It was my understanding that a person, likely named Jesus, did live in the area at the time and did religious teaching. The point to argue is if he's anything devine...
But, I guess it's academic since most of us can agree that if he did exist, he wasn't really the son of God.
Actually it goes something like this:
1) I can look at living species and fossil records and find a pattern of long periods of slow change and short periods of fast change in species, along with the branching of species. These things are SHOWN in the physical world.
2) I can assume a natural process caused this pattern, perhaps based on fitness and survival. Golly, I'll call it evolution.
See, we don't start with a theory and end with a theory. We start with observation and end with a theory.
I'd accuse Chomsky of visceral hatred and say it's a bad thing.
Chomsky doesn't need dig deeper into the deep, dark secrets than an average Joe. Most of the evils of our country aren't even secret. In his effort to find the hidden truths, he smears blame from where it should be to where is has no place.
Take this Somalia conflict. There are people (I don't know what Chomsky has said on it) with a hatred of the US that will say evil corrupted every level:
1) We went in for oil (no real humanitarian effort).
2) We sent violent racists into the country, in which they...
3) murdered many innocent, unarmed, peacefull people who couldn't defend themselves.
In reality, the truth takes very little digging; so little that it is very anticlimactic. We tried to kill two birds with one stone:
1) We went in for both (a) humanitarian aid (b) oil interests.
[then the corruption ends, and...]
2) Few of our soldiers are racist.
3) Our soldiers were robbed, harassed, and abused by the people they expected to celebrate them. Then our solders were attacked by an ARMED mob that killed many and downed some helecopters. Did some of our people "react badly"? Yes, but most actually did simply defend themselves.
It's their inability to believe down-to-earth conspiracy that makes me say these "visceral hatred" folks could, at least, use a slight perspective change. Drop the hatred and look at it from the outside and with suspician, but not hatred, and you'll see the corruption of the united states quite clearly without being a nut.
That's very interesting, but you rely too much on Noam Chomsky. That's like getting your science from the flat earth society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as cynical as the next guy, and I do believe we (the united states) go around enforcing our oil policy in the worst ways.
Any attention to this is good, even if it's half wrong.
Just be careful, as your post goes off the path of conspiracy theory to rediculous with subtext 3, "Those damned blacks.", and subtext 4, "Kill Arabs."
Let's look at this from the conspiratory angle:
1) china begins building up nuclear arms
2) china buys us-made jet from boeing, a company that could use ANY business
3) china pays $30 mill for a $10 mill job
4) bush chokes on a pretzel
6) the plane gets bugged (wow, what a surprise...)
7) china makes a big deal about this...
the only conclusion that makes any sense is that china wants baywatch
I'm a big fan of Mac hardware, but I'm more of a command line guy. I tolerate the interface. (I wish for a dual proc G4 tower, cheap.)
**What I hate are the _rabit_ Mac fans.** I think many Mac haters may feel the same, and only misdirect their hate to the hardware or OS.
I don't care if my computer comes in a shoebox--I want it to do things. These Mac people want to skip performance, skip practicality, and jump right to "But what does it look like? Does it come in any more colors?"
This new iMac doesn't seem too new, innovative, or "outside the box." But, do I like it? Yes.
I don't like people that ignore the good hardware and actually pay extra for eye-candy and new colors. I acuse rabid Mac fans of unusual priorities.
Well, if you remove the gang-related gun deaths, the US stats are comperable (but not equal) to that of Europe. If you include them, we fall into war-zone territory. Make of that what you will...
The increase of voilent crime when guns are banned is a real phenomenon. Take England for example. The pre-ban violent crime rate was something non-existant, like 2 crimes a year (slight exageration). It increased to something like 4 crimes a year post-ban (again, slight exageration).
Instead of bitching about how the ban increased crime rates to the just-more-than-nothing rate it is, I'm curious how it was so peaceful before the ban. How'd they do that?
P.S. I don't know about Australia, but here in the US, _sometimes_ the shooting of a police officer is a time to cheer.
Well, I've got a PII350 with a Matrox G200 (yes, G200) and I get 45-50fps in Quake III, but it's only 640x480, I admit. Still, it's all I need right now.
But doubling your frame rate with a PCI card is something interesting. Hell, I could use new speakers...
