It's materialistic philosophy that demands that abiogenesis occur. ID says 'what if there's a non-material root cause for biogenesis?'
Materialists - otherwise known as naturalists - require that nothing non-natural be considered when examining the universe. Frankly this seems absurd to me. If I find a watch on the beach, I'm not going to assume a natural process got it there. If I found an obelisk on the moon, I'd know it was not natural.
Why then must we completely do an about-face when it comes to universal origins or biogenesis? It's philosophy, not science that makes that demand.
Make sense? (Note that I'm not asking to you agree, just asking if you follow my reasoning.)
Are you serious? How can ID - which is not science per se weaken "science's" explanation of origins? Origins is not the 'stuff' of science!
Explanation of speciation is in the realm of scientists, and other testable natural processes are, but origins can neither be observed or tested. It's speculation. Materialists have their non-testable theories about origins, and so do deists.
Neither is science, and neither should be taught in the science classroom. Both could be debated in the philosophy classroom. ID proponents want their theory taught in science classrooms specifically because materialist philosophy is taught in the science classroom and should not be. If we're going to teach non-scientific philosophy there, we should be inclusive.
Since scientists won't stop injecting their non-science views, deists want theirs included too.
I have found that most groups respond well to thoughtful leadership. One good resource on this topic is Leading Geeks It's not perfect, because people are individuals, not stereotypes, but it offers some good suggestions.
One idea I liked was the author's explanation of "Why do geeks hate meetings?" His concept is that, in general, geeks come to situations with a 'problem-solution' mind set. When they encounter a problem, they look for 'the solution.' Since status meetings are designed (in theory) to have everyone come up to speed on current status, there's no actual problem, and thus no solution is needed. As a result, most geeks see these meetings as a complete waste of time because there's no problem!
Many other good ideas are present, too. Y[MG]MV (Mileage or Geeks)
Right. Let's not use our intellect to examine possibilites and then choose to follow where the facts may lead. Let's instead be quick to run to "ad hominem," "straw man" and other approaches that will squelch the free expression of ideas. That's the way to really be a scientist, right?
Let's be clear. Science, since it deals with what can be observed and tested, is ill equipped to speak authoritatively about origins.
Evolution provides an explanation of the collected data points, and is currently accepted conventional wisdom when it comes to speciation. As a scientific theory, it may be falsified at some point in the future, as have countless other scientific ideas in the past. It may be bolstered by future study, or merely continue to hold the position it has. None of us know.
A true scientist will be open to new ideas, test them and evaluate whether they fit the facts or not. If ID is completely baseless, then science can investigate, falsify and then ignore the whole thing.
I think that it is particularly telling that materialists are threatened by the ID movement. Why do you think it is so upsetting?
I obviously read what you wrote, because I quoted it. I think you may fail to have understood the depth of my questions. Did you read and think about what I wrote?
How wise is it to write personal attacks on coworkers from your corporate-purchased system? If you want to be vile in your ad hominem attacks, use your own hardware, your own email address, and DON'T DO IT OVER THE COMPANY NETWORK!
We think of PCs as our personal systems, but they are property of the company, not ours.
It's not a great idea to give vent to negative feelings about coworkers other than in the privacy of your own home anyway.
Also, if you post over https, I'm pretty sure there's a setting that blocks GD from indexing that content.....
No, but it's theoretically possible. You'd have to have a perl compiler, of course. Perl has many asperations, but I'm not aware of the interpreter itself becoming an OS.:)
I don't mean to minimize the life experience you describe, and there is absolutely no justification for the actions of the drugged idiot who screwed up your ID, but I have to ask this:
Analytically, can you really make an equivalence between the hours of your life that were 'stolen' from you, the angst, frustration, and contempt that you felt, and having someone anally rape the perpetrator?
You are justifiably angry with the person who selfishly stole your identity so that he could live without consequences, but would it be just for him to be sexually abused while doing his prison time?
Respectfully, Anomaly
Absolute negative statements are.... difficult
on
Is Your Office Haunted?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When you say "There's no such thing as the supernatural," on what basis do you make that statment?
How can you prove that they don't exist?
Are you saying that non-material things are non-material, or that the non-material does not exist?
What about duty, honor, love? Do they exist? Are they natural?
Slashdot is a poor place to make an absolute negative assertion.
I was out of the office for a couple of days last week. While I was gone, the team needed to get something to Prod "right away." They forgot to attend the CCB meeting, so they went around procedure because this was 'so important.'
In the process, they ended up using an old version of the promote to production process which is the old version BECAUSE IT DESTROYS DATA in certain circumstances.
All of the people who could have caught it were in the CCB meeting, so no one saw the problem until - you guessed it - data was destroyed in prod. (and dev and test BTW)
Why must we document processes to the nth degree? Why must we assume that our people are not going to know what they are doing? Because if we don't, this kind of thing happens.
In this case, documentation did not help, because the 'urgency' dictated that documented procedures be ignored as 'red tape.'
ITIL and RUP et al provide a mechanism for people to follow when developing the specific procedures that prevent this kind of foul up. I also agree with the poster that suggested that these things provide a common vocabulary for the organization to use when referring to process.
