>> Maybe if there is a fork, it can be White Wine and the original can be Red Wine. > Only a drunk man tries to eat wine with a fork then quibbles about the colour.
"Not surprisingly, the Lisa did not sell too well and the company was sent back to the drawing board to develop the Macintosh."
Neat way to sum it up, but not accurate. Macintosh was nearly finished while Apple was still pushing the Lisa, and Jef Raskin's original concept for the Mac pre-dated the Lisa.
Of course, once Jobs got his mitts on it, he completely changed it from Raskin's vision, eventually provoking Raskin to quit Apple.
> Though we have now covered most of this ground (again), here is that link. You may feel like reading it to better understand my point of view.
Ah, that thread. Yes, I read it-- and I found your reasoning unconvincing.
> They will tell you, the truest act of love is love even when you don't feel like it. That is a choice.
Then I don't think you're talking about love, I think you're talking about commitment - especially emotional commitment. It happens all the time in love and politics. I think it has more to do with fear of the consequences of being wrong than with any actual philosophical position.
> Why do you think society hates mothers who slap around their kids when they feel like it, but is OK with those who can restrain themselves
Why do you think society loves a god who allows bad things to happen to good people, and is okay with him letting good things happen to bad people?
The usual response is "we can't understand God's reasons for these things," but when something good happens to good people or bad happens to bad people, they seem to have no problem understanding "God's reasons."
> If you want to talk about the old and new testament differences, you have to realise, the old testament is man at war with God
I know a number of Jews who would dispute that point.
> Thus both God's and our attitude must change. This should hardly be surprising.
"I the Lord do not change." - Malachi 3:6
> A lot of people, myself included, will go further and say, to paraphrase old Lewis, the gates of Hell are barred from the inside.
Ah yes, blaming the victim. It's an old story - especially for those who never had the chance to be saved and are thus condemned.
> Love is not possible without a choice. If there is no choice, you are just a robot acting out a play.
Again, I disagree. Love is something you discover, not something you choose. Who knows the ultimate cause?
> No sane logical God would create robots.
Interesting, because how could you tell the difference between a complex robot and a "free agent"? What if God himself is a robot?
> But if we have free will, it now has meaning. You have a choice between A and B. > There is no "correct" answer, only consequences of your choices.
This is disingenuous - if choosing NOT to love God is permitted, and the consequence is eternal suffering, how is that not "incorrect?"
> If you don't believe, that is fine, but you can't apply your philosophy to an opposed philosophy. > You'll see inconsistencies where there are none simply because it is inconsistent with your view.
No, I'm arguing that it is internally inconsistent. That's why I can't accept it.
> If you and I can see that and agree to disagree, then all is well.
Differences of opinion are fine-- I have a disagreement with you on matters of FACT, and as far as I can see, you have provided no factual basis for what you believe. Make no mistake, religion is an argument about TRUTH. We can agree to disagree, but in the end, that has absolutely zero effect on the universe!:)
> Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ). > To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read
You know, it would be nice if you would re-insert the link you're talking about, rather than making me trudge backwards up the thread trying to guess which one you mean.
> Love requires free will or it is not love.
I disagree. I think love is not a choice. Acceptance, submission, obedience - those things are choices. Interestingly enough, those are the things the Old Testament God demands.
> Free will without consequences is not free.
Leaving aside whether we actually have free will or are just fated to believe we do, I don't think the God described in the bible wants us to have free will. He demands worship, and "surrender or die" is not truly giving someone a choice.
> If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin).
Disagree. It seems unfair to me to create a world in which some people won't love him, and then punish them for it. "You have a choice between A and B, but you're supposed to choose A." Is love without choice impossible? Is it a "square circle," a logical impossibility? Perhaps, but then the consequences of creating such a world must be acceptable to God or he would not have created it. It's hardly humanity's fault if he did.
Personally, I believe if there is a God, he is completely indifferent to what we do or want. At least a universe with such a God is completely consistent with a godless universe, which looks a lot like the one we see.
