... and as someone who memorized Odin's stats in Legends and Lore, I've always enjoyed Odin, and think that Old One Eye is an interesting historical figure
Um... you do know that "Legends and Lore" is just a D&D game rule-book, and not a historical document, right?
Actually, the ten commandments are not "morallity by fiat".
In the context of the Torah (or "Old Testament" as it is known to Christians), the Commandments were a gift from God to those who wish to be faithful to Him. If you have no interest in God, then they simply do not apply to you. They were basically God's way of saying "okay, you say that you want to be my people... here's what it will take."
In Ancient Hebrew society, these commandments did not apply to foreigners and non-believers... only those who wished to keep Abraham's covenent with God. (Although keeping this covenent was a requirement of being part of their society, so it in effect became the Law of the Land in Israel at the time.)
Since the 10 Commandments is one of the earliest examples of a document of law , it is of particular historical interest to lawmakers, and is therefore an apt choice to decorate a government building (just as many lawyers like to keep a copy of Plato's Republic on their shelves).
However, I tend to disagree with those who think it is somehow important that it be posted. Those people share the assumtion that decorating an office with such an item constitutes and endorsement of a particular religion, when it really isn't.
I understand what it is like to be part of a religious minority, as athiests are in most cultures. All I can say is that tollerance goes both ways. If you want the majority to respect your different point of view, then you need to learn to respect the view of the majority. If I were in Mecca, I would not insist loudly that the words "Allah has no son" (which are carved inside the Dome of the Rock) should be taken down because they are offensive to me.
I know that the Dome is different, because it is a church structure and not a government structure, but my point is that it is a cultural landmark. Government is a large part of our culture, and you can't completely silence religion within government without silencing religion entirely.
The same people who insisted on religious freedom in America in the first place also made frequent references to our Creator in the documents which established our nation. Clearly, it was not their intention to wipe away all mention of God from the public forum of government, only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What they choose to decorate the wall with is not really that important. The best way to settle it is probably the way we are settling it now: by arguing about it in forums like this. If most people want it up, it goes up. If most people would prefer it stay down, it stays down. That's how we are supposed to sellte these sorts of trivial matters.:)
Personally, I liked the old days when the rock stars told the record companies what to do and not vice versa.
Which old days would those be? How many days like that were there? Is there, like, one day each year like that, sort of like a Sadie Hawkins dance?
Wake up and smell the marketing. The rock "stars" were never in charge. Muddy Waters, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, the Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Parliament/Funkadelic, Bruce Springstein, the Talking Heads, Prince, Metalica, U2, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Nirvanna, Hole, Garbage, Barenaked Ladies, Britney Spears... Every last one of them marched where they were sent.
Artists can chose what kind of music they want to play (and the labels then choose which artists to promote based on what kind of music they want to sell), but the labels are in charge of damn near everything else, until the artist is rich enough to go off and start their own label.
I guess I can relate. A lot of people try Budweiser and assume all American beer tastes like shit, having never samples the joys of Samuel Adams Boston Lager, Schmaltz's Alt, or Pete's Wicked Ale.
Since and athiest worships no other god before the Hebrew one (because he/she worships no god at all), then nothing about this commandment is a fuck-you to athiests.
Now, if you happen to be a worshipper of Roman or Norse gods, I could see where you would have a real beef with it.
The only commandment that is really likely to run contrary to the life of an athiest is the one about remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy.
This is a big "fuck you" to all non-Christians, be they Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, atheists, or agnostics.
The 10 Commandments are also venerated by Muslims.
It is not a Christian document, it is a Hebrew one which Christians follow because Christianity is a Messianic sect of Judaism.
That aside, a reminder that people should not kill, covet, cheat on their spouses or worship idols does not constitute a "fuck you" to athiests. Idol-worshippers, maybe, but not athiests.
Clustering is a fantastic way to get lots of speed out of a group of new PC's, but a cluster of 486's is a huge power drain. Not only are you running more boxen, but those older chips each drank a lot more juice than a spanking new Althon.
If you live in California and are running a cluster of 12 486's, then buy a new Althon or G4. From what I hear about electricity bills over there, the thing will pay for itself in no time.
