The "Genesis" text begins (transliterating the Hebrew):
>> Beretsheit bara Eloheem...
Now (paraphrasing one of my favorite rabbis) we don't see here that G-d created the universe. Rather, Beretseit (Genesis; Gnosis) bara (spoke, created) Eloheem (Totality, Creation), who then proceed to make things b'aretz (on the Earth; in substantiated reality; in time or time-space).
YHWH Eloheem, the "god" ya'll are generally talking about when you talk about "G-d," does not show up for quite a while more, and after another 10 or so "g-ds" pass by.
But as such things go, I don't know so much about "faith" and say, "tradition" and "the text" called "the Bible."
For anyone who might actually care about the Bible and not, say, their ignorant, self-serving prejudices. Which as far as I can tell, is about.0001% of so-called "Christians" in the USA.
Or as Saint Augustine put it: you can't read it in translation.
>>The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not the other way around.
>You're making the claim that God does not exist. That should be easy enough to prove, shouldn't it?
>If you can't *prove* that God does not exist, you're just another religious wacko with no plausible backing to your beliefs. But, you're perfectly within your right to your faith;-)
You've got it backwards.
The essence of scientific theory is that the statements it makes, must be DISPROVABLE. A statement that does not admit to being DISPROVEN, has little or no weight.
Now, if you were to present some theory of G-d that could on some criterion be disproven (say, the theory that faith in G-d itself creates emergent phenomena in the world, which have a discernable effect- or somesuch, as the foregoing is an horribly oversimplified example of the epistemological stances one might take) -- well, if you did, that would be one think.
It sounds like your "God" has all the substance of Santa Claus and the boogeyman, nice tales to tell the children to keep them from being annoying. But that's it.:P
>A) If God exists, and is omniscient, then he knows some people won't be convinced without indisputable evidence. >B) If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to provide that evidence. >C) And if he's benevolent, then he would provide that evidence.
Well, so much for grade-school level Anglo-American conceptions of "God." Guess you missed that part of the Bible, where G-d cried while wrestling Job before finally holding Job down and fucking Job in the ass. You should read the original; damn inconvenient text for modern fag-hating Christians.
Though, you know, now that I think about it, maybe that's why so many Christians get nervous around gay guys. And philosophy profs, of course.
In any case, the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent anthropological G-d is just silly, silly, silly. As my rabbi puts it, the Torah is what you read in elementary school; the Midrash, in adolescents; once you're an adult, you can begin to get a clue. The above cluelessness is the kind of kid-level thought you find in the how-many-angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin British analytic tradition, btu it doesn't mean much.
I'd love to see your science that categorically disproves the existence of two twinkies with chocolate cream frosting orbiting one of the moons of Saturn.
>Or do you really think private insurance will cover a $100k treatment for a 90 year old cancer patient with only a 5% chance of success?
Medicare provided over $500K of treatment for my 80 year old father with less than 5% chance of sucess. Go figure. Perhaps the word we should be using is *should*, not *will*. See immediately previous post about pallative care being more effective in extending life.
2) You are aware that studies show that, for instance, in the case of "certain" cancers, pallative treatment combined with non-agressive medical procedures, increases lifespan MORE than highly agressive treatments which cost much, much more? Didn't think so.
I might suggest you read my comment history, if you think I'm in middle school, my friend.
I didn't suggest that you *work* for the Geek Squad. I suggested that anyone hungry and with half a clue could steal the Geek Squad's lunch.
More seriously, I get these sort of "jobs" from friends all the time. My bartender approached me last night, and said he took his virus-crashed laptop to Best Buy and they quoted him $400 to move the files off and to his new Mac. He told me he'd give me $200 to do the job-- adding that he had certain files with his wife that were, shall we say, "private" in nature and he didn't trust Best Buy to deal with.
That kind of work is everywhere. If the Geek Squad is charging $100/hr to do very basic tech (setting up DVRs, etc) then you can undercut that-- and provide a professional relationship. It's not work I really want-- but how you beat the big corporate guys, is by providing a better price point, and a better service. Get a $700 suit for $300 on OverStock, treat your customers well, communicate with them in standard written English, establish trust and security. Kiss their rumps if you have to, if you're eating Ramen.