> The existence of "sin" hinges on the existence of free will - which you are free to reject.
The very notion of 'sin' is contradictory if God is the omniscient and omnipotent creator, that's my point.
To say God created the world, *knowing* that people would choose sin, implies that He wanted there to be sin in the world.
To be fair, the story in Genesis does not support an omniscient and omnipotent God - in the story, He is described as literally surprised by what Adam and Eve have done. He doesn't know where they are in the Garden, and has to go looking for them. He doesn't fix the problem once it's discovered.
If you believe that God could be such a colossal fuckup, that's your business, but don't try to tell me it's logical!:)
> to say "sin" implies the non existence of God, is, well, interesting logic.
It does hinge on the condition that God is omnipotent and omniscient. I can't see any logical way that such a creator could have a thing in his world that he did not want to be there.
In fact, the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being that exists outside of time having 'goals' in any meaningful sense is just silly.
Not to mention the absurdity of telling me "what God wants." Pretty much by definition, an omniscient and omnipotent being gets exactly what he wants, period.
It makes no sense to say he doesn't want sin in the world, if 'sin' is defined as something contrary to God's will. - either there is a God and no sin, or sin and no God.
Much as has been made about Kirk breaking the rules, but Sisko pushed it even further at points. ...
Two cases come to mind (I don't remember the names of the episodes). In one, he made a planet uninhabitable for humans in order to force Eddington (his former security chief) to turn himself in and he was prepared to do it to planet after planet until Eddington turned himself in.
Reminds me of A Taste of Armageddon which I re-watched recently. Kirk, being held captive on Eminiar VII, orders Scotty to execute "General Order 24" and exterminate the entire population of the planet.
I was horrified - and amazed that I hadn't been horrified back when I originally saw the episode. Are these the Federation values we're supposed to admire?
"The Inner Light" is a brilliant story which, like "Darmok," is almost ruined by the implausibility of the premise.
The idea that this alien race could, and would, capture the memories of a single individual, pack them into a probe, and launch it into the vastness of space as the only record of their civilization is stupid - as is the notion that they could make it compatible with unknown human biology to play back exactly ONCE for the benefit of a single subject.
If you want the memory of your civilization to be preserved, I can't think of a worse gamble to take!
That said, the story was incredibly moving and well acted. It shows how capable the writers were on TNG, and I would gladly have traded all the TNG movies for an additional season.
When the big power companies balked at wiring the countryside for electricity, the government formed cooperatives to get the job done, as part of the New Deal. http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm
In the '20s, the average American family spent 25%-30% of its income on food. Nowadays it's about 10%.
I'm sure you won't argue that the investment, and the subsequent increase in agricultural production, were not beneficial to the country as a whole?
...if I had a good laptop and a secure connection, I think a quite coffee shop would be the best coding environment. It would provide an endless stream of caffeine and calming influence, while still providing enough entertainment to give me a moments distraction when I needed it.
Yep, I used to sit in a local net cafe which was quiet and empty during the day, and get a lot of work done.
Unfortunately, the cafe went out of business because it was quiet and empty during the day.:(
Everything else is farther, of course. But not a lot farther, since you've done the slow part already. Twenty years can get you anywhere in the galaxy at one g.
Huh? The galaxy is 100,000 light years across. Even at.95c, that's a lot longer than twenty years... or were you planning to accelerate past c?
Slashdot Mirror
>> Maybe if there is a fork, it can be White Wine and the original can be Red Wine.
> Only a drunk man tries to eat wine with a fork then quibbles about the colour.
Except perhaps a dining philosopher!
Wine Project: put_fork();
Developers: take_fork();
Users: eat();
Deadlock!
Many thanks to the more level-headed moderators who abstain from crack and hopefully enjoy a good beer, which I would gladly buy you! :)
Flamebait!? How? This is documented on Folklore.org among other places.
