Sorry, the problem with the declaration The free market has fixed this problem is that it only fixed it AFTER I spent my $500 on a really crappy phone...
No, the free market fixes the problem when no one else buys their phone after you spent your $500 and told the rest of us about it. That's the other part of a free market society that some people forget: risk. You weren't forced to but a new phone without researching it first and if you were the first to buy it you just took a risk and in your scenario, it was a bad one.
If Mormons can't see past one dev, can't see that Linus is just one cog in a very large machine, that's their problem and not his.
Don't worry... most of us are fairly even keeled. Bigoted attacks on my religion, I can handle. Ad hominem attacks on my personal views? No problem. Just don't take away my tax credits for charitable contributions. I'd much rather support the homeless than Uncle Sam.
While there is a slight argument to be made as to whether or not it was for "political expediency," those are indeed beliefs and traditions the LDS church has followed at one time or another (speaking to you from the heart and soul of Mormonism in Provo, UT):
Now as far as the Warren Jeffs, 12 year old bonking crowd, yes they're crazy, but no they merely started at the same root of the tree. No original-orthodoxy Mormons are left, they're dead. The rest -- at least much of the rest here in Utah -- seem to want to live their lives with blinders on about the past (and the outside world, help! I'm trapped in a bubble!). Go and ask your bishop about all of these things and he'll, a: sigh, and b: give you a well thought out, and historically accurate accounting of the church's somewhat malleable belief system.
Or as I do for the members of my ward who ask about these things, c) explain what Elder Oaks taught about the two channels of revelation and how understanding the history of the church ends up hinging on how well you and I can access knowledge from God.
There's a long list of games I love and play over and over to the point of digging out emulation software or nursing along ancient hardware to play them. None of them are perfect, but they are good enough for me to love. To say that games today are amazing but no one is happy is a long stretch, IMO. Maybe I'm too distanced from mainstream gaming nowadays, but there are several games that are both modern and successful. There will always be detractors, especially when a game is widely praised. That doesn't mean "no one" is happy.
I remember this same discussion back in 1991, when a stealth fighter crashed in Iraq, and "experts" were worried that the crash parts would be stolen and help enemies build their own stealth fighter. So far I've not seen any great harm caused. Remember: These pundits are paid to talk, even if it's just "the sky is falling" nonsense and/or hand-wringing like an old maid.
You mean 1999 during the Kosovo war? The only operational (combat) loss of an F-117 (S/N 82-0806) was in Yugoslavia.
They were right to be worried since China has developed a stealth fighter from the technology stolen from that very plane.
Balkan military officials told the Associated Press that China and Russia may have adopted some stealth technology from a Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, which was shot down by the Serbian military in 1999 during the Kosovo war.
The problem is that whatever qualities you attribute to faith, you're doing it without any substantive reason for doing so, and I could find a hundred other religious people that would attribute somewhat different qualities to it, equally unsubstantiated.
Don't let the presence of a thousand religions dilute the reality that there is a God. Just because man does not understand God doesn't mean he isn't understandable in meaningful ways. I get that you and I disagree on that point, but I can't help but feel you have a lot of prejudices when it comes to faith.
... there's much in this life that I will never be able to understand or explain, but I can accept that.
At least we agree on something.:)
I don't need to apply an explanation or cause to everything, especially if those explanations are just superstitions or myths.
Neither do I, but I don't ascribe superstition to things which have a rational explanation in my mind (regardless of what your mind or anyone else's mind sees it as). Do I understand why the hypothetical person died in your example but the other did not, no. But I do have faith in the creator of both people and what I perceive is his plan for us. And I believe that dead or not, we are his children and he desires our happiness. I'm glad you have found happiness with your current belief (or lack thereof).