Power Saving Tip For Californians #2: Stop running SETI@home all night and shut your PC down when you are sleeping. I know that you want the bragging rights for your @home workloads and continuous uptimes, but those will be screwed up during this summer's "rolling blackouts" anyway, so give it up. Even if there are aliens out there, they probably will not help you pay the power bills.
Re:Theological Commentary
on
Flatterland
·
· Score: 2
That was a fairly astute and insightful analysis of Flatland, and how it differs from the recent "Sequel". The social and theological subtext of Flatland is part of what made it such an interesting piece of literature.
It looks as though somebody moderated the comment down as "off-topic" as a knee-jerk reaction. "It mentions religion, so he must be... uh... trolling... or something."
I liked the AC's comment so much, that I am posting here with my +1 Bonus to call attention to it. If you do not see it, click on "parent" at the bottom of this post.
(Should the parent be moderated up to 2 or higher, I suppose this comment should be marked down as "redundant".)
I could be wrong here - and please correct me if I am - but wasn't the current farm policy first begun as a response to the Depression
It has evolved over the past 60 years. The New Deal was just one small part of it.
I suppose this depends on your view of our role here on Earth. Personally, I think we're here to advance the species.
Why? What is so special about this particular species, that I should put advancing it ahead of all else? If mankind's domination of the world is someday dwarfed by AI robots or highly-evolved turtles, how would that be intrinsically bad?
I would replace "conceived" with "implemented."
Ah yes. The "real communism hasn't been tried yet" position. It comes up every time, because every single attempt at communism to date has resulted in depsotic nightmares. Pure capitalsism has not been tried either, but from what I have seen, the closer a society is to it, the better off they are. (See Hong Kong before the recent change of power, or the United States.)
The Great Depression can be traced, in large part, to government cock-ups. The free market banks prevented a similar crash in the 1890's. If you are a bank mogul, a depression is bad for business, and you will spend a lot of resources to prevent one.
The idea behind "everyone benefits equally" is that everyone benefits
That may be the idea... but the truth is different. If everyone must benifit equally, then the reward for hard labor, dramatic risk, and clever invention is the same as the reward for doing nothing. The producers of the society become slaves, like the horse in "Animal Farm", while those with less to offer share in the rewards of their efforts. What makes this particularilly shameful is that people living in such a system stop working hard, stop taking risks, and stop innovating, because there is no incentive to do so.
The result of "equal" redistribution of wealth will always be equally and fairly shared poverty and despair.
Communism is fundamentally unfair to those who produce more, and that is the evil of it.
Re:Can't say I agree with you completely...
on
Flatterland
·
· Score: 2
to say that using "living" characters and story twists to successfully explain complex spatial concepts isn't creative, is selling Ian Stewart short.
It was creative when it was done in Flatland. When Ian Stewart did it, it was not.
If I were to write a "sequel" to The Screwtape Letters, would I be praised for my creativity in my decision to write ironic satire from the perspective of a demon? Only by rubes who did not read Lewis's original stories first.
Yes, it seems that every time somebody wants to use geometry to make a point (pardon the pun), or wants to make a point about geometry, they write a "sequel" to Flatland.
Every attempt to do so that I have seen has been really shitty. The original story was creative and entertaining, if a little dated.
People should try to write works inspired by their own imagination, instead of sponging off the populatity of a more creative mind.
It's paid for with taxpayers' money. Linux users pay taxes too. Do the people who "just don't use the site" get a tax refund?
People without computers also helped pay for the site. If Linux support is added, will you demand a tax refund for those who choose not to buy computers?
Where are the alternatives? Certainly not on the same drag as your McStarbucks and Taco Hut.
In almost every city I have ever been to, I have been able to go to the "same drag" where "McStarbucks" is, and find a small, family-owned restaurant. The place usually has about 6-10 locals sitting in there, eating whatever the $3.95 special is for that particular day.
True, you need to look for it, and most people don't, but that is not the fault of the McStarbucks, is it?