What we know of the beginning of the universe shows us that the laws of physics were different. If we trace the math back, the laws will hopefully change as we go back, thereby coming to a point where something CAN come from nothing.
I'm a nihilist (definition 2 of your link--aka 'the universe doesn't care if I rob a bank), and I would not like to be associated with this guy.
Most of his post is this contrarian crap with some badly stated non-determinism thrown in for kicks. He does express a depressing pointlesness with some out of control skepticism, but it isn't nihilistic.
Look at this sentance: "just because us humans are reductionist thinkers and anal-retentive 'everything in my world has to make sense' psychological types doesn't mean the universe has to fit that template." This is contrarian.
This fragment: "their absolutism can be compared to religious fundamentalism." is anti-absolutism, or militant non-determinism
"nothing but noise from which various descriptive rules emerge, but dependent on no other larger organizing principle" is also non-determinism, not nihilism
"it doesn't need a beginning, it doesn't need an end. the universe can be timeless, static, and random" again, non-determimistic
This guy needs to calm down and stop calling everyone's theories mental abborations. I can believe the universe is without meaning or purpose and morals are baseless all on my own. He isn't invited.
You could just know every vector of every particle plus know about all the energy everywhere and calculate backwards. And, even better, you could observe just a little matter and extrapolate the positions of everything else.
I have this project going where I observe some fairy cake and...
Or, we could finally get a theory that explains everything perfectly and calculate the beginning of the universe from that, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this article...
Re:COULD be exceedingly useful
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
I'll be the first to drive my car over a cliff (without me in it) as soon as it's unnecessary. But, it is still necessary.
It takes me 15-20 minutes to get to school at 65mph and it's cold (20+ below zero much of the year).
Look this sentance: "A conference in London warns that gene therapies for diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis may be used by athletes to enhance performance."
The fear is that normal people could have genes changed at age 20-25 and get cool new features.
The only way to detect this may be to compare the current genetic makeup of a person a past one, but they'll probibly get around that.
There's been a lot of talk about China actually giving their atheletes hard to detect performance enhancing drugs.
The guessing at motives seems to point to the same thing no matter what the act. The idea is that China has a self-esteem problem. Winning in the Olympics and their publishing at home (that has things like "America is not as strong as it looks.", "It's easy to defeat aircraft carriers.", and "We're strong because X.") give a short self-esteem boost.
I doubt they do any genetic modification though...
I did call it an exageration (and it is); and the main point was the police line: "If you have nothing to hide, you have no good reason to object and nothing to fear..."
Arguments for cameras seem to be based on that point and it's unsound.
Fuzz: Can we search your home without cause or a warrent?
You: Umm.... No.
Coppers: If you have nothing to hide, you have no good reason to object and nothing to fear...
You: OK. I live in the UK and that makes perfect sense to me.
Police: Thank you.
"Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today."
And this is the whole problem. Money goes into designing a top 100 with corp creations in the top 10. This makes CDs expensive and gives us crap radio.
Throwing tons of money into reseach and putting years of brain power into the inevitable need for alternative energy sources sound like stifling research to me...
And all with good reason. When the oil is gone, they don't want anyone to make money in the energy business--even themselves.
Of course, this is all in self-interest; so it's evil.
The MIT exokernel project at: http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo.html seems to say that it will make things smaller, faster, simpler and more elegant PLUS will work with current software.
But, is this really all true? I have some doubts, but it looks really interesting.
Re:I know a few reasons
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
You are the first person in about a year of my arguing this to best me. Good post.
I guess I'm wrong.
But, this leads to what America's role in the world should be. From my perspective America just can't please anybody.
As an American, personally, I go out of my way to learn about world events, to get opinions from other peoples, and to find those with good opposing views. As a country I think we're perfectly happy to do good, to even go to others for guidance and to be held responsible. (Go ahead and argue that we don't.) But the world seems critical, not helpfull.
I'd like some opinion beyond the after the fact, 20-20, "that thing you just did was wrong." I want to know, what should are country be doing?
I just want to give up and become an isolationist sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
It was my understanding that a person, likely named Jesus, did live in the area at the time and did religious teaching. The point to argue is if he's anything devine...
But, I guess it's academic since most of us can agree that if he did exist, he wasn't really the son of God.
Actually it goes something like this:
1) I can look at living species and fossil records and find a pattern of long periods of slow change and short periods of fast change in species, along with the branching of species. These things are SHOWN in the physical world.
