you said in the rest of your comment seriously?
Have you ever watched a webcam porno on a generic porn-tube site that has no sound because the drunken college girls couldn't splurge for a microphone before going all online-slut for their temporary boyfriends? It totally takes away from the raw, uninhibited, and sloppy lesbian action that you want to experience and, in the worst cases, it can completely ruin the porn.
Making a badass computer animation of one of the most complex aerospace engineering systems to be designed in the last few decades and then not adding sound because there is, technically, never any sound in a vaccuum would cause the same experience loss. It would, effectively, be making some of the best science-porn out there and cheaping out on the microphone, robbing us space geeks of our much anticipated hot lesbian rover-Mars action.
Complaining about a PR clip not being pedantically correct in its techincal details is as retarded as the drunk college girls that won't just cough up $20.00 for a microphone.
You know what I've found as a college graduate that has been out of school for 3 years and is now switching jobs? Most graduates who have been trained for 3 years are unwilling or uninterested in switching jobs unless their company treats them like crap. Once companies start treating their employees with some god-damned dignity, respect, and basic fucking decency again, us newly-trained workers will hang around plenty long.
Of course, if you graduate school and get put in a job where you are consistently talked down to, consistently told that your ethical and moral decisions are inadequate and, therefore, you need regular bi-annual training on contrived ethical delimmas, where you are consistently told that, "Sorry, you aren't actually smart enough to do xxx despite four years of hard, intelligent, quality schoolwork," and where you are consistently told by your manager that, "someone has to keep an eye on all of you," referring to your entire working group as if they were convicts in a labor camp then, yeah, you start to look for a new job after a few years.
Start treating employees with respect and investing time, training, and, most importantly, trust in them and they will stick around longer than 3-5 years. But if being decent to your fucking employees is just too much of an expense then don't be surprised when they get some training and fuck you as hard as you fucked them for three years by walking out just as they start becoming productive.
I am continually surprised at how effectively the DIY, hacker, maker communities consistently fly under the radar of the general social consciousness, as reflected by this particular writer's apparent lack of awareness about them. There has to be a reason for that, but I wonder what it is.
I would wager that most of the folks living in rural Canada do, in fact, own and operate radios as both a hobby and as an emergency backup. I know radios are very popular in rural areas in the States. I would be surprised if any of the folks roughing it in the Canadian wilderness did not have some sort of radio gear that they know how to use.
Most satellite safety modes involve pointing some primary axis at the Sun because it ensures solar power gets to at least part of the solar arrays while minimizing the liklihood that the communications fixtures would interfere with instruments on other satellite platforms. It's a good, "safe and minimally powered," mode to try to recover from.
....even lust or love are emotions that will limit the amount of brain power you can put to use.
Meh, brain power used without a love of something or someone is just wasted energy propping up nothing but intellectual masturbation. The smartest man may sacrifice love for "brain power," but it is the wiser man that sacrifices some, "brain power," for the things that he loves.
So, in your mind, God manifests in the current world and rapes children? Seriously?
Not that far of a stretch. Grecian pagan fundamentalists probably still believe Zeus manifests himself on Earth to rape people, though, He seems to prefer taking forms like rams and rain clouds rather than men. Ah well, if you're going for God-rape, why not throw in some beastiality with it as well, eh?
For what it's worth, I do know at least one person to calls themselves a Hellenistic Priestess and actually worships the ancient Greek pantheon of gods, so they do exist.:D
Which, incidentally, is also why we have so many laws on the books demanding that the government does stuff for us, but that nobody has to foot the bill for all that stuff. Yay direct democracy!
But you're correct, the referndum and petition powers are very sharp, double-edged swords.
In California we pick the Governor. Any half-decent civics class should pretty explicitly teach that the executive branch has one very strong check & balance power which is to appoint the judiciary. This is, in my opinion, the single most important responsibility an executive has. When you vote for Governor (or President, at the Federal level), ask yourself who you think they would appoint to be a judge. If you don't trust their judgement on that matter (history of cronyism, rubbing elbows with skeezy lawyers, whatever) then don't vote for that executive.
Of course, these days finding a half-decent civics class anywhere in this country seems like finding a needle in a haystack, but that's a separate issue.
I guess my point is that in an area not under the control of the Catholic church, science progressed at a higher rate. But, of course, as you pointed out you have to take into account the utter collapse of civilized (for Roman definitons of civilized) society in Europe. It is, however, a wonder that it took them a couple hundred years to get back to something resembling the civilized society they had before the collapse.