Get off of the "main drag" and you will also find that almost every urban area contains at least one really good Irish pub, at least one fancy Chinese place, and least one shitty (but cheap) Chinese buffet, and a truck stop in the industrial part of town.
Also, not every small town has a McDonalds, but most of them have a Dairy Queen, at least two bars, and a mom & pop restaurant known for their breakfasts.
While the golden arches may be everywhere in the city, and scattered across the suburbs, they become fewer and far between as you get out of town.
As was pointed out in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", if you take the path less traveled you can see more of "real America".
(By the way, the road mentioned at the beginning of that book, Hwy 212, is still there, and the landscape hasn't changed much.)
In fact, if these companies force competitors out of business, I am essentially forced to eat there.
Within one mile of my neighborhood McDonalds, there are 6 fast-food restaurants, 4 sit-and-be-waited-on chains, 4 Chinese restaurants, 2 neighborhood bar&grills, and a mom&pop "greasy spoon".
Clearly they have not forced their competitors out of business, therefore your entire argument is dead. Nice try, though.
Clearly, this AC would be happier if these women were anonymously toiling in the rice fields, slowly starving while trying to scrape a living for their families out of the mud. That way they would not impact his life.
It's not poverty that bothers him, it's having to see poor people when he buys his fries and Coke.
It is my opinion, after reading Das Kapital, that it is the excesses of capitalism of the turn of the century during the early Industrial Revolution that is responsible for the proper climate for the rise of Marxism as an economic model.
Really? I would have thought it was the excesses of the Csar or Russia, and the excesses British & French Colonialism in the East.
Some capitalist systems will sometimes gravitate, slowly and incrementally, towards socialism. One need only look at US farm policy to find and example.
However, most communist states came about the same way Napoleon's short-lived empire came about, as a violent reaction to oppressive dictators.
capitalists (who follow an inherently evil code, that of greed)
As a capitalist, I should point out that capitalism is inherently moral. For several reasons:
1. It allows people to keep what they have earned. Any system which does not is essentially slavery.
2. It generates prosperity and promotes the general welfare better than any system yet conceived. By "prosperity", I mean fewer people starving, and more people providing for their families.
3. It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself is by serving the needs and desires of others, either by your labor, or by investing your property.
Are there flaws in this system? Yes, many. For one thing, the system completely fails if people of means fail to embrace their civic duties of charity and compassion.
Has a more moral one been offered? Not yet. Maybe one will someday, but it will not be communism, which forces people to enjoy no reward for greater efforts and risks... nor socialism, which forces people for forfeit all the rewards of their efforts to the state in exchange for a meager subsistence.
There is a trend that countries with McDonald's restaurants tend not to fight each other.
That does not mean that McDonald's causes peace, nor does it mean that peace causes McDonald's. If either argument was being made, your criticism would be correct.
However, the argument here is that nations which are prosperous enough to support a customer base for McDonald's tend to not go to war with one another.
If this was based on a single incident, (i.e., "we have observed one war, and McDonald's was not in both countries"), then it would indeed be a post hoc fallacy. However, when you observe a trend (i.e., "of the many wars we have observed, a disproportionate number, in fact nearly all of them, were fought between nations where one or both had no McDonald's), you can establish a thesis.
Nearly all human knowledge, including pretty much everything that Sagan taught about, came from observing trends and drawing conclusions based on those trends. It's how we learn stuff.
The secret of McDonald's fries (not much of a secret, really) is that they season them with beef essence. Most other restaurants don't do that, and it is one of the reasons why Burger King never got anything like the McD market share (and was eventually bought out by Pilsbury), even though their burgers taste marginally better.
Fast food junkies salivate like Pavlovian dogs at the smell, image, or even the thought of McDonald's fries.
Come to think of it, I always have left over "beef" packets from my Ramen Noodles, because I only use half a packet per serving. I bet sprinkling some of that stuff on fries from other restaurants would provide pretty much the same fix. Hmmm...
Of the 5 things you cited as "American" traits, the nation of Afghanistan has America beaten in every category except one.