For what it's worth, I work for a Fortune 500 company. YMMV.
If we assume that statiscally blacks are more likely to: come from single parent families, live in crime ridden neighborhoods, attend underperforming and underfunded schools, be harassed and ill-treated by the judicial system, be poor; and less likely to complete college -
Why are these things true? Because the culture is racist? Perhaps it is.
Perhaps it is more than that.
The Journal of Negro Education printed an article on success of African Americans from families where there was considerable parental involvement and found that these children attained higher levels of success than other African Americans.
I concur that we should work to make schools better - for all students. If we are serious about societal improvement, we must make families better and stronger, because they are the foundation on which individuals stand when learning to overcome obstacles in life.
The downstram effect of limited parenting, poor role models, and poor primary and secondary education means that people who are selected from that group on the basis of race alone are ill equipped to perform competetively with those who have the advantages from the beginning.
It's a multifaceted problem which will require a multifaceted solution. I get frustrated when people want to put window dressing on and call it a solution.
In the US we are in denial about the societal effect of divorce and single-parent households. We are only now beginning to reap the rewards of the sexual revolution - how many kids go home to single-parent houses? How many kids get home alone for a couple of hours in the afternoon?
I submit that if we could teach people with all amounts of melanin in their skin in our culture how to be successfully married, and how to teach children to value themselves and others, we would revolutionize the US - in less than one generation!
Instead we seek to glorify the ethic of the individual - that self pleasure is all that matters and we must do whatever it takes to 'be happy.' And then continue in our denial by railing against the system, and bias.
"The system" (whatever that is) and bias may discriminate against people of color. It probably does. But it can be overcome. We should teach people about success rather than to live as victims of 'the man.'
Just my $0.25 (sorry for the long and wandering rant on social policy)
The big problem is that in post modern thought we have decided that there must be an egalitarianism (equality) among ideas. The fact is that some ideas are intrinsically better than others. Some things are accurate, others are inaccurate. This simply demonstrates that point exactly. It is true that each person has the same intrinsic value as every other person.
What is not true is that each person has the same quality of ideas on a particular topic. The egalitarianism of people does not equate to equality of ideas.
This will be the grand difficulty with wikipedia. Peer review has a purpose. Presumably peers have more likelihood of equality of ideas.
Post modern thought loses again..... There is such a thing as absolute truth. Bummer.:)
this post explains it better than I can hope to. As a Christian, I don't claim to know everything, and in fact I was unfamiliar with that portion of the Bible. If this topic is of particular interest to you, I am willing to do some study to get a fuller understanding of that passage, and will be happy to try to condense an explanation to slashdot length. Please let me know.
Isn't he supposed to be forgiving as well? That depends. God has lots of qualities - some of which appear to be in conflict with others. For example, God is just - meaning that He must have justice - real, complete justice. This means that sin *must* be punished.
God through Christ took my punishment for me, in the same way that I might pay a fine for one of my children when they are found guilty. (Of course, I might let them pay their own debts, too - but that's another issue.)
Since someone paid the price for my sin, God's need for justice is satisfied. When I stand before God guilty of my sin, my advocate (Jesus Christ) will effectively have the judge look at the price Christ already paid, and I won't have to be punished.
Really, I'm not looking to split hairs with you, but I fear that you may misunderstand something significant about the Christian understanding of scriptures.
You said The Old Testament's main focus is punnishing evildoers The fundamental Christian understanding of this is exactly the opposite of this point of view. The most basic understanding of the Christian faith is this: God created the universe, including one man and one woman who had direct personal relationship with their perfect creator. They were standing on the precipice - created in such a way that they had complete volitional will to choose whether or not to obey God and maintain relationship with Him.
As the story goes, they chose to seek to please themselves rather than to please and honor God's commands. As a result, they were no longer sinless, and were unable to enjoy the relationship that they had previously enjoyed with God.
God could have destroyed them immediately, but showed mercy and compassion toward them. They were unable to completely make up for what they had done. It was in fact, impossible to restore them to theire previous purity. This in some ways is like the pollution of a large icy glass of pure water when a single drop of gasoline is added.
(Of course, in this scientifically enlightened age when we have access to gasoline, we also have access to filtration technology, but what can I say? Every analogy is a bad analogy at some point)
To get back on point, the issue of restoration of purity and relationship with God is the fundamental message of the Old and New testaments. God's will is progressively revealed to mankind over the centuries. The Old testament tells many stories of people who honored God in their lives - some doing better jobs than others - but ultimately all of those who found God's favor did it not through their deeds, but through faith that God's mercy and forgiveness were possible.
The schism between God's perfect mercy, grace, forgiveness, and yet His perfect justice was reconciled when God Himself came from Heaven to earth in the form of a person - Jesus Christ. Christ's death satisfied the requirement for punishment of the sin, and opened the door to intimate relationship with God again. His resurrection demonstrated that the God I worship is more powerful than death itself, and offers hope.
Those who lived before Christ was on earth looked to God's promise of salvation for people of faith. Those who live after Christ have the same hope, just more information than those of the Old testament days.