The problem isn't that faith can't measure up to (or be measured by) science. The problem is that faith is harder to obtain than man's knowledge. A lack of faith does not mean 'more credible' just as having faith is not the same as irrational. What you call rationalization I call understanding. Faith is useful to me and provides me with happiness in this life, regardless of the existence of an afterlife. In the end, I have not harmed you because of my faith and you have not harmed me because of your lack of it. What matters in both perspectives is how we treat each other now, in this life. Does it not?
Please do so. Pray to your God when someone close to you is sick. In your interpretation of things, any answer is an answer from God. If the person is healed, it was a miracle. If the person is not healed, the answer from God was "No. I will not heal this person." This is clearly not testable, as you assume from the beginning that any answer in the situation is a sign from God.
The problem you are describing is one of perspective. Yes, any I answer I receive I attribute to God, because of the faith I have. That doesn't mean I'll get an answer at all, but the eye of faith does see the world a little differently. The other problem is that we can't have a control for God. One where we know that God exercises his power and one where he does not. That part, I admit is not testable. However, the point of faith is not to obtain proof, so in reality, the argument for scientifically testable faith falls down before the experiment begins. In the end, science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but you can't necessarily use one to prove the other.
Keep in mind two things. One, Science is a construct of man and is inherently lacking in ability to measure Deity. Two, Having faith does not make a person less credible in scientific matters.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. What you described DOES NOT happen to millions.
How do you know? I have personally experienced dozens of miracles of that nature. Surely I am not unique? My wife and her family, my own family and extended family, friends and other fellow church-goers have related similar experiences. It may be anecdotal, but as compelling as a particle physicist in Switzerland claiming to find the Higgs Boson or something equally unfathomable to me.
Can you imagine ANY religion taking an unexpected exception, e.g. a miracle and using that as a basis to say "Everything we have been saying for the last 100 years (1000 years) is wrong."
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. "Unexpected exception" to what? Miracles are not exceptions. Judeo-Christian religious texts frequently talk about miracles and Jesus even said (I'm paraphrasing) "Miracles will follow them that believe in me". Why do miracles have to be rare?
When plate tectonics was proposed, it engendered a great deal of debate. But we didn't end up with Orthodox Geologists and New Revelations Geologists. The geologists who continued to try to prove the old theories, failed to do so. While the geologists using the theory of plate tectonics continued to make predictions and find more evidence that supported those predictions, i.e. delivered results.
I'm still not understanding the whole schism thing and how it relates to miracles.
FAITH CAN'T BE PROVEN. period and of discussion. Scientific experiments CAN be proven OR dis-proven, whether by yourself or someone else is completely irrelevant.
I prove faith every day. Maybe your problem is that you can't prove something you don't have?
For some people, yes I guess it is a matter of faith. But only because they are lazy. But the difference between religion and science is that religion is a matter of faith for everyone. The roots of religion trace back to hearsay and legend. The roots of science trace back to provably true axioms which are constant through space and time. Anyone with the motivation can educate themselves enough to trace the logic behind any scientific claim to assess its validity.
B. S.
I may be able to specialize enough to understand the science of one field like say, particle physics, but things like rocket science or material engineering would have too little overlap and have too steep a learning curve for me to master and understand in any meaningful way. That's the whole point of TFA. Laziness has nothing to do with it. No one can learn everything in a lifetime, no matter how talented or long-lived.
I can't build a microprocessor either, or even fully explain how one works, yet I'm typing this right now using one. Science gets results that we can see. Maybe I don't have the specialized education necessary to produce anti-hydrogen. But I don't need to. It's either something useful that will result in some new device or process, or it's just something interesting that doesn't really affect me, but could be very useful to someone else down the road when they need something with the specific properties of anti-hydrogen. Either way, no faith required.
Fair enough. I can't fully explain how someone who had a traumatizing brain injury seen on an X-ray taken at one hospital and then a blessing was performed, the patient shipped to another hospital and all trace of the injury vanished on the next X-ray, but it happened. Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean faith-based healings or other miracles aren't real and repeatable. Maybe I don't have the theological training required to explain it, but I don't need to. It's something useful that happened to me and millions like me.