In the end, I don't mean to insult you if your situation is hard. But I'm not going to accept BS, either. If you're not in the sticks where there's no market-- if you are somewhere where there's Best Buy and Comp USA-- then surely, you can still find people with money, who will pay Best Buy if they have no other choice, and take that business. And provide a better value.
As far as this guy-- c'mon. Your proposition is silly. The US Federal government is a damn Dilbert mess, sure, but if they could hire a US-native programmer for the same price (don't assume this guy is a low-ball salary) or even 50% more, they'd probably do so. The talent isn't there.
Of course, that's also a failure of the US Educational system. I'm probably more pissed than you about that, and I understand that the US isn't providing as much educational investment and opportunity for young people, as, for instance, China. But the young in the US also have an enormous sense of entitlement, of wishing and thinking they should get something for nothing.
I worked hard in College and grad school. I put in the 80+ hour weeks, and I still do. I've lived in CA-- if you can't downsize enough to live on $45K in the Mission, or Berkeley (or the burbs), c'mon, $45K is still a lot of money. I've made 100x that in a year, and I've lived on a quarter of that in other years. Adjust to your means and make the best of it-- if you can't pull in $45K, then don't try to live a $45K lifesytle.
If you're a real programmer, you can get a job. Maybe a 45k post as well, as job instead of the 70K or 90K or whatever you like, or a short-term position with even less $ or hours, but if you're willing to move or commute, you can find a job well above minimum wage.
I dropped my rant against this being a racist xenophoblic BS, as someone else had already pointed it out, but seriously. With the incompetent "Geek Squad" charging $400 to transfer data from an old laptop to a new one, you can't find work? You're not trying.
And by the way, since you mentioned it, sodomize you up your dumb hole with a sharpened corn cob until perotinitis allows your brains to seep out.
>FBI Assistant Director in Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk [said] “His intentions with regard to that software are immaterial. >Stealing it and copying it threatened the security of vitally important source code.”
And what's so important about the security of accounting code? Would it be so bad if this were open source-- heck, the whole process, so that citizens could actually see the financial operations and transactions of Federal Agencies, before tens of millions get embezzelled or spent in boondoggles...
You've got to be fucking kidding. If I hadn't already commented in this thread, I'd mod down this BS.
Likely he got the job because they couldn't hire any qualified US citizens. (That's a requirement in H1B, etc., right? OK, we know that HB1 is also a bit of BS, but...)
The bottom line is that Chinese kids are willing to work, and they actually learn things. American kids are even lazier than the 70s, when they spent half of their time in College drunk or hight. Today, for the first time in its history, the US is going to have a generation that is less educated than the previous two generations.
An American programmer paid minimum wage? Like hell. Perhaps a wannabee american programmer who can't get shit done. But the reason America is where it is, is because Americans are fucking lazy ignorant xenophobes.
The Fed is not a Federal Entity for some purposes (such as torts); it is clearly a Federal Entity for many other purposes, legal and otherwise. If you don't understand the distinction of "for the purpose of a legal theory," then you should study some law. From Wikipedia:
>>The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally-created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[2] In Lewis v. United States,[3] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,[2] in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally-created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency.
It's not important just that people KNOW. They much DO SOMETHING.
The number TWO thing they can do is take up the Staff time of CongressCritters. The number ONE thing they can do, is convince those CongressCritters that they will vote against them (put them out of office)
The best way to do either of these is to call up the CongressCritters office and demand to talk to the appropriate staffer. Make it clear that you intent to vote against their boss if their boss votes for SOPA. You can even add on, that you'll explain this to all your relatives and friends, and actively campaign against their candidate.
The squeaky-ist, noisy-ist wheel gets the oil. In reality, a very small organized group can quickly block almost any legislation using such tactics, especially in an era when elections are won by narrow margins.
As far as organization goes, you've got to actually have it. You can't just post things to the internet and pray. You need lists. You need circles. You need one person, checking on ten people, checking on another ten. You ask, can you get 50 people to call? Who are they? Did you call them to make sure they called?