Also, WRT your comment about the Bible as it relates to science, it is most assuredly not a science textbook. There are many different forms of literary expression in the Bible - narrative, poetry, allegory, etc. The parts that are narrative can be evaluated with respect to external events, and as time passes more and more archeological discoveries are found that support what the Bible says happened in that part of the world during that timeframe.
Evolution offers no real answers about origins of the universe in general, or of life in particular. Intelligent Design is a theory that suggests the possiblity of a designer. I would think that this kind of idea is acceptable within scientific circles, but apparently it is not...
Preservation over time has to do with whether what Christians believe today is consistent with what was taught initially by those who knew Christ while he was on this planet.
Killing? Yes Pillaging? Yes Raping? No. I know of no instance where God commanded someone to rape anyone.
Sin (lack of doing what is completely and entirely right) must be punished. God's mercy causes Him to defer punishment, but His justice demands that sin be punished.
While He is benevolent, "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
I'm curious: Is it your assertion that it is wrong for God to say that killing and taking the goods of those killed is ok?
Most so-called Christians have little idea what Christ taught, are filled with pride, and dishonor His name with their behavior.
Of course, I tend to disagree with a number of your points above, but we are in violent agreement about the understanding of and implementation of what Christ taught.
A couple of points worth discussion - sadly I only have time for one right now: most of that was thrown out by Christ as being wrong A study of this topic is in order to appreciate exactly what Christ taught - more than can reasonbly be covered here, but following your example, I'll quote Christ
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Mt 5:17-18
Jesus did not say that the Old Testament was wrong. Largely he said that the religious types of his day (and prior) had missed the point - focused more on appearing righteous than actually being righteous. Much more to be said, but I've got to run right now...
With respect to my having to teach others morality, the question is "what evidence do you have that the flying spaghetti monster - or whatever diety you have in mind - produced the document you claim provides his authority?"
I have several tests that can be applied to documentation to evealuate whether it is reasonable to pay any attention to what they say. These include: Internal consistency, external consistency, and preservation of the text over time.
How does your theoretical document fare when these ideas are considered?
Christians generally consider the Bible to be accurate (read infallible) in the original languages and original manuscripts. What I read in the English Bible translations is not infallible. Please don't confuse this with corruption. Most teachings from the Bible are amazingly clear. When they are not, then it's time to do a little homework.
Specifically, it's been a few hundred years since the KJV was translated. Has English changed much since the 1600's? Also, do you speak more than one language? While it is my primary language, I am barely passable in English, and speak no other languages. I've studied a little French, some Spanish, and have started to investigate Greek and Hebrew.
I admittedly know little about linguistics, but this much I *do* know. Translation from one language and culture to another is difficult. For example, idioms infrequently fail to make sense to people from other cultures. In addition, subject-verb order matters in some languages, and does not in others. There's LOTS of complexity.
As a result, translators agree on a basic set of rules for translation, but then there is some divergence. The divergence comes from whether the translation will maintain individual words or whole thoughts - word for word, or thought for thought. When there is some question about the meaning of a particular passage, scholars will look to multiple translations, as well as to commentaries from theologians to help provide insight into the meaning of the passage. (There's a whole field of study known as hermeneutics that focuses on biblical interpretation.)
This is frequently the case in many fields. On its face something may appear to be contradictory, but when more is understood about the matter, the contradiction disappears. Interestingly, I found this quote on the 'infidels.org' site: "Science is, after all, a very complex and nuanced affair that can only be truly understood with wide experience and deep thought."
I would submit to you that while the basic premise of Christianity is so simple that a toddler can grasp it, there are depths of theological study that can only be plumbed through a lifetime of thought. Your 'change the premise' assertion seems to me to be more the former than the latter.
I think it comes down to this: What is wrong? What is right? Is anything right?
In American culture, the only two things that are understood to be right for all people at all times are these: 1. All truth is relative. Therefore: Don't force your beliefs on others - sometimes interpreted as "don't express your beliefs around me, you kook!":)
2. The individual's right to pursuit of happiness is the only sacred thing.
On what do you base your opinion that it's "wrong to kill people because of their beliefs?"
Some things are absolutely true. Physiologically speaking, electrocution (within certain parameters) will defintely kill you. Mathematically speaking, 2+2=4 all day long. For some reason it seems hard for many people to accept that certain things are absolutely true with respect to morality.
If you design a mechanical device, is it not your place as the designer to define what ways use of the device is destructive to the device, and what ways are non-destructive? If there is a God who created people, is it not His place to define acceptable and unacceptable norms? If that is true, then is it not also acceptable for Him to determine what to do about people who are in the area of unacceptable norms?
If you're looking to dismiss people of faith as simple-minded peons who have no understanding of logic and who rapidly embrace hypocrisy, then your understanding of that verse is sufficient.
It's true that the King James Version of the english Bible translates that passage "Thou shalt not kill" but the NIV, NKJV, NASB and others translate that passage "Thou shalt not murder."