The key difference between science and religion isn't testability, it's the subject of TFA: Faith. In order to experience miracles, you have to first believe in the power behind the miracle. Yeah, it's a paradox, but I didn't set the system up. People who bandy about the "it's science if it's testable" line don't care to understand faith-based workings because it requires them to give something up -- their pride. Next time you are in a car accident or get a major illness and feel like testing your faith, let me know and I'll be glad to perform a demonstration.
Got some good reviews on Amazon. He self-published and apparently delivers the spiral-bound gems hand signed. I'm thinking the MIB will be visiting him shortly, but if not, it means whatever is in his book is probably not noteworthy.
I think that any plane flying over Qadafi's forces could "draw fire" and justify some MASSIVE retaliation, effectively bringing an air strike on the heavy equipment that is giving them the big advantage. I really don't see how we can justify waiting for "authorisation" on this, considering the U.S. history of foreign policy.
They don't even need to go that far. The way the resolution is worded, all that has to happen to bring the hurt on government tanks is that they move in a threatening manner to any "civilian" in Libya. It doesn't take a word smith to see a blank check just got handed to several european (not the mention the american) militaries.
I hate to be pessimistic about the no-fly-zone. But it seems to me that the Arab governments that backed calls for the UN to impose a no-fly-zone will simply use any foreign military action in Libya as justification for their own plans to intervene in the affairs of other states.
Arab government intervention? Who? The tunisians on one side and the eqyptians on the other? Both of them are still figuring out how to run their new governments. They don't have time to meddle in Libya. Perhaps Iran, which is thousands of kilometers away, but no one in North Africa has the time or manpower to do anything in Libya. Now, the US always has time to meddle -- especially when there's oil involved.
From Secretary Clinton:
"A no-fly zone requires certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems," she said.
"Gadhafi must go," she said, calling him "a ruthless dictator that has no conscience and will destroy anyone or anything in his way."
And even more to create pipelines to get it to the very few refineries on the gulf coast that are designed to handle crude from middle eastern ships. Since the EPA has made it nearly impossible to build more refineries, that's what we're facing. It doesn't matter if we can pump a million barrels of $30/bbl crude from Wyoming if we can't turn it into gas at the same rate and then get it to the pumps.
I used to come to slashdot for a does or three of daily nerdism. Then I came for techy news. Then I came to watch the flamewars when I needed an excuse to eat popcorn. Now? Now I come to see that life really is about who you know.
Ah I get it, God is just being "mysterious". That's the usual cop out for these kinds of acts isn't it? When someone survives against the odds it's a "miracle" and when they don't it's merely "god's will". So God decides to snuff out a bunch of people or trash their livelihoods it's just part of some "greater plan". A plan which involves carnage, untold suffering, human misery, terror and pain. God really is a complete shit isn't He? Let's all bow down and give worship to our cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant.
Bitter much?
Don't want to believe in God, that's cool. Just don't crap all over something that millions of people happen to respect. I get the impression that you have a lot of hate for something you don't really understand. It also sounds like some who believe had tried to explain it to you and you have twisted that into more reason to hate. Clearly, you have made up your mind. Why spit venom on everyone else? Do you think you are going to change their mind?
people still buy MP3 players?
I've been using my phone for that for the past 10 years...
Yes, people still buy MP3 players. In my household, there are two people under the age of twelve who either do not need a smartphone/mp3 player or don't need a phone at all -- yet they would still like to play music/movies and play games.
Not everyone is phone-bound, or at least not everyone is smartphone bound.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, the problem with the declaration The free market has fixed this problem is that it only fixed it AFTER I spent my $500 on a really crappy phone...
No, the free market fixes the problem when no one else buys their phone after you spent your $500 and told the rest of us about it. That's the other part of a free market society that some people forget: risk. You weren't forced to but a new phone without researching it first and if you were the first to buy it you just took a risk and in your scenario, it was a bad one.