Just like in the office, you get things by actually monitoring; a "political machine."
Two guys on a motorcycle just attached a magnetic bomb to his hard drive platter. Don't fool with Mossad.
Re:another slashdotter who has no idea how cars wo
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1
Uh, ok, now you're spewing very complex BS. I'll give a short response.
Of course cooking oil can burn in an engine, and does all the time. No one said anything about tank. Google it;0
While stochiometric ratios etc DO matter, I don't think they matter in practice as much as you think. Replace "water" with "mixing filler with no fuel value" if you'd like, if that makes you happy. My point is to establish the theoretical MAXIMUM loss, while having already conceded that there may be some loss based on a variety of factors such as those you mention.
I will just say that retrospect offers amazingly clear vision.
>No. It was pretty clear at the time. As evidenced by all those countries that did NOT participate. > Even though Iraq is a LOT closer to them (and would have an easier time striking them) than the USofA.
Think is, it was pretty clear from the perspective of, say, Beligum, France or Ukraine. It wasn't very clear on Main Street, Hicksville, USA.
The communications and culture gap that this has wedged between the US and the rest of the world, probably can't be overestimated. It's like the US is living in a parallel, but bizarre reality where some historical facts are entirely different than in the rest of the world.
Sounds oddly like Communist Eastern Europe, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhnnn.
I dunno. I have to pull out my Torah for this.
The "Genesis" text begins (transliterating the Hebrew):
>> Beretsheit bara Eloheem...
Now (paraphrasing one of my favorite rabbis) we don't see here that G-d created the universe. Rather, Beretseit (Genesis; Gnosis) bara (spoke, created) Eloheem (Totality, Creation), who then proceed to make things b'aretz (on the Earth; in substantiated reality; in time or time-space).
YHWH Eloheem, the "god" ya'll are generally talking about when you talk about "G-d," does not show up for quite a while more, and after another 10 or so "g-ds" pass by.
But as such things go, I don't know so much about "faith" and say, "tradition" and "the text" called "the Bible."
For anyone who might actually care about the Bible and not, say, their ignorant, self-serving prejudices. Which as far as I can tell, is about .0001% of so-called "Christians" in the USA.
Or as Saint Augustine put it: you can't read it in translation.
>>The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not the other way around.
>You're making the claim that God does not exist. That should be easy enough to prove, shouldn't it?
>If you can't *prove* that God does not exist, you're just another religious wacko with no plausible backing to your beliefs. But, you're perfectly within your right to your faith ;-)
You've got it backwards.
The essence of scientific theory is that the statements it makes, must be DISPROVABLE. A statement that does not admit to being DISPROVEN, has little or no weight.
Now, if you were to present some theory of G-d that could on some criterion be disproven (say, the theory that faith in G-d itself creates emergent phenomena in the world, which have a discernable effect- or somesuch, as the foregoing is an horribly oversimplified example of the epistemological stances one might take) -- well, if you did, that would be one think.
It sounds like your "God" has all the substance of Santa Claus and the boogeyman, nice tales to tell the children to keep them from being annoying. But that's it. :P
>A) If God exists, and is omniscient, then he knows some people won't be convinced without indisputable evidence.
>B) If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to provide that evidence.
>C) And if he's benevolent, then he would provide that evidence.
Well, so much for grade-school level Anglo-American conceptions of "God." Guess you missed that part of the Bible, where G-d cried while wrestling Job before finally holding Job down and fucking Job in the ass. You should read the original; damn inconvenient text for modern fag-hating Christians.
Though, you know, now that I think about it, maybe that's why so many Christians get nervous around gay guys. And philosophy profs, of course.
In any case, the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent anthropological G-d is just silly, silly, silly. As my rabbi puts it, the Torah is what you read in elementary school; the Midrash, in adolescents; once you're an adult, you can begin to get a clue. The above cluelessness is the kind of kid-level thought you find in the how-many-angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin British analytic tradition, btu it doesn't mean much.
>The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not the other way around.
Well, no. But if you make a [scientific] claim that is not DISPROVEABLE, then your claim is generally seen to have no weight.