There's a distinct difference between murder and killing. God ordered the Israelites to kill the people in the promosed land because they rejected God and did what was evil. There was no hope of their turning to doing what was right, and God knew that the only outcome of leaving them alive would be to draw many of the Israelites away from God.
You don't have to agree with what God ordered them to do, but there's no direct contradiction between Exodus 20:13 and God's orders to His people.
Great in theory, lousy in practice. For what it's worth, I worked for years as a part of the desktop management team for a Fortune 500 company. I switched jobs about a year ago. On my corporate-issued laptop, I have the full suite of applications 'certified' to work on the reference build of XP.
I just checked and found that as a part of DOING MY JOB, I need 50 - count them - 50 utilities that are not provided, certified, or approved to go on my laptop. I'm not a developer, but I am a tech lead for implementation of a COTS product deployed on a J2EE app server. Those 50 utilities include: Cygwin, jEdit, filezilla, ultravnc, SP2 & a RAM defragger (b/c my laptop won't hibernate without it) ldap tools, putty, gaim, pdf utilities, an HTML editor, and many others. Pretty much none of these would be 'corporate approved' and without them, my job would be MUCH harder.
I can edit config files in notepad, which *is* corporate certified. It it the most efficient tool? No way! Editing in jEdit is much richer and faster - syntax highlighting for perl, xml, shell scripts, batch files, etc.
This also does not address the issue with the fact that without local admin I'd be unable to install print drivers for my network-attached printer at home. I also would be unable to connect to my wireless LAN at home, because I would not be able to configure the WEP settings. Do I do real work at home? Yup.
Here's my point: I'm not using my laptop as a personal computer. My kids never touch dad's work laptop, and my personal software is installed on my personal PCs. Without local admin, my job would be MUCH harder. Is it expensive for our company to let me have a unique config? Probably. How expensive would it be to not let me have the tools I need to do my job?
What makes sense? In my view, you're penny wise and pound foolish to prevent me from installing the tools I need.
why can't 2 gay men for example (or a hetero couple having anal sex) engage in a pleasurebal activity that doesnt risk anyone else? It matters not to me what consenting adults do behind closed doors. Adults are free to do as they choose. However, the risk of STDs is real, and risk mitigation is dependent on the consistently behaving in ways that reduce risk. within the homosexual community, that seems a bit unlikely to me.
The GLMA (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) lists 10 things that men who have sex with men should be concerned about: 1. HIV/AIDS - 'the last few years have seen a return of unsafe sexual practices'
2. Substance abuse - in a higher percentage than the rest of the population
3. depression/anxiety - at a higher rate than the general population
4. Hepatitis
5. STDs at a high rate - (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, public lice, and others), and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc.).
6. Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer:
7. Alcohol: 'it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men.'
8. Tobacco: 'Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, '
9. Fitness (Diet and Exercise): 'Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.'
10. Anal Papilloma: ' often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.' http://www.glma.org/news/releases/n02071710gaythin gs.html
The point is this. Homosexual activity in men is not healthy. The only item on the list above in which gay men could statistically be compared with straight men is #6. 90% of the top risks identified by the GLMA have higher risk factors for men who have sex with men.
The poster indicated that there was no demonstrable harm. I submit to you that statistically speaking, that is not true.
Abstinence has a 100% effectiveness rate. If you abstain from all forms of sex, you cannot get an STD.
Statistically speaking, if you engage in sex with men, you are less likely to be physically and emotionally healthy.
With respect to lesbians, they have specific health concerns, too: again, according to the GLMA, Breast Cancer
1. Breast Cancer "Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for this cancer than any subset of women in the world"
2. Depression/anxiety
3. Gynecological Cancer Lesbians have higher risks for some of the gynecologic cancers
4. Fitness Research confirms that lesbians have higher body mass than heterosexual women.
5. Substance Use Research indicates that illicit drugs may be used more often among lesbians
While they may not be at the same level of risk as men who insert things into their rectums, they *do* have health risks that are apparently linked to behaviors unique to lesbians.
The lifestyle that accompanies homosexual tendencies is apparently less healthy than the heterosexual lifestyle.
As a rational, thoughtful person would you believe what you saw, or believe that 'there must be some other explanation for what I thought I saw'
Smoke, mirrors, elegant parlor tricks, or perhaps mind altering substances, maybe even hypnotism or the like?
I simply don't find it credible that you would accept that as evidence.
Is it reasonable to suggest that there is NO creator? Can you logically say that without having all knowledge? I don't think that's a rational point of view.
Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to say that a) you do not know whether there is or is not a God, and b) you're unwilling to consider any evidence that might convince you otherwise?
Slashdot Mirror
what has materialism got to do with it?
It's materialistic philosophy that demands that abiogenesis occur. ID says 'what if there's a non-material root cause for biogenesis?'
Materialists - otherwise known as naturalists - require that nothing non-natural be considered when examining the universe. Frankly this seems absurd to me. If I find a watch on the beach, I'm not going to assume a natural process got it there. If I found an obelisk on the moon, I'd know it was not natural.
Why then must we completely do an about-face when it comes to universal origins or biogenesis? It's philosophy, not science that makes that demand.