Fucking crackhead mods, you're ruining Slashdot!
I'm going back to posting anonymously. :P
Neat way to sum it up, but not accurate. Macintosh was nearly finished while Apple was still pushing the Lisa, and Jef Raskin's original concept for the Mac pre-dated the Lisa.
Of course, once Jobs got his mitts on it, he completely changed it from Raskin's vision, eventually provoking Raskin to quit Apple.
> Though we have now covered most of this ground (again), here is that link. You may feel like reading it to better understand my point of view.
Ah, that thread. Yes, I read it-- and I found your reasoning unconvincing.
> They will tell you, the truest act of love is love even when you don't feel like it. That is a choice.
Then I don't think you're talking about love, I think you're talking about commitment - especially emotional commitment. It happens all the time in love and politics. I think it has more to do with fear of the consequences of being wrong than with any actual philosophical position.
> Why do you think society hates mothers who slap around their kids when they feel like it, but is OK with those who can restrain themselves
Why do you think society loves a god who allows bad things to happen to good people, and is okay with him letting good things happen to bad people?
The usual response is "we can't understand God's reasons for these things," but when something good happens to good people or bad happens to bad people, they seem to have no problem understanding "God's reasons."
> If you want to talk about the old and new testament differences, you have to realise, the old testament is man at war with God
I know a number of Jews who would dispute that point.
> Thus both God's and our attitude must change. This should hardly be surprising.
"I the Lord do not change." - Malachi 3:6
> A lot of people, myself included, will go further and say, to paraphrase old Lewis, the gates of Hell are barred from the inside.
Ah yes, blaming the victim. It's an old story - especially for those who never had the chance to be saved and are thus condemned.
> Love is not possible without a choice. If there is no choice, you are just a robot acting out a play.
Again, I disagree. Love is something you discover, not something you choose. Who knows the ultimate cause?
> No sane logical God would create robots.
Interesting, because how could you tell the difference between a complex robot and a "free agent"? What if God himself is a robot?
> But if we have free will, it now has meaning. You have a choice between A and B.
> There is no "correct" answer, only consequences of your choices.
This is disingenuous - if choosing NOT to love God is permitted, and the consequence is eternal suffering, how is that not "incorrect?"
> If you don't believe, that is fine, but you can't apply your philosophy to an opposed philosophy.
> You'll see inconsistencies where there are none simply because it is inconsistent with your view.
No, I'm arguing that it is internally inconsistent. That's why I can't accept it.
> If you and I can see that and agree to disagree, then all is well.
Differences of opinion are fine-- I have a disagreement with you on matters of FACT, and as far as I can see, you have provided no factual basis for what you believe. Make no mistake, religion is an argument about TRUTH. We can agree to disagree, but in the end, that has absolutely zero effect on the universe! :)
> Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ).
> To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read
You know, it would be nice if you would re-insert the link you're talking about, rather than making me trudge backwards up the thread trying to guess which one you mean.
> Love requires free will or it is not love.
I disagree. I think love is not a choice. Acceptance, submission, obedience - those things are choices. Interestingly enough, those are the things the Old Testament God demands.
> Free will without consequences is not free.
Leaving aside whether we actually have free will or are just fated to believe we do, I don't think the God described in the bible wants us to have free will. He demands worship, and "surrender or die" is not truly giving someone a choice.
> If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin).
Disagree. It seems unfair to me to create a world in which some people won't love him, and then punish them for it. "You have a choice between A and B, but you're supposed to choose A." Is love without choice impossible? Is it a "square circle," a logical impossibility? Perhaps, but then the consequences of creating such a world must be acceptable to God or he would not have created it. It's hardly humanity's fault if he did.
Personally, I believe if there is a God, he is completely indifferent to what we do or want. At least a universe with such a God is completely consistent with a godless universe, which looks a lot like the one we see.
> The existence of "sin" hinges on the existence of free will - which you are free to reject.