If Mormons can't see past one dev, can't see that Linus is just one cog in a very large machine, that's their problem and not his.
Don't worry... most of us are fairly even keeled. Bigoted attacks on my religion, I can handle. Ad hominem attacks on my personal views? No problem. Just don't take away my tax credits for charitable contributions. I'd much rather support the homeless than Uncle Sam.
Sigh.
While there is a slight argument to be made as to whether or not it was for "political expediency," those are indeed beliefs and traditions the LDS church has followed at one time or another (speaking to you from the heart and soul of Mormonism in Provo, UT):
Now as far as the Warren Jeffs, 12 year old bonking crowd, yes they're crazy, but no they merely started at the same root of the tree. No original-orthodoxy Mormons are left, they're dead. The rest -- at least much of the rest here in Utah -- seem to want to live their lives with blinders on about the past (and the outside world, help! I'm trapped in a bubble!). Go and ask your bishop about all of these things and he'll, a: sigh, and b: give you a well thought out, and historically accurate accounting of the church's somewhat malleable belief system.
Or as I do for the members of my ward who ask about these things, c) explain what Elder Oaks taught about the two channels of revelation and how understanding the history of the church ends up hinging on how well you and I can access knowledge from God.
There's a long list of games I love and play over and over to the point of digging out emulation software or nursing along ancient hardware to play them. None of them are perfect, but they are good enough for me to love. To say that games today are amazing but no one is happy is a long stretch, IMO. Maybe I'm too distanced from mainstream gaming nowadays, but there are several games that are both modern and successful. There will always be detractors, especially when a game is widely praised. That doesn't mean "no one" is happy.
Anecdotally = Pulled it out of your ass.
Well, he *is* talking about methane...
I'm experiencing deja vu.
I remember this same discussion back in 1991, when a stealth fighter crashed in Iraq, and "experts" were worried that the crash parts would be stolen and help enemies build their own stealth fighter. So far I've not seen any great harm caused. Remember: These pundits are paid to talk, even if it's just "the sky is falling" nonsense and/or hand-wringing like an old maid.
You mean 1999 during the Kosovo war? The only operational (combat) loss of an F-117 (S/N 82-0806) was in Yugoslavia.
They were right to be worried since China has developed a stealth fighter from the technology stolen from that very plane.
source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iE3jMTTaEhm5I8l63W9OzWiji0-Q?docId=e8f4fe6f3cc042d8af123a99e96b2a96
The problem is that whatever qualities you attribute to faith, you're doing it without any substantive reason for doing so, and I could find a hundred other religious people that would attribute somewhat different qualities to it, equally unsubstantiated.
Don't let the presence of a thousand religions dilute the reality that there is a God. Just because man does not understand God doesn't mean he isn't understandable in meaningful ways. I get that you and I disagree on that point, but I can't help but feel you have a lot of prejudices when it comes to faith.
At least we agree on something. :)
I don't need to apply an explanation or cause to everything, especially if those explanations are just superstitions or myths.
Neither do I, but I don't ascribe superstition to things which have a rational explanation in my mind (regardless of what your mind or anyone else's mind sees it as). Do I understand why the hypothetical person died in your example but the other did not, no. But I do have faith in the creator of both people and what I perceive is his plan for us. And I believe that dead or not, we are his children and he desires our happiness. I'm glad you have found happiness with your current belief (or lack thereof).
The problem isn't that faith can't measure up to (or be measured by) science. The problem is that faith is harder to obtain than man's knowledge. A lack of faith does not mean 'more credible' just as having faith is not the same as irrational. What you call rationalization I call understanding. Faith is useful to me and provides me with happiness in this life, regardless of the existence of an afterlife. In the end, I have not harmed you because of my faith and you have not harmed me because of your lack of it. What matters in both perspectives is how we treat each other now, in this life. Does it not?