Well if the 'time' clock is defined by God, his version of, 'time' may be so drastically different in magnitude than ours that billions of millenia here is but a mere eye-blink to him, and, thus, peta-bytes of data generated may not be that large from his perspective. Again, mind you, I am not advocating this point of view, but it is an interesting thing to think about...
Fair enough. I typically just try to hammer on the inconsistencies of the points that Biblical advocates take for granted because, well, if they can't justify why they take something for granted...
Anyways, I get what you are saying about the pedantics of the whole Bible being a lot of, "he-said-she-said." Typically, however, Bible advocates tend to wave their hand and say that whatever versions of the Bible we have today are they way they are and say what they say because they are precisely how God meant them to be right now...or something along those lines.
It reminds me of the blind optimism Voltaire satirized in Candide.
Please don't. This is an interesting scientific topic and I would rather not have it threadjacked over some damn holy war, no matter what side of the science/debate/politics/religion/controversy you are on.
If there is a Mod listening, please flag this as off-topic, even if it is a joke.
Claiming that parents taking an interest in their child's education will solve the education problems of the United States is pretty much the same kind of arguement that says the solution to increasing STD rates and teenage pregnancies is massive, self-imposed abstinence.
It's a great idea, but in the face of reality it fails. We have a few decades worth of evidence that suggests while people should be interested in their childen's education, the mass majority of them are not. We need to design a solution to account for this problem as well.
That kind of attitude, while militant and progressive (for very liberal definitions of progressive) is a very good way to convince religious folk that scientists are condescending, evangelistic assholes that are no better than the ancient Crusaders whom they choose to denounce.
Maybe God just wrote some high level equations from which all of the physical happenings in the universe flow. Think of God like a computer programmer. He writes down some relativity equations, maybe some quantum mechancs, adds in a random number generator here or there, wraps it all up in an infinite while loop, compiles it, runs it, and ka-pow universe as we know it.
I'm not saying that's how it happened, but that's how I've heard various religious folk that are also highly educated scientists describe it all.
What makes the fact that Jesus said something imply that thing is the most important bit in the Bible true?
Lots of people say lots of stuff in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments. What empirical evidence is there to suggest that anything spoken by Jesus should be taken as higher authority than anything spoken by anyone else?
Your argument basically amounts to:
1) Everything Jesus says must be considered truth.
2) Jesus says there are two commandments that are more important than all others.
3) Those two commandments are "Love God. Love other human beings"
4) Therefore, "Love God, and love other human beings." are the most important bits within the Bible.
I guess what I am getting at is that your argument is a bit circular. Christ tells us what the most important things are to believe, and those must be considered the most important things to beleive because Christ tells us so.
So what? What makes Christ special? And how do you know Jesus is always right, or, more pedantically, how do you know he is right on this topic?
And as I understand it, during the Dark Ages, there was even more scientific progress and advancement occuring in the Middle East and in places like Turkey, where the church didn't have a stranglehold on information. In fact, the various documentaries I've watched and books that I've read, made it pretty explicitly clear that much of the scientific and cultural advances of the Roman Empire only survived through to the Renaissance because they were held and maintained by Persian culture. So....yeah.
The difference between that "holy" book and most others is that it takes a definitive viewpoint that all men are flawed and the ONLY redemption is by faith. Science doesn't deal, ever, with how flawed man really is. Science assumes that we can "fix" whatever flaws we have with science, where that book makes the exact opposite case.
And from EMPIRICAL evidence, the book is 100% accurate on that point, while science is 0%. I guess we just need to give science more time to catch up. huh?
Huh? You're going to have to explain that one a bit more. Are you seriously arguing that empirical evidence suggests man is bad, and the only redemption he can find is by believing the teachings in a 2,000 year old book that has been the cause of more wars than I care to count? Or that his only redemption is through faith in some sort of God? How do you explain societies that evolved and survived just fine without Christianity like, I don't know, Japan, or China? Was every member of those cultures implicitly immoral and incapable of redemption?
And are you honestly arguing that there is no empirical evidence that science can fix flaws? I don't even know where to start picking that argument apart. What about when science showed that all humans, regardless of race, descended from one set of common ancestors, thus providing a pretty compelling scientific arguement for ending racism? Does that not count for some reason?
I mean, seriously, how can you make a claim like the one you made and keep a straight face?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, do you realize that you've just confirmed the stereo type that women have absolutely no sense of logic?
Do you realize that such a horribly gross, over-reaching generalization nullified the ability of any credible person to take anything you said in the rest of your comment seriously?