I'd love to see your science that categorically disproves the existence of two twinkies with chocolate cream frosting orbiting one of the moons of Saturn.
-- Thomas Kuhn
>Or do you really think private insurance will cover a $100k treatment for a 90 year old cancer patient with only a 5% chance of success?
Medicare provided over $500K of treatment for my 80 year old father with less than 5% chance of sucess. Go figure. Perhaps the word we should be using is *should*, not *will*. See immediately previous post about pallative care being more effective in extending life.
1) You/'re wrong.
2) You are aware that studies show that, for instance, in the case of "certain" cancers, pallative treatment combined with non-agressive medical procedures, increases lifespan MORE than highly agressive treatments which cost much, much more? Didn't think so.
me broadcasting the notion with a megaphone.
>And BOTH are constitutionally protected in the USA.
Actually, not in today's USA. Occupy cannot use megaphones. Capish?
Ymmm... Space Shuttle.
I might suggest you read my comment history, if you think I'm in middle school, my friend.
I didn't suggest that you *work* for the Geek Squad. I suggested that anyone hungry and with half a clue could steal the Geek Squad's lunch.
More seriously, I get these sort of "jobs" from friends all the time. My bartender approached me last night, and said he took his virus-crashed laptop to Best Buy and they quoted him $400 to move the files off and to his new Mac. He told me he'd give me $200 to do the job-- adding that he had certain files with his wife that were, shall we say, "private" in nature and he didn't trust Best Buy to deal with.
That kind of work is everywhere. If the Geek Squad is charging $100/hr to do very basic tech (setting up DVRs, etc) then you can undercut that-- and provide a professional relationship. It's not work I really want-- but how you beat the big corporate guys, is by providing a better price point, and a better service. Get a $700 suit for $300 on OverStock, treat your customers well, communicate with them in standard written English, establish trust and security. Kiss their rumps if you have to, if you're eating Ramen.
In the end, I don't mean to insult you if your situation is hard. But I'm not going to accept BS, either. If you're not in the sticks where there's no market-- if you are somewhere where there's Best Buy and Comp USA-- then surely, you can still find people with money, who will pay Best Buy if they have no other choice, and take that business. And provide a better value.
As far as this guy-- c'mon. Your proposition is silly. The US Federal government is a damn Dilbert mess, sure, but if they could hire a US-native programmer for the same price (don't assume this guy is a low-ball salary) or even 50% more, they'd probably do so. The talent isn't there.
Of course, that's also a failure of the US Educational system. I'm probably more pissed than you about that, and I understand that the US isn't providing as much educational investment and opportunity for young people, as, for instance, China. But the young in the US also have an enormous sense of entitlement, of wishing and thinking they should get something for nothing.
I worked hard in College and grad school. I put in the 80+ hour weeks, and I still do. I've lived in CA-- if you can't downsize enough to live on $45K in the Mission, or Berkeley (or the burbs), c'mon, $45K is still a lot of money. I've made 100x that in a year, and I've lived on a quarter of that in other years. Adjust to your means and make the best of it-- if you can't pull in $45K, then don't try to live a $45K lifesytle.
Heh, yeah. Most likely he was using it as an example of "how not to write code."
If you're a real programmer, you can get a job. Maybe a 45k post as well, as job instead of the 70K or 90K or whatever you like, or a short-term position with even less $ or hours, but if you're willing to move or commute, you can find a job well above minimum wage.
I dropped my rant against this being a racist xenophoblic BS, as someone else had already pointed it out, but seriously. With the incompetent "Geek Squad" charging $400 to transfer data from an old laptop to a new one, you can't find work? You're not trying.
And by the way, since you mentioned it, sodomize you up your dumb hole with a sharpened corn cob until perotinitis allows your brains to seep out.
>FBI Assistant Director in Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk [said] “His intentions with regard to that software are immaterial.
>Stealing it and copying it threatened the security of vitally important source code.”
And what's so important about the security of accounting code? Would it be so bad if this were open source-- heck, the whole process, so that citizens could actually see the financial operations and transactions of Federal Agencies, before tens of millions get embezzelled or spent in boondoggles...