Please do so. Pray to your God when someone close to you is sick. In your interpretation of things, any answer is an answer from God. If the person is healed, it was a miracle. If the person is not healed, the answer from God was "No. I will not heal this person." This is clearly not testable, as you assume from the beginning that any answer in the situation is a sign from God.
The problem you are describing is one of perspective. Yes, any I answer I receive I attribute to God, because of the faith I have. That doesn't mean I'll get an answer at all, but the eye of faith does see the world a little differently. The other problem is that we can't have a control for God. One where we know that God exercises his power and one where he does not. That part, I admit is not testable. However, the point of faith is not to obtain proof, so in reality, the argument for scientifically testable faith falls down before the experiment begins. In the end, science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but you can't necessarily use one to prove the other.
Keep in mind two things. One, Science is a construct of man and is inherently lacking in ability to measure Deity. Two, Having faith does not make a person less credible in scientific matters.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. What you described DOES NOT happen to millions.
How do you know? I have personally experienced dozens of miracles of that nature. Surely I am not unique? My wife and her family, my own family and extended family, friends and other fellow church-goers have related similar experiences. It may be anecdotal, but as compelling as a particle physicist in Switzerland claiming to find the Higgs Boson or something equally unfathomable to me.
Can you imagine ANY religion taking an unexpected exception, e.g. a miracle and using that as a basis to say "Everything we have been saying for the last 100 years (1000 years) is wrong."
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. "Unexpected exception" to what? Miracles are not exceptions. Judeo-Christian religious texts frequently talk about miracles and Jesus even said (I'm paraphrasing) "Miracles will follow them that believe in me". Why do miracles have to be rare?
When plate tectonics was proposed, it engendered a great deal of debate. But we didn't end up with Orthodox Geologists and New Revelations Geologists. The geologists who continued to try to prove the old theories, failed to do so. While the geologists using the theory of plate tectonics continued to make predictions and find more evidence that supported those predictions, i.e. delivered results.
I'm still not understanding the whole schism thing and how it relates to miracles.
>
FAITH CAN'T BE PROVEN. period and of discussion. Scientific experiments CAN be proven OR dis-proven, whether by yourself or someone else is completely irrelevant.
I prove faith every day. Maybe your problem is that you can't prove something you don't have?
For some people, yes I guess it is a matter of faith. But only because they are lazy. But the difference between religion and science is that religion is a matter of faith for everyone. The roots of religion trace back to hearsay and legend. The roots of science trace back to provably true axioms which are constant through space and time. Anyone with the motivation can educate themselves enough to trace the logic behind any scientific claim to assess its validity.
B. S.
I may be able to specialize enough to understand the science of one field like say, particle physics, but things like rocket science or material engineering would have too little overlap and have too steep a learning curve for me to master and understand in any meaningful way. That's the whole point of TFA. Laziness has nothing to do with it. No one can learn everything in a lifetime, no matter how talented or long-lived.
I can't build a microprocessor either, or even fully explain how one works, yet I'm typing this right now using one. Science gets results that we can see. Maybe I don't have the specialized education necessary to produce anti-hydrogen. But I don't need to. It's either something useful that will result in some new device or process, or it's just something interesting that doesn't really affect me, but could be very useful to someone else down the road when they need something with the specific properties of anti-hydrogen. Either way, no faith required.
Fair enough. I can't fully explain how someone who had a traumatizing brain injury seen on an X-ray taken at one hospital and then a blessing was performed, the patient shipped to another hospital and all trace of the injury vanished on the next X-ray, but it happened. Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean faith-based healings or other miracles aren't real and repeatable. Maybe I don't have the theological training required to explain it, but I don't need to. It's something useful that happened to me and millions like me.