(The one where we got them beat is obesity... and that's only because people on the Khiber Pass can't afford enough food to get fat while travelling on foot all day carrying assault rifles. Fighting for your life is very effective exercise.)
If risk aversion was the only explanation, we also would not find many wars where McDonald's could be found on only one side.
There are plenty of countries with a McDonald's that fought wars against those without one. Yet, McDonald's chose to accept the risk.
It seems more likely that there are two things going on here:
1. The formation of a "middle class", who wants to eat in a restaurant with tiled floors, clean bathrooms, and beef that is actually made out of beef... but can't afford to eat in the swanky restaurants of the ruling class.
2. A society which is open enough to international trade to allow a business franchise from another country to establish itself within their borders.
Both are indicators of a certain type of nation. To use the Russian terms, one which embraces both Glasnost and Perestroika. Countries that embrace openness and freedom tend towards similar values and prosperity levels, and are therefore less likely to want to shoot at each other, except in civil wars like we saw in former Yugoslavia.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my point.
Um... you do know that "Legends and Lore" is just a D&D game rule-book, and not a historical document, right?
Right?
In the context of the Torah (or "Old Testament" as it is known to Christians), the Commandments were a gift from God to those who wish to be faithful to Him. If you have no interest in God, then they simply do not apply to you. They were basically God's way of saying "okay, you say that you want to be my people... here's what it will take."
In Ancient Hebrew society, these commandments did not apply to foreigners and non-believers... only those who wished to keep Abraham's covenent with God. (Although keeping this covenent was a requirement of being part of their society, so it in effect became the Law of the Land in Israel at the time.)
Since the 10 Commandments is one of the earliest examples of a document of law , it is of particular historical interest to lawmakers, and is therefore an apt choice to decorate a government building (just as many lawyers like to keep a copy of Plato's Republic on their shelves).
However, I tend to disagree with those who think it is somehow important that it be posted. Those people share the assumtion that decorating an office with such an item constitutes and endorsement of a particular religion, when it really isn't.
I understand what it is like to be part of a religious minority, as athiests are in most cultures. All I can say is that tollerance goes both ways. If you want the majority to respect your different point of view, then you need to learn to respect the view of the majority. If I were in Mecca, I would not insist loudly that the words "Allah has no son" (which are carved inside the Dome of the Rock) should be taken down because they are offensive to me.
I know that the Dome is different, because it is a church structure and not a government structure, but my point is that it is a cultural landmark. Government is a large part of our culture, and you can't completely silence religion within government without silencing religion entirely.
The same people who insisted on religious freedom in America in the first place also made frequent references to our Creator in the documents which established our nation. Clearly, it was not their intention to wipe away all mention of God from the public forum of government, only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What they choose to decorate the wall with is not really that important. The best way to settle it is probably the way we are settling it now: by arguing about it in forums like this. If most people want it up, it goes up. If most people would prefer it stay down, it stays down. That's how we are supposed to sellte these sorts of trivial matters. :)
Which old days would those be? How many days like that were there? Is there, like, one day each year like that, sort of like a Sadie Hawkins dance?
Wake up and smell the marketing. The rock "stars" were never in charge. Muddy Waters, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, the Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Parliament/Funkadelic, Bruce Springstein, the Talking Heads, Prince, Metalica, U2, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Nirvanna, Hole, Garbage, Barenaked Ladies, Britney Spears... Every last one of them marched where they were sent.
Artists can chose what kind of music they want to play (and the labels then choose which artists to promote based on what kind of music they want to sell), but the labels are in charge of damn near everything else, until the artist is rich enough to go off and start their own label.
I guess I can relate. A lot of people try Budweiser and assume all American beer tastes like shit, having never samples the joys of Samuel Adams Boston Lager, Schmaltz's Alt, or Pete's Wicked Ale.
I find it easier to stay in the US and drink imports. Labatt tastes terrible to me.
Now, if you happen to be a worshipper of Roman or Norse gods, I could see where you would have a real beef with it.
The only commandment that is really likely to run contrary to the life of an athiest is the one about remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy.
She's moving to Canada to get away from thought police? She is in for a rude awakening.
Nobody told Senator Miller that, apparently.