Have you ever watched a webcam porno on a generic porn-tube site that has no sound because the drunken college girls couldn't splurge for a microphone before going all online-slut for their temporary boyfriends? It totally takes away from the raw, uninhibited, and sloppy lesbian action that you want to experience and, in the worst cases, it can completely ruin the porn.
Making a badass computer animation of one of the most complex aerospace engineering systems to be designed in the last few decades and then not adding sound because there is, technically, never any sound in a vaccuum would cause the same experience loss. It would, effectively, be making some of the best science-porn out there and cheaping out on the microphone, robbing us space geeks of our much anticipated hot lesbian rover-Mars action.
Complaining about a PR clip not being pedantically correct in its techincal details is as retarded as the drunk college girls that won't just cough up $20.00 for a microphone.
You know what I've found as a college graduate that has been out of school for 3 years and is now switching jobs? Most graduates who have been trained for 3 years are unwilling or uninterested in switching jobs unless their company treats them like crap. Once companies start treating their employees with some god-damned dignity, respect, and basic fucking decency again, us newly-trained workers will hang around plenty long.
Of course, if you graduate school and get put in a job where you are consistently talked down to, consistently told that your ethical and moral decisions are inadequate and, therefore, you need regular bi-annual training on contrived ethical delimmas, where you are consistently told that, "Sorry, you aren't actually smart enough to do xxx despite four years of hard, intelligent, quality schoolwork," and where you are consistently told by your manager that, "someone has to keep an eye on all of you," referring to your entire working group as if they were convicts in a labor camp then, yeah, you start to look for a new job after a few years.
Start treating employees with respect and investing time, training, and, most importantly, trust in them and they will stick around longer than 3-5 years. But if being decent to your fucking employees is just too much of an expense then don't be surprised when they get some training and fuck you as hard as you fucked them for three years by walking out just as they start becoming productive.
I am continually surprised at how effectively the DIY, hacker, maker communities consistently fly under the radar of the general social consciousness, as reflected by this particular writer's apparent lack of awareness about them. There has to be a reason for that, but I wonder what it is.
I would wager that most of the folks living in rural Canada do, in fact, own and operate radios as both a hobby and as an emergency backup. I know radios are very popular in rural areas in the States. I would be surprised if any of the folks roughing it in the Canadian wilderness did not have some sort of radio gear that they know how to use.
Meh, we yanks may die younger but we have hotter girls to fuck along the way. Suck it!
Most satellite safety modes involve pointing some primary axis at the Sun because it ensures solar power gets to at least part of the solar arrays while minimizing the liklihood that the communications fixtures would interfere with instruments on other satellite platforms. It's a good, "safe and minimally powered," mode to try to recover from.
But let's be practical here. Of those objects listed, The Bible is by far the most effective object to bludgeon someone's face with.
....even lust or love are emotions that will limit the amount of brain power you can put to use.
Meh, brain power used without a love of something or someone is just wasted energy propping up nothing but intellectual masturbation. The smartest man may sacrifice love for "brain power," but it is the wiser man that sacrifices some, "brain power," for the things that he loves.
So, in your mind, God manifests in the current world and rapes children? Seriously?
Not that far of a stretch. Grecian pagan fundamentalists probably still believe Zeus manifests himself on Earth to rape people, though, He seems to prefer taking forms like rams and rain clouds rather than men. Ah well, if you're going for God-rape, why not throw in some beastiality with it as well, eh?
:D
For what it's worth, I do know at least one person to calls themselves a Hellenistic Priestess and actually worships the ancient Greek pantheon of gods, so they do exist.
Which, incidentally, is also why we have so many laws on the books demanding that the government does stuff for us, but that nobody has to foot the bill for all that stuff. Yay direct democracy!
But you're correct, the referndum and petition powers are very sharp, double-edged swords.
In California we pick the Governor. Any half-decent civics class should pretty explicitly teach that the executive branch has one very strong check & balance power which is to appoint the judiciary. This is, in my opinion, the single most important responsibility an executive has. When you vote for Governor (or President, at the Federal level), ask yourself who you think they would appoint to be a judge. If you don't trust their judgement on that matter (history of cronyism, rubbing elbows with skeezy lawyers, whatever) then don't vote for that executive.
Of course, these days finding a half-decent civics class anywhere in this country seems like finding a needle in a haystack, but that's a separate issue.
Ak-47's are cheaper and easier to maintain.
I guess my point is that in an area not under the control of the Catholic church, science progressed at a higher rate. But, of course, as you pointed out you have to take into account the utter collapse of civilized (for Roman definitons of civilized) society in Europe. It is, however, a wonder that it took them a couple hundred years to get back to something resembling the civilized society they had before the collapse.