Make sense? (Note that I'm not asking to you agree, just asking if you follow my reasoning.)
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Are you serious? How can ID - which is not science per se weaken "science's" explanation of origins? Origins is not the 'stuff' of science!
Explanation of speciation is in the realm of scientists, and other testable natural processes are, but origins can neither be observed or tested. It's speculation. Materialists have their non-testable theories about origins, and so do deists.
Neither is science, and neither should be taught in the science classroom. Both could be debated in the philosophy classroom. ID proponents want their theory taught in science classrooms specifically because materialist philosophy is taught in the science classroom and should not be. If we're going to teach non-scientific philosophy there, we should be inclusive.
Since scientists won't stop injecting their non-science views, deists want theirs included too.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I have found that most groups respond well to thoughtful leadership. One good resource on this topic is Leading Geeks It's not perfect, because people are individuals, not stereotypes, but it offers some good suggestions.
One idea I liked was the author's explanation of "Why do geeks hate meetings?" His concept is that, in general, geeks come to situations with a 'problem-solution' mind set. When they encounter a problem, they look for 'the solution.' Since status meetings are designed (in theory) to have everyone come up to speed on current status, there's no actual problem, and thus no solution is needed. As a result, most geeks see these meetings as a complete waste of time because there's no problem!
Many other good ideas are present, too. Y[MG]MV (Mileage or Geeks)
Enjoy!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Right. Let's not use our intellect to examine possibilites and then choose to follow where the facts may lead. Let's instead be quick to run to "ad hominem," "straw man" and other approaches that will squelch the free expression of ideas. That's the way to really be a scientist, right?
Let's be clear. Science, since it deals with what can be observed and tested, is ill equipped to speak authoritatively about origins.
Evolution provides an explanation of the collected data points, and is currently accepted conventional wisdom when it comes to speciation. As a scientific theory, it may be falsified at some point in the future, as have countless other scientific ideas in the past. It may be bolstered by future study, or merely continue to hold the position it has. None of us know.
A true scientist will be open to new ideas, test them and evaluate whether they fit the facts or not. If ID is completely baseless, then science can investigate, falsify and then ignore the whole thing.
I think that it is particularly telling that materialists are threatened by the ID movement. Why do you think it is so upsetting?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
How do you define natural?
I obviously read what you wrote, because I quoted it. I think you may fail to have understood the depth of my questions. Did you read and think about what I wrote?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
How wise is it to write personal attacks on coworkers from your corporate-purchased system? If you want to be vile in your ad hominem attacks, use your own hardware, your own email address, and DON'T DO IT OVER THE COMPANY NETWORK!
We think of PCs as our personal systems, but they are property of the company, not ours.
It's not a great idea to give vent to negative feelings about coworkers other than in the privacy of your own home anyway.
Also, if you post over https, I'm pretty sure there's a setting that blocks GD from indexing that content.....
Bummer about your friend's job.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
No, but it's theoretically possible. You'd have to have a perl compiler, of course. Perl has many asperations, but I'm not aware of the interpreter itself becoming an OS. :)
/
Dated, but on point....
http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~glmclear/research/perlos
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I don't mean to minimize the life experience you describe, and there is absolutely no justification for the actions of the drugged idiot who screwed up your ID, but I have to ask this:
Analytically, can you really make an equivalence between the hours of your life that were 'stolen' from you, the angst, frustration, and contempt that you felt, and having someone anally rape the perpetrator?
You are justifiably angry with the person who selfishly stole your identity so that he could live without consequences, but would it be just for him to be sexually abused while doing his prison time?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
When you say "There's no such thing as the supernatural," on what basis do you make that statment?
How can you prove that they don't exist?
Are you saying that non-material things are non-material, or that the non-material does not exist?
What about duty, honor, love? Do they exist? Are they natural?
Slashdot is a poor place to make an absolute negative assertion.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I was out of the office for a couple of days last week. While I was gone, the team needed to get something to Prod "right away." They forgot to attend the CCB meeting, so they went around procedure because this was 'so important.'
In the process, they ended up using an old version of the promote to production process which is the old version BECAUSE IT DESTROYS DATA in certain circumstances.
All of the people who could have caught it were in the CCB meeting, so no one saw the problem until - you guessed it - data was destroyed in prod. (and dev and test BTW)
Why must we document processes to the nth degree? Why must we assume that our people are not going to know what they are doing? Because if we don't, this kind of thing happens.
In this case, documentation did not help, because the 'urgency' dictated that documented procedures be ignored as 'red tape.'
ITIL and RUP et al provide a mechanism for people to follow when developing the specific procedures that prevent this kind of foul up. I also agree with the poster that suggested that these things provide a common vocabulary for the organization to use when referring to process.
For what it's worth, I work for a Fortune 500 company. YMMV.
If we assume that statiscally blacks are more likely to: come from single parent families, live in crime ridden neighborhoods, attend underperforming and underfunded schools, be harassed and ill-treated by the judicial system, be poor; and less likely to complete college -
Why are these things true? Because the culture is racist? Perhaps it is.