The 10 Commandments are also venerated by Muslims.
It is not a Christian document, it is a Hebrew one which Christians follow because Christianity is a Messianic sect of Judaism.
That aside, a reminder that people should not kill, covet, cheat on their spouses or worship idols does not constitute a "fuck you" to athiests. Idol-worshippers, maybe, but not athiests.
Clustering is a fantastic way to get lots of speed out of a group of new PC's, but a cluster of 486's is a huge power drain. Not only are you running more boxen, but those older chips each drank a lot more juice than a spanking new Althon.
If you live in California and are running a cluster of 12 486's, then buy a new Althon or G4. From what I hear about electricity bills over there, the thing will pay for itself in no time.
Power Saving Tip For Californians #2: Stop running SETI@home all night and shut your PC down when you are sleeping. I know that you want the bragging rights for your @home workloads and continuous uptimes, but those will be screwed up during this summer's "rolling blackouts" anyway, so give it up. Even if there are aliens out there, they probably will not help you pay the power bills.
It looks as though somebody moderated the comment down as "off-topic" as a knee-jerk reaction. "It mentions religion, so he must be... uh... trolling... or something."
I liked the AC's comment so much, that I am posting here with my +1 Bonus to call attention to it. If you do not see it, click on "parent" at the bottom of this post.
(Should the parent be moderated up to 2 or higher, I suppose this comment should be marked down as "redundant".)
It has evolved over the past 60 years. The New Deal was just one small part of it.
I suppose this depends on your view of our role here on Earth. Personally, I think we're here to advance the species.
Why? What is so special about this particular species, that I should put advancing it ahead of all else? If mankind's domination of the world is someday dwarfed by AI robots or highly-evolved turtles, how would that be intrinsically bad?
I would replace "conceived" with "implemented."
Ah yes. The "real communism hasn't been tried yet" position. It comes up every time, because every single attempt at communism to date has resulted in depsotic nightmares. Pure capitalsism has not been tried either, but from what I have seen, the closer a society is to it, the better off they are. (See Hong Kong before the recent change of power, or the United States.)
The Great Depression can be traced, in large part, to government cock-ups. The free market banks prevented a similar crash in the 1890's. If you are a bank mogul, a depression is bad for business, and you will spend a lot of resources to prevent one.
The idea behind "everyone benefits equally" is that everyone benefits
That may be the idea... but the truth is different. If everyone must benifit equally, then the reward for hard labor, dramatic risk, and clever invention is the same as the reward for doing nothing. The producers of the society become slaves, like the horse in "Animal Farm", while those with less to offer share in the rewards of their efforts. What makes this particularilly shameful is that people living in such a system stop working hard, stop taking risks, and stop innovating, because there is no incentive to do so.
The result of "equal" redistribution of wealth will always be equally and fairly shared poverty and despair.
Communism is fundamentally unfair to those who produce more, and that is the evil of it.
It was creative when it was done in Flatland. When Ian Stewart did it, it was not.
If I were to write a "sequel" to The Screwtape Letters, would I be praised for my creativity in my decision to write ironic satire from the perspective of a demon? Only by rubes who did not read Lewis's original stories first.
Every attempt to do so that I have seen has been really shitty. The original story was creative and entertaining, if a little dated.
People should try to write works inspired by their own imagination, instead of sponging off the populatity of a more creative mind.
People without computers also helped pay for the site. If Linux support is added, will you demand a tax refund for those who choose not to buy computers?
In almost every city I have ever been to, I have been able to go to the "same drag" where "McStarbucks" is, and find a small, family-owned restaurant. The place usually has about 6-10 locals sitting in there, eating whatever the $3.95 special is for that particular day.
True, you need to look for it, and most people don't, but that is not the fault of the McStarbucks, is it?
Get off of the "main drag" and you will also find that almost every urban area contains at least one really good Irish pub, at least one fancy Chinese place, and least one shitty (but cheap) Chinese buffet, and a truck stop in the industrial part of town.
Also, not every small town has a McDonalds, but most of them have a Dairy Queen, at least two bars, and a mom & pop restaurant known for their breakfasts.