The key difference between science and religion isn't testability, it's the subject of TFA: Faith. In order to experience miracles, you have to first believe in the power behind the miracle. Yeah, it's a paradox, but I didn't set the system up. People who bandy about the "it's science if it's testable" line don't care to understand faith-based workings because it requires them to give something up -- their pride. Next time you are in a car accident or get a major illness and feel like testing your faith, let me know and I'll be glad to perform a demonstration.
Got some good reviews on Amazon. He self-published and apparently delivers the spiral-bound gems hand signed. I'm thinking the MIB will be visiting him shortly, but if not, it means whatever is in his book is probably not noteworthy.
If I was one and I worked in Amazon's legal department, I would say something like the following:
If you do this, you will be sued, regardless of the legality of your actions.
This is a good way for companies with large law departments to cudgel smaller businesses.
Er... perhaps you should read a little something in TFA about limitations on law suits.
That's more like medium business, not "small".
It's the UN (EU, US, AU and AL) finally, grudgingly, accepting that rulers need to serve their people, not bomb them.
What the heck does Alabama think it's doing sending a delegation to the UN?!?
I think that any plane flying over Qadafi's forces could "draw fire" and justify some MASSIVE retaliation, effectively bringing an air strike on the heavy equipment that is giving them the big advantage. I really don't see how we can justify waiting for "authorisation" on this, considering the U.S. history of foreign policy.
They don't even need to go that far. The way the resolution is worded, all that has to happen to bring the hurt on government tanks is that they move in a threatening manner to any "civilian" in Libya. It doesn't take a word smith to see a blank check just got handed to several european (not the mention the american) militaries.
Don't be surprised if planes are soon (or now) attacking Lybian military targets to weaken Gaddafi.
The B-2's have already left Knob Knoster.
I hate to be pessimistic about the no-fly-zone. But it seems to me that the Arab governments that backed calls for the UN to impose a no-fly-zone will simply use any foreign military action in Libya as justification for their own plans to intervene in the affairs of other states.
Arab government intervention? Who? The tunisians on one side and the eqyptians on the other? Both of them are still figuring out how to run their new governments. They don't have time to meddle in Libya. Perhaps Iran, which is thousands of kilometers away, but no one in North Africa has the time or manpower to do anything in Libya. Now, the US always has time to meddle -- especially when there's oil involved.
From Secretary Clinton:
And even more to create pipelines to get it to the very few refineries on the gulf coast that are designed to handle crude from middle eastern ships. Since the EPA has made it nearly impossible to build more refineries, that's what we're facing. It doesn't matter if we can pump a million barrels of $30/bbl crude from Wyoming if we can't turn it into gas at the same rate and then get it to the pumps.
I used to come to slashdot for a does or three of daily nerdism. Then I came for techy news. Then I came to watch the flamewars when I needed an excuse to eat popcorn. Now? Now I come to see that life really is about who you know.
Ah I get it, God is just being "mysterious". That's the usual cop out for these kinds of acts isn't it? When someone survives against the odds it's a "miracle" and when they don't it's merely "god's will". So God decides to snuff out a bunch of people or trash their livelihoods it's just part of some "greater plan". A plan which involves carnage, untold suffering, human misery, terror and pain. God really is a complete shit isn't He? Let's all bow down and give worship to our cruel, random, unprovable space tyrant.
Bitter much?
Don't want to believe in God, that's cool. Just don't crap all over something that millions of people happen to respect. I get the impression that you have a lot of hate for something you don't really understand. It also sounds like some who believe had tried to explain it to you and you have twisted that into more reason to hate. Clearly, you have made up your mind. Why spit venom on everyone else? Do you think you are going to change their mind?
people still buy MP3 players? I've been using my phone for that for the past 10 years...
Yes, people still buy MP3 players. In my household, there are two people under the age of twelve who either do not need a smartphone/mp3 player or don't need a phone at all -- yet they would still like to play music/movies and play games.
Not everyone is phone-bound, or at least not everyone is smartphone bound.
It's the advisor videos, am I right? I just can't get enough of the fat guy trying to kill the science advisor.