2) I can assume a natural process caused this pattern, perhaps based on fitness and survival. Golly, I'll call it evolution.
See, we don't start with a theory and end with a theory. We start with observation and end with a theory.
I'd accuse Chomsky of visceral hatred and say it's a bad thing.
Chomsky doesn't need dig deeper into the deep, dark secrets than an average Joe. Most of the evils of our country aren't even secret. In his effort to find the hidden truths, he smears blame from where it should be to where is has no place.
Take this Somalia conflict. There are people (I don't know what Chomsky has said on it) with a hatred of the US that will say evil corrupted every level:
1) We went in for oil (no real humanitarian effort).
2) We sent violent racists into the country, in which they...
3) murdered many innocent, unarmed, peacefull people who couldn't defend themselves.
In reality, the truth takes very little digging; so little that it is very anticlimactic. We tried to kill two birds with one stone:
1) We went in for both (a) humanitarian aid (b) oil interests.
[then the corruption ends, and...]
2) Few of our soldiers are racist.
3) Our soldiers were robbed, harassed, and abused by the people they expected to celebrate them. Then our solders were attacked by an ARMED mob that killed many and downed some helecopters. Did some of our people "react badly"? Yes, but most actually did simply defend themselves.
It's their inability to believe down-to-earth conspiracy that makes me say these "visceral hatred" folks could, at least, use a slight perspective change. Drop the hatred and look at it from the outside and with suspician, but not hatred, and you'll see the corruption of the united states quite clearly without being a nut.
That's very interesting, but you rely too much on Noam Chomsky. That's like getting your science from the flat earth society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as cynical as the next guy, and I do believe we (the united states) go around enforcing our oil policy in the worst ways.
Any attention to this is good, even if it's half wrong.
Just be careful, as your post goes off the path of conspiracy theory to rediculous with subtext 3, "Those damned blacks.", and subtext 4, "Kill Arabs."
Let's look at this from the conspiratory angle:
1) china begins building up nuclear arms
2) china buys us-made jet from boeing, a company that could use ANY business
3) china pays $30 mill for a $10 mill job
4) bush chokes on a pretzel
6) the plane gets bugged (wow, what a surprise...)
7) china makes a big deal about this...
the only conclusion that makes any sense is that china wants baywatch
I'm a big fan of Mac hardware, but I'm more of a command line guy. I tolerate the interface. (I wish for a dual proc G4 tower, cheap.)
**What I hate are the _rabit_ Mac fans.** I think many Mac haters may feel the same, and only misdirect their hate to the hardware or OS.
I don't care if my computer comes in a shoebox--I want it to do things. These Mac people want to skip performance, skip practicality, and jump right to "But what does it look like? Does it come in any more colors?"
This new iMac doesn't seem too new, innovative, or "outside the box." But, do I like it? Yes.
I don't like people that ignore the good hardware and actually pay extra for eye-candy and new colors. I acuse rabid Mac fans of unusual priorities.
Well, if you remove the gang-related gun deaths, the US stats are comperable (but not equal) to that of Europe. If you include them, we fall into war-zone territory. Make of that what you will...
The increase of voilent crime when guns are banned is a real phenomenon. Take England for example. The pre-ban violent crime rate was something non-existant, like 2 crimes a year (slight exageration). It increased to something like 4 crimes a year post-ban (again, slight exageration).
Instead of bitching about how the ban increased crime rates to the just-more-than-nothing rate it is, I'm curious how it was so peaceful before the ban. How'd they do that?
P.S. I don't know about Australia, but here in the US, _sometimes_ the shooting of a police officer is a time to cheer.
Well, I've got a PII350 with a Matrox G200 (yes, G200) and I get 45-50fps in Quake III, but it's only 640x480, I admit. Still, it's all I need right now.
But doubling your frame rate with a PCI card is something interesting. Hell, I could use new speakers...
Most places, like mine, have 0 devices capable of playing DVDs. So, DVD support in a game device IS a good selling feature.
I know what you mean. I still use a SB16, and it's all I need.
If I had to get rid of my ISA slot, I'd go for a good signal/noise ratio and skip the wave table, 3d sound, processing, etc.
What we know of the beginning of the universe shows us that the laws of physics were different. If we trace the math back, the laws will hopefully change as we go back, thereby coming to a point where something CAN come from nothing.