*light comes on.*
Ok, got it.
You've got to be fucking kidding. If I hadn't already commented in this thread, I'd mod down this BS.
Likely he got the job because they couldn't hire any qualified US citizens. (That's a requirement in H1B, etc., right? OK, we know that HB1 is also a bit of BS, but...)
The bottom line is that Chinese kids are willing to work, and they actually learn things. American kids are even lazier than the 70s, when they spent half of their time in College drunk or hight. Today, for the first time in its history, the US is going to have a generation that is less educated than the previous two generations.
An American programmer paid minimum wage? Like hell. Perhaps a wannabee american programmer who can't get shit done. But the reason America is where it is, is because Americans are fucking lazy ignorant xenophobes.
>Fed is not part of the government. Its a private entity controlled by the members.
That is incorrect.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank.
The Fed is not a Federal Entity for some purposes (such as torts); it is clearly a Federal Entity for many other purposes, legal and otherwise. If you don't understand the distinction of "for the purpose of a legal theory," then you should study some law. From Wikipedia:
>>The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally-created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[2] In Lewis v. United States,[3] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,[2] in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally-created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency.
It's not important just that people KNOW. They much DO SOMETHING.
The number TWO thing they can do is take up the Staff time of CongressCritters. The number ONE thing they can do, is convince those CongressCritters that they will vote against them (put them out of office)
The best way to do either of these is to call up the CongressCritters office and demand to talk to the appropriate staffer. Make it clear that you intent to vote against their boss if their boss votes for SOPA. You can even add on, that you'll explain this to all your relatives and friends, and actively campaign against their candidate.
The squeaky-ist, noisy-ist wheel gets the oil. In reality, a very small organized group can quickly block almost any legislation using such tactics, especially in an era when elections are won by narrow margins.
As far as organization goes, you've got to actually have it. You can't just post things to the internet and pray. You need lists. You need circles. You need one person, checking on ten people, checking on another ten. You ask, can you get 50 people to call? Who are they? Did you call them to make sure they called?
Just like in the office, you get things by actually monitoring; a "political machine."
Two guys on a motorcycle just attached a magnetic bomb to his hard drive platter. Don't fool with Mossad.
Uh, ok, now you're spewing very complex BS. I'll give a short response.
Of course cooking oil can burn in an engine, and does all the time. No one said anything about tank. Google it ;0
While stochiometric ratios etc DO matter, I don't think they matter in practice as much as you think. Replace "water" with "mixing filler with no fuel value" if you'd like, if that makes you happy. My point is to establish the theoretical MAXIMUM loss, while having already conceded that there may be some loss based on a variety of factors such as those you mention.
@CIA: above poster is a domestic terrorist. Kidnap, take to foreign soil and rendite to Gitmo.
I will just say that retrospect offers amazingly clear vision.
>No. It was pretty clear at the time. As evidenced by all those countries that did NOT participate.
> Even though Iraq is a LOT closer to them (and would have an easier time striking them) than the USofA.
Think is, it was pretty clear from the perspective of, say, Beligum, France or Ukraine. It wasn't very clear on Main Street, Hicksville, USA.
The communications and culture gap that this has wedged between the US and the rest of the world, probably can't be overestimated. It's like the US is living in a parallel, but bizarre reality where some historical facts are entirely different than in the rest of the world.
Sounds oddly like Communist Eastern Europe, doesn't it?
My hogs won't eat them anymore. Try the dogs.
Did they get FAA authorization? Enquiring bureaucrats want to know.
1450 gallons of fuel to harvest an acre of land?
Didn't grow up on a farm, did you? :)
Seriously, even factoring in all the other inputs, I don't see how you get anywhere near 1450 gallons used to harvest (net 50).
Equally, as a distiller, I'm skeptical of the claims about dangers, etc. Should I go out and bathe in the stuff? :) No, but it's just 190 proof vodka.
Heh. Because I'm licensed, I mix gas in immediately to make it undrinkable. Just in case the ATF shows up, y'know.
Do I detect another distiller out there?