Well if the 'time' clock is defined by God, his version of, 'time' may be so drastically different in magnitude than ours that billions of millenia here is but a mere eye-blink to him, and, thus, peta-bytes of data generated may not be that large from his perspective. Again, mind you, I am not advocating this point of view, but it is an interesting thing to think about...
Fair enough. I typically just try to hammer on the inconsistencies of the points that Biblical advocates take for granted because, well, if they can't justify why they take something for granted...
Anyways, I get what you are saying about the pedantics of the whole Bible being a lot of, "he-said-she-said." Typically, however, Bible advocates tend to wave their hand and say that whatever versions of the Bible we have today are they way they are and say what they say because they are precisely how God meant them to be right now...or something along those lines.
It reminds me of the blind optimism Voltaire satirized in Candide.
Please don't. This is an interesting scientific topic and I would rather not have it threadjacked over some damn holy war, no matter what side of the science/debate/politics/religion/controversy you are on.
If there is a Mod listening, please flag this as off-topic, even if it is a joke.
Yeah, but at least we can give him credit for being poor but not going into debt. That's more sense than most poor folk have.
See, The Dunning-Kruger effect.
Claiming that parents taking an interest in their child's education will solve the education problems of the United States is pretty much the same kind of arguement that says the solution to increasing STD rates and teenage pregnancies is massive, self-imposed abstinence.
It's a great idea, but in the face of reality it fails. We have a few decades worth of evidence that suggests while people should be interested in their childen's education, the mass majority of them are not. We need to design a solution to account for this problem as well.
That kind of attitude, while militant and progressive (for very liberal definitions of progressive) is a very good way to convince religious folk that scientists are condescending, evangelistic assholes that are no better than the ancient Crusaders whom they choose to denounce.
Maybe God just wrote some high level equations from which all of the physical happenings in the universe flow. Think of God like a computer programmer. He writes down some relativity equations, maybe some quantum mechancs, adds in a random number generator here or there, wraps it all up in an infinite while loop, compiles it, runs it, and ka-pow universe as we know it.
I'm not saying that's how it happened, but that's how I've heard various religious folk that are also highly educated scientists describe it all.
What makes the fact that Jesus said something imply that thing is the most important bit in the Bible true?
Lots of people say lots of stuff in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments. What empirical evidence is there to suggest that anything spoken by Jesus should be taken as higher authority than anything spoken by anyone else?
Your argument basically amounts to:
1) Everything Jesus says must be considered truth.
2) Jesus says there are two commandments that are more important than all others.
3) Those two commandments are "Love God. Love other human beings"
4) Therefore, "Love God, and love other human beings." are the most important bits within the Bible.
I guess what I am getting at is that your argument is a bit circular. Christ tells us what the most important things are to believe, and those must be considered the most important things to beleive because Christ tells us so.
So what? What makes Christ special? And how do you know Jesus is always right, or, more pedantically, how do you know he is right on this topic?
And as I understand it, during the Dark Ages, there was even more scientific progress and advancement occuring in the Middle East and in places like Turkey, where the church didn't have a stranglehold on information. In fact, the various documentaries I've watched and books that I've read, made it pretty explicitly clear that much of the scientific and cultural advances of the Roman Empire only survived through to the Renaissance because they were held and maintained by Persian culture. So....yeah.
The difference between that "holy" book and most others is that it takes a definitive viewpoint that all men are flawed and the ONLY redemption is by faith. Science doesn't deal, ever, with how flawed man really is. Science assumes that we can "fix" whatever flaws we have with science, where that book makes the exact opposite case.
And from EMPIRICAL evidence, the book is 100% accurate on that point, while science is 0%. I guess we just need to give science more time to catch up. huh?
Huh? You're going to have to explain that one a bit more. Are you seriously arguing that empirical evidence suggests man is bad, and the only redemption he can find is by believing the teachings in a 2,000 year old book that has been the cause of more wars than I care to count? Or that his only redemption is through faith in some sort of God? How do you explain societies that evolved and survived just fine without Christianity like, I don't know, Japan, or China? Was every member of those cultures implicitly immoral and incapable of redemption?
And are you honestly arguing that there is no empirical evidence that science can fix flaws? I don't even know where to start picking that argument apart. What about when science showed that all humans, regardless of race, descended from one set of common ancestors, thus providing a pretty compelling scientific arguement for ending racism? Does that not count for some reason?
I mean, seriously, how can you make a claim like the one you made and keep a straight face?