But, that's just hopefull thinking.
I'm a nihilist (definition 2 of your link--aka 'the universe doesn't care if I rob a bank), and I would not like to be associated with this guy.
Most of his post is this contrarian crap with some badly stated non-determinism thrown in for kicks. He does express a depressing pointlesness with some out of control skepticism, but it isn't nihilistic.
Look at this sentance: "just because us humans are reductionist thinkers and anal-retentive 'everything in my world has to make sense' psychological types doesn't mean the universe has to fit that template." This is contrarian.
This fragment: "their absolutism can be compared to religious fundamentalism." is anti-absolutism, or militant non-determinism
"nothing but noise from which various descriptive rules emerge, but dependent on no other larger organizing principle" is also non-determinism, not nihilism
"it doesn't need a beginning, it doesn't need an end. the universe can be timeless, static, and random" again, non-determimistic
This guy needs to calm down and stop calling everyone's theories mental abborations. I can believe the universe is without meaning or purpose and morals are baseless all on my own. He isn't invited.
Seeing the beginning of the universe is easy.
You could just know every vector of every particle plus know about all the energy everywhere and calculate backwards. And, even better, you could observe just a little matter and extrapolate the positions of everything else.
I have this project going where I observe some fairy cake and...
Or, we could finally get a theory that explains everything perfectly and calculate the beginning of the universe from that, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this article...
I'll be the first to drive my car over a cliff (without me in it) as soon as it's unnecessary. But, it is still necessary.
It takes me 15-20 minutes to get to school at 65mph and it's cold (20+ below zero much of the year).
This "IT" is of no help to me...
Look this sentance: "A conference in London warns that gene therapies for diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis may be used by athletes to enhance performance."
The fear is that normal people could have genes changed at age 20-25 and get cool new features.
The only way to detect this may be to compare the current genetic makeup of a person a past one, but they'll probibly get around that.
There's been a lot of talk about China actually giving their atheletes hard to detect performance enhancing drugs.
The guessing at motives seems to point to the same thing no matter what the act. The idea is that China has a self-esteem problem. Winning in the Olympics and their publishing at home (that has things like "America is not as strong as it looks.", "It's easy to defeat aircraft carriers.", and "We're strong because X.") give a short self-esteem boost.
I doubt they do any genetic modification though...
The next time someone talks about licensing a TV, lamp, or other household applience; I will be sure not to troll by asking what that's all about.
Oh, super-moderator. You are all wise.
I did call it an exageration (and it is); and the main point was the police line: "If you have nothing to hide, you have no good reason to object and nothing to fear..."
Arguments for cameras seem to be based on that point and it's unsound.
>You write to the licensing people to tell them you don't have a TV and don't want a licence.
You lost me.
How about this insulting exageration?
Fuzz: Can we search your home without cause or a warrent?
You: Umm.... No.
Coppers: If you have nothing to hide, you have no good reason to object and nothing to fear...
You: OK. I live in the UK and that makes perfect sense to me.
Police: Thank you.
I thought ED2 was a remake of ED1, with ED3 actually being ED2...
Maybe that's just how similar they seemed...
"Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today."
And this is the whole problem. Money goes into designing a top 100 with corp creations in the top 10. This makes CDs expensive and gives us crap radio.
Throwing tons of money into reseach and putting years of brain power into the inevitable need for alternative energy sources sound like stifling research to me...
And all with good reason. When the oil is gone, they don't want anyone to make money in the energy business--even themselves.
Of course, this is all in self-interest; so it's evil.
The MIT exokernel project at: http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo.html seems to say that it will make things smaller, faster, simpler and more elegant PLUS will work with current software.
But, is this really all true? I have some doubts, but it looks really interesting.
You are the first person in about a year of my arguing this to best me. Good post.
I guess I'm wrong.
But, this leads to what America's role in the world should be. From my perspective America just can't please anybody.
As an American, personally, I go out of my way to learn about world events, to get opinions from other peoples, and to find those with good opposing views. As a country I think we're perfectly happy to do good, to even go to others for guidance and to be held responsible. (Go ahead and argue that we don't.) But the world seems critical, not helpfull.
I'd like some opinion beyond the after the fact, 20-20, "that thing you just did was wrong." I want to know, what should are country be doing?
I just want to give up and become an isolationist sometimes.