Perhaps it is more than that.
The Journal of Negro Education printed an article on success of African Americans from families where there was considerable parental involvement and found that these children attained higher levels of success than other African Americans.
I concur that we should work to make schools better - for all students. If we are serious about societal improvement, we must make families better and stronger, because they are the foundation on which individuals stand when learning to overcome obstacles in life.
The downstram effect of limited parenting, poor role models, and poor primary and secondary education means that people who are selected from that group on the basis of race alone are ill equipped to perform competetively with those who have the advantages from the beginning.
It's a multifaceted problem which will require a multifaceted solution. I get frustrated when people want to put window dressing on and call it a solution.
In the US we are in denial about the societal effect of divorce and single-parent households. We are only now beginning to reap the rewards of the sexual revolution - how many kids go home to single-parent houses? How many kids get home alone for a couple of hours in the afternoon?
I submit that if we could teach people with all amounts of melanin in their skin in our culture how to be successfully married, and how to teach children to value themselves and others, we would revolutionize the US - in less than one generation!
Instead we seek to glorify the ethic of the individual - that self pleasure is all that matters and we must do whatever it takes to 'be happy.' And then continue in our denial by railing against the system, and bias.
"The system" (whatever that is) and bias may discriminate against people of color. It probably does. But it can be overcome. We should teach people about success rather than to live as victims of 'the man.'
Just my $0.25 (sorry for the long and wandering rant on social policy)
Respectfully,
Anomaly
The big problem is that in post modern thought we have decided that there must be an egalitarianism (equality) among ideas. The fact is that some ideas are intrinsically better than others. Some things are accurate, others are inaccurate. This simply demonstrates that point exactly. It is true that each person has the same intrinsic value as every other person.
:)
What is not true is that each person has the same quality of ideas on a particular topic. The egalitarianism of people does not equate to equality of ideas.
This will be the grand difficulty with wikipedia. Peer review has a purpose. Presumably peers have more likelihood of equality of ideas.
Post modern thought loses again..... There is such a thing as absolute truth. Bummer.
Anomaly
this post explains it better than I can hope to.
As a Christian, I don't claim to know everything, and in fact I was unfamiliar with that portion of the Bible. If this topic is of particular interest to you, I am willing to do some study to get a fuller understanding of that passage, and will be happy to try to condense an explanation to slashdot length. Please let me know.
Isn't he supposed to be forgiving as well?
That depends. God has lots of qualities - some of which appear to be in conflict with others. For example,
God is just - meaning that He must have justice - real, complete justice.
This means that sin *must* be punished.
God through Christ took my punishment for me, in the same way that I might pay a fine for one of my children when they are found guilty. (Of course, I might let them pay their own debts, too - but that's another issue.)
Since someone paid the price for my sin, God's need for justice is satisfied. When I stand before God guilty of my sin, my advocate (Jesus Christ) will effectively have the judge look at the price Christ already paid, and I won't have to be punished.
Does this help clarify what Christians believe?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Really, I'm not looking to split hairs with you, but I fear that you may misunderstand something significant about the Christian understanding of scriptures.
You said The Old Testament's main focus is punnishing evildoers
The fundamental Christian understanding of this is exactly the opposite of this point of view. The most basic understanding of the Christian faith is this:
God created the universe, including one man and one woman who had direct personal relationship with their perfect creator. They were standing on the precipice - created in such a way that they had complete volitional will to choose whether or not to obey God and maintain relationship with Him.
As the story goes, they chose to seek to please themselves rather than to please and honor God's commands. As a result, they were no longer sinless, and were unable to enjoy the relationship that they had previously enjoyed with God.
God could have destroyed them immediately, but showed mercy and compassion toward them. They were unable to completely make up for what they had done. It was in fact, impossible to restore them to theire previous purity. This in some ways is like the pollution of a large icy glass of pure water when a single drop of gasoline is added.
(Of course, in this scientifically enlightened age when we have access to gasoline, we also have access to filtration technology, but what can I say? Every analogy is a bad analogy at some point)
To get back on point, the issue of restoration of purity and relationship with God is the fundamental message of the Old and New testaments. God's will is progressively revealed to mankind over the centuries. The Old testament tells many stories of people who honored God in their lives - some doing better jobs than others - but ultimately all of those who found God's favor did it not through their deeds, but through faith that God's mercy and forgiveness were possible.
The schism between God's perfect mercy, grace, forgiveness, and yet His perfect justice was reconciled when God Himself came from Heaven to earth in the form of a person - Jesus Christ. Christ's death satisfied the requirement for punishment of the sin, and opened the door to intimate relationship with God again. His resurrection demonstrated that the God I worship is more powerful than death itself, and offers hope.
Those who lived before Christ was on earth looked to God's promise of salvation for people of faith. Those who live after Christ have the same hope, just more information than those of the Old testament days.
Also, WRT your comment about the Bible as it relates to science, it is most assuredly not a science textbook. There are many different forms of literary expression in the Bible - narrative, poetry, allegory, etc. The parts that are narrative can be evaluated with respect to external events, and as time passes more and more archeological discoveries are found that support what the Bible says happened in that part of the world during that timeframe.