While the golden arches may be everywhere in the city, and scattered across the suburbs, they become fewer and far between as you get out of town.
As was pointed out in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", if you take the path less traveled you can see more of "real America".
(By the way, the road mentioned at the beginning of that book, Hwy 212, is still there, and the landscape hasn't changed much.)
Within one mile of my neighborhood McDonalds, there are 6 fast-food restaurants, 4 sit-and-be-waited-on chains, 4 Chinese restaurants, 2 neighborhood bar&grills, and a mom&pop "greasy spoon".
Clearly they have not forced their competitors out of business, therefore your entire argument is dead. Nice try, though.
Clearly, this AC would be happier if these women were anonymously toiling in the rice fields, slowly starving while trying to scrape a living for their families out of the mud. That way they would not impact his life.
It's not poverty that bothers him, it's having to see poor people when he buys his fries and Coke.
Really? I would have thought it was the excesses of the Csar or Russia, and the excesses British & French Colonialism in the East.
Some capitalist systems will sometimes gravitate, slowly and incrementally, towards socialism. One need only look at US farm policy to find and example.
However, most communist states came about the same way Napoleon's short-lived empire came about, as a violent reaction to oppressive dictators.
capitalists (who follow an inherently evil code, that of greed)
As a capitalist, I should point out that capitalism is inherently moral. For several reasons:
1. It allows people to keep what they have earned. Any system which does not is essentially slavery.
2. It generates prosperity and promotes the general welfare better than any system yet conceived. By "prosperity", I mean fewer people starving, and more people providing for their families.
3. It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself is by serving the needs and desires of others, either by your labor, or by investing your property.
Are there flaws in this system? Yes, many. For one thing, the system completely fails if people of means fail to embrace their civic duties of charity and compassion.
Has a more moral one been offered? Not yet. Maybe one will someday, but it will not be communism, which forces people to enjoy no reward for greater efforts and risks... nor socialism, which forces people for forfeit all the rewards of their efforts to the state in exchange for a meager subsistence.
That does not mean that McDonald's causes peace, nor does it mean that peace causes McDonald's. If either argument was being made, your criticism would be correct.
However, the argument here is that nations which are prosperous enough to support a customer base for McDonald's tend to not go to war with one another.
If this was based on a single incident, (i.e., "we have observed one war, and McDonald's was not in both countries"), then it would indeed be a post hoc fallacy. However, when you observe a trend (i.e., "of the many wars we have observed, a disproportionate number, in fact nearly all of them, were fought between nations where one or both had no McDonald's), you can establish a thesis.
Nearly all human knowledge, including pretty much everything that Sagan taught about, came from observing trends and drawing conclusions based on those trends. It's how we learn stuff.
Fast food junkies salivate like Pavlovian dogs at the smell, image, or even the thought of McDonald's fries.
Come to think of it, I always have left over "beef" packets from my Ramen Noodles, because I only use half a packet per serving. I bet sprinkling some of that stuff on fries from other restaurants would provide pretty much the same fix. Hmmm...
(The one where we got them beat is obesity... and that's only because people on the Khiber Pass can't afford enough food to get fat while travelling on foot all day carrying assault rifles. Fighting for your life is very effective exercise.)
Likewise, conditions in which McDonald's thrives (prosperity) are also conditions in which peace thrives.
And that was the point that was being made.
There are plenty of countries with a McDonald's that fought wars against those without one. Yet, McDonald's chose to accept the risk.
It seems more likely that there are two things going on here:
1. The formation of a "middle class", who wants to eat in a restaurant with tiled floors, clean bathrooms, and beef that is actually made out of beef... but can't afford to eat in the swanky restaurants of the ruling class.
2. A society which is open enough to international trade to allow a business franchise from another country to establish itself within their borders.
Both are indicators of a certain type of nation. To use the Russian terms, one which embraces both Glasnost and Perestroika. Countries that embrace openness and freedom tend towards similar values and prosperity levels, and are therefore less likely to want to shoot at each other, except in civil wars like we saw in former Yugoslavia.