The very notion of 'sin' is contradictory if God is the omniscient and omnipotent creator, that's my point.
To say God created the world, *knowing* that people would choose sin, implies that He wanted there to be sin in the world.
To be fair, the story in Genesis does not support an omniscient and omnipotent God - in the story, He is described as literally surprised by what Adam and Eve have done. He doesn't know where they are in the Garden, and has to go looking for them. He doesn't fix the problem once it's discovered.
If you believe that God could be such a colossal fuckup, that's your business, but don't try to tell me it's logical! :)
> to say "sin" implies the non existence of God, is, well, interesting logic.
It does hinge on the condition that God is omnipotent and omniscient. I can't see any logical way that such a creator could have a thing in his world that he did not want to be there.
Not to mention the absurdity of telling me "what God wants." Pretty much by definition, an omniscient and omnipotent being gets exactly what he wants, period.
It makes no sense to say he doesn't want sin in the world, if 'sin' is defined as something contrary to God's will. - either there is a God and no sin, or sin and no God.
Redundant, my ass! Who else on this article has mentioned the term "panspermia," or linked to anything substantial about it?
Fuckin' mods on crack once again....
There's another theory, one that says life came from other planets - it's called panspermia
(Yes, yes, I know... don't bother trying to make a joke out of it, it always turns out clumsy)
To quote Sir Frederick Hoyle: "There are those who believe... that life here began out there!"
Reminds me of A Taste of Armageddon which I re-watched recently. Kirk, being held captive on Eminiar VII, orders Scotty to execute "General Order 24" and exterminate the entire population of the planet.
I was horrified - and amazed that I hadn't been horrified back when I originally saw the episode. Are these the Federation values we're supposed to admire?
"The Inner Light" is a brilliant story which, like "Darmok," is almost ruined by the implausibility of the premise.
The idea that this alien race could, and would, capture the memories of a single individual, pack them into a probe, and launch it into the vastness of space as the only record of their civilization is stupid - as is the notion that they could make it compatible with unknown human biology to play back exactly ONCE for the benefit of a single subject.
If you want the memory of your civilization to be preserved, I can't think of a worse gamble to take!
That said, the story was incredibly moving and well acted. It shows how capable the writers were on TNG, and I would gladly have traded all the TNG movies for an additional season.
> I'm looking at a silica packet that is labled, "Do not eat."
I followed those instructions and nearly starved to death!
My lawyer advised suing for "negligence causing anorexia."
"Dammit, Bones! Nailing. Everyone. Is... MY job!"
"Stop Using Text as a Weapon!"
(with apologies to anyone too young to remember Pat Benatar's song.)
> There ain't nothing easier than to write a game and never publish it.
Tell that to the Duke Nukem Forever team!
"This parrot wouldn't dance if you put 4000 volts through it!!"
Easy, I'll just encrypt using a one-time steno pad!
When the big power companies balked at wiring the countryside for electricity, the government formed cooperatives to get the job done, as part of the New Deal.
http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm
In the '20s, the average American family spent 25%-30% of its income on food. Nowadays it's about 10%.
I'm sure you won't argue that the investment, and the subsequent increase in agricultural production, were not beneficial to the country as a whole?
> My only concern is that Scott isn't young anymore, and so maybe the fire in his creative gut isn't burning as brightly or as hot.
"The light that burns twice as long burns half as bright-- and you have burned so very, very long, Ridley." :)
Yep, I used to sit in a local net cafe which was quiet and empty during the day, and get a lot of work done.
Unfortunately, the cafe went out of business because it was quiet and empty during the day. :(
Indeed. And let's hope he doesn't repeat his Legend and Hannibal kind of magic on it!
Ah, okay-- I misunderstood. I didn't realize he was talking about 20 years in the traveler's frame of reference.
Huh? The galaxy is 100,000 light years across. Even at .95c, that's a lot longer than twenty years... or were you planning to accelerate past c?