Evolution offers no real answers about origins of the universe in general, or of life in particular. Intelligent Design is a theory that suggests the possiblity of a designer. I would think that this kind of idea is acceptable within scientific circles, but apparently it is not...
Preservation over time has to do with whether what Christians believe today is consistent with what was taught initially by those who knew Christ while he was on this planet.
Sorry for this tome!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Killing? Yes
Pillaging? Yes
Raping? No. I know of no instance where God commanded someone to rape anyone.
Sin (lack of doing what is completely and entirely right) must be punished. God's mercy causes Him to defer punishment, but His justice demands that sin be punished.
While He is benevolent, "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
I'm curious: Is it your assertion that it is wrong for God to say that killing and taking the goods of those killed is ok?
On what do you base that assertion?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Of course, I tend to disagree with a number of your points above, but we are in violent agreement about the understanding of and implementation of what Christ taught.
A couple of points worth discussion - sadly I only have time for one right now:
most of that was thrown out by Christ as being wrong
A study of this topic is in order to appreciate exactly what Christ taught - more than can reasonbly be covered here, but following your example, I'll quote Christ
Jesus did not say that the Old Testament was wrong. Largely he said that the religious types of his day (and prior) had missed the point - focused more on appearing righteous than actually being righteous. Much more to be said, but I've got to run right now...
With respect to my having to teach others morality, the question is "what evidence do you have that the flying spaghetti monster - or whatever diety you have in mind - produced the document you claim provides his authority?"
I have several tests that can be applied to documentation to evealuate whether it is reasonable to pay any attention to what they say. These include: Internal consistency, external consistency, and preservation of the text over time.
How does your theoretical document fare when these ideas are considered?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Christians generally consider the Bible to be accurate (read infallible) in the original languages and original manuscripts. What I read in the English Bible translations is not infallible. Please don't confuse this with corruption. Most teachings from the Bible are amazingly clear. When they are not, then it's time to do a little homework.
Specifically, it's been a few hundred years since the KJV was translated. Has English changed much since the 1600's? Also, do you speak more than one language? While it is my primary language, I am barely passable in English, and speak no other languages. I've studied a little French, some Spanish, and have started to investigate Greek and Hebrew.
I admittedly know little about linguistics, but this much I *do* know. Translation from one language and culture to another is difficult. For example, idioms infrequently fail to make sense to people from other cultures. In addition, subject-verb order matters in some languages, and does not in others. There's LOTS of complexity.
As a result, translators agree on a basic set of rules for translation, but then there is some divergence. The divergence comes from whether the translation will maintain individual words or whole thoughts - word for word, or thought for thought. When there is some question about the meaning of a particular passage, scholars will look to multiple translations, as well as to commentaries from theologians to help provide insight into the meaning of the passage. (There's a whole field of study known as hermeneutics that focuses on biblical interpretation.)
This is frequently the case in many fields. On its face something may appear to be contradictory, but when more is understood about the matter, the contradiction disappears. Interestingly, I found this quote on the 'infidels.org' site: "Science is, after all, a very complex and nuanced affair that can only be truly understood with wide experience and deep thought."
I would submit to you that while the basic premise of Christianity is so simple that a toddler can grasp it, there are depths of theological study that can only be plumbed through a lifetime of thought. Your 'change the premise' assertion seems to me to be more the former than the latter.
Make sense?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I think it comes down to this:
:)
What is wrong? What is right? Is anything right?
In American culture, the only two things that are understood to be right for all people at all times are these:
1. All truth is relative. Therefore: Don't force your beliefs on others - sometimes interpreted as "don't express your beliefs around me, you kook!"
2. The individual's right to pursuit of happiness is the only sacred thing.
On what do you base your opinion that it's "wrong to kill people because of their beliefs?"
Some things are absolutely true. Physiologically speaking, electrocution (within certain parameters) will defintely kill you. Mathematically speaking, 2+2=4 all day long. For some reason it seems hard for many people to accept that certain things are absolutely true with respect to morality.
If you design a mechanical device, is it not your place as the designer to define what ways use of the device is destructive to the device, and what ways are non-destructive? If there is a God who created people, is it not His place to define acceptable and unacceptable norms? If that is true, then is it not also acceptable for Him to determine what to do about people who are in the area of unacceptable norms?
I'm interested to hear your response.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
If you're looking to dismiss people of faith as simple-minded peons who have no understanding of logic and who rapidly embrace hypocrisy, then your understanding of that verse is sufficient.
It's true that the King James Version of the english Bible translates that passage "Thou shalt not kill" but the NIV, NKJV, NASB and others translate that passage "Thou shalt not murder."
There's a distinct difference between murder and killing. God ordered the Israelites to kill the people in the promosed land because they rejected God and did what was evil. There was no hope of their turning to doing what was right, and God knew that the only outcome of leaving them alive would be to draw many of the Israelites away from God.
You don't have to agree with what God ordered them to do, but there's no direct contradiction between Exodus 20:13 and God's orders to His people.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Great in theory, lousy in practice. For what it's worth, I worked for years as a part of the desktop management team for a Fortune 500 company. I switched jobs about a year ago. On my corporate-issued laptop, I have the full suite of applications 'certified' to work on the reference build of XP.
.02
I just checked and found that as a part of DOING MY JOB, I need 50 - count them - 50 utilities that are not provided, certified, or approved to go on my laptop. I'm not a developer, but I am a tech lead for implementation of a COTS product deployed on a J2EE app server. Those 50 utilities include:
Cygwin, jEdit, filezilla, ultravnc, SP2 & a RAM defragger (b/c my laptop won't hibernate without it) ldap tools, putty, gaim, pdf utilities, an HTML editor, and many others. Pretty much none of these would be 'corporate approved' and without them, my job would be MUCH harder.
I can edit config files in notepad, which *is* corporate certified. It it the most efficient tool? No way! Editing in jEdit is much richer and faster - syntax highlighting for perl, xml, shell scripts, batch files, etc.
This also does not address the issue with the fact that without local admin I'd be unable to install print drivers for my network-attached printer at home. I also would be unable to connect to my wireless LAN at home, because I would not be able to configure the WEP settings. Do I do real work at home? Yup.
Here's my point: I'm not using my laptop as a personal computer. My kids never touch dad's work laptop, and my personal software is installed on my personal PCs. Without local admin, my job would be MUCH harder. Is it expensive for our company to let me have a unique config? Probably. How expensive would it be to not let me have the tools I need to do my job?
What makes sense? In my view, you're penny wise and pound foolish to prevent me from installing the tools I need.
just my
Respectfully,
Anomaly
sarcasm Well, you've truly done me in. I have no defense. You're right. /sarcasm
The writers for that show have little understanding of how Christians understand interpretation of the Bible.
If you will notice, the passages that I quoted are from the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Within Christian circles, that makes a difference.
I doubt that you have any interest in understanding this - it seems that you are only interested in ridicule.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
why can't 2 gay men for example (or a hetero couple having anal sex) engage in a pleasurebal activity that doesnt risk anyone else?
n gs.html
n things.html
It matters not to me what consenting adults do behind closed doors. Adults are free to do as they choose.
However, the risk of STDs is real, and risk mitigation is dependent on the consistently behaving in ways that reduce risk. within the homosexual community, that seems a bit unlikely to me.
The GLMA (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) lists 10 things that men who have sex with men should be concerned about:
1. HIV/AIDS - 'the last few years have seen a return of unsafe sexual practices'
2. Substance abuse - in a higher percentage than the rest of the population
3. depression/anxiety - at a higher rate than the general population
4. Hepatitis
5. STDs at a high rate - (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, public lice, and others), and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc.).
6. Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer:
7. Alcohol: 'it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men.'
8. Tobacco: 'Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, '
9. Fitness (Diet and Exercise): 'Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.'
10. Anal Papilloma: ' often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.'
http://www.glma.org/news/releases/n02071710gaythi
The point is this. Homosexual activity in men is not healthy. The only item on the list above in which gay men could statistically be compared with straight men is #6. 90% of the top risks identified by the GLMA have higher risk factors for men who have sex with men.
The poster indicated that there was no demonstrable harm. I submit to you that statistically speaking, that is not true.
Abstinence has a 100% effectiveness rate. If you abstain from all forms of sex, you cannot get an STD.
Statistically speaking, if you engage in sex with men, you are less likely to be physically and emotionally healthy.
With respect to lesbians, they have specific health concerns, too:
again, according to the GLMA,
Breast Cancer
1. Breast Cancer "Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for this cancer than any subset of women in the world"
2. Depression/anxiety
3. Gynecological Cancer
Lesbians have higher risks for some of the gynecologic cancers
4. Fitness Research confirms that lesbians have higher body mass than heterosexual women.
5. Substance Use Research indicates that illicit drugs may be used more often among lesbians
6. Tobacco Research also indicates that tobacco and smoking products may be used more often by lesbians
http://www.glma.org/news/releases/n02071710lesbia
While they may not be at the same level of risk as men who insert things into their rectums, they *do* have health risks that are apparently linked
to behaviors unique to lesbians.
The lifestyle that accompanies homosexual tendencies is apparently less healthy than the heterosexual lifestyle.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Somehow, I don't find this plausible.
As a rational, thoughtful person would you believe what you saw, or believe that 'there must be some other explanation for what I thought I saw'
Smoke, mirrors, elegant parlor tricks, or perhaps mind altering substances, maybe even hypnotism or the like?
I simply don't find it credible that you would accept that as evidence.
Is it reasonable to suggest that there is NO creator? Can you logically say that without having all knowledge? I don't think that's a rational point of view.
Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to say that
a) you do not know whether there is or is not a God, and
b) you're unwilling to consider any evidence that might convince you otherwise?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
This means that there is *no* evidence that could ever convince you, regardless of whether or not it is true. Is that an accurate statement?
Matt,
What evidence would be sufficient to:
a) convince you that a god exists, and
b) convince you that Jesus Christ is God?
Respectfully,
Anomaly