Why must religion hide in the shadowy world of the undefined? Is that what you want to limit religion to - living in the places science has not yet penetrated?
Regardless, religion and science are at odds as ways of knowing. With science it is all about evidence. With religion - faith - the presence of belief in the absence of evidence, or even reason.
That being said, religions that emphasize only believing in what you can experience do exist - some interpretations of Buddhism fall under this category.
I don't have a leg to stand on in my dispute with Google. I want my 60 million dollars, its a fairly small sum, doesn't set a terrible precedent, and will save them the time of fighting this battle with me over twitter.
1. It misses the benefits of having foreign students in the US, and having our own students exposes to students from other countries without needing to travel (so those who can't afford the time/money to travel still get more exposure). These benefits are far reaching. If we became a country with world class universities closed off to non citizens - we'd rapidly feel a diplomatic bite, and face more insidious harm long term.
2. A college education is more than just job training, and the perspective and growth it provides are only allocated to a small portion of the populace. We need to be talking about making college as universal, free, and affordable (for society) as high school. Then we'll see some real progress.
A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material. They could touch on Manning's plight in jail, on the embassy drama, the fights within the organization, etc. By choosing to fabricate key elements of the plot to push an agenda that is anti-wikileaks and pro war with Iran, Dreamworks is passing up a massive opportunity as a studio, and opening themselves up to a PR nightmare.
I smell a new White House petition. I wouldn't mind paying in inspiring thoughts and butterfly paintings based on a percentage of buildings that collapsed in my home state during the fiscal year. Its for the children.
Fewer services, not less. It is a rare (and fun!) conservative who wants to cut government spending in every arena. Usually its all about preserving and extending the military and projects in their district. So they are less about spending less, and more about "I don't want to spend money on THAT".
You explained it yourself. "The same or more work". Companies are picking "the same" over "more", or replacing middle class jobs with poverty line jobs.
Tech could just as easily extend middle class jobs, if we chose productivity over cost efficiency. The problem is the people making those decisions seem to lean heavily towards saving their wealth, rather than investing and creating more. We ought to look into why they are making that decision, and also, why they are the ones who get to make it.
I think a fair rule is that, barring extraordinary and demonstrated need, all tax dollars for software should go only for the development of software for which source is available gratis to all taxpayers, and that secret-source software makers are free to change to fit this requirement any time they'd like to have their software considered for a bid.
Requiring this of software developed by the government makes a lot of sense. However the language "considered for a bid" suggests you want this to include all software vendors the government employs. While some software (voting machine) should always be open, need ALL software a government uses fit this requirement?
What about higher thresholds with bigger results?
Spitballing the specifics:
Get 10 million and news networks need to devote time to its discussion.
Get 50 million and it needs to go before congress as a bill.
Make that argument, don't just reference it. I think representative democracy as it stands in the US now fits that description, but it needn't. We can change it for the better.
What is YOUR point? It is good to call out tactics like this no matter who is pulling them, whether its one kind of government or another, or a corporation. That Hanoi occupies so weak a PR position they need to hire people to attack critics says a lot about their strength as a country. Don't get me wrong, where we find these tactics being deployed at home - the very same conclusions apply. That shouldn't stop us from calling them out. I *would* stop short of saying everyone out there does the same, sans evidence.
Different animals. I'm not talking about banning guns, I'm talking about implementing changes to registration, eliminating loopholes, and having standard federal rules. For something akin to prohibition, check out the war on drugs.
There are a large number of contributing factors to gun violence. Poverty is surely one of them. We should identify and address them all, agreed. At the same time, we need to radically change who has access to what kind of weapon.
This invites massive logistical issues that only expand if you take malfunctions and deliberate hacking into account. All because we live in a country where paranoia about gun rights trumps taking rational action to reduce gun deaths.
Slashdot Mirror
Why must religion hide in the shadowy world of the undefined? Is that what you want to limit religion to - living in the places science has not yet penetrated?
Regardless, religion and science are at odds as ways of knowing. With science it is all about evidence. With religion - faith - the presence of belief in the absence of evidence, or even reason.
That being said, religions that emphasize only believing in what you can experience do exist - some interpretations of Buddhism fall under this category.
wxPython is unfortunately a bit of a mess. Platform specific bugs make it unusable as a cross platform toolkit, imo.
I don't have a leg to stand on in my dispute with Google. I want my 60 million dollars, its a fairly small sum, doesn't set a terrible precedent, and will save them the time of fighting this battle with me over twitter.
Can we please get rid of that ridiculous expression?
Two problems with this outlook:
1. It misses the benefits of having foreign students in the US, and having our own students exposes to students from other countries without needing to travel (so those who can't afford the time/money to travel still get more exposure). These benefits are far reaching. If we became a country with world class universities closed off to non citizens - we'd rapidly feel a diplomatic bite, and face more insidious harm long term.
2. A college education is more than just job training, and the perspective and growth it provides are only allocated to a small portion of the populace. We need to be talking about making college as universal, free, and affordable (for society) as high school. Then we'll see some real progress.
This is a wonderful argument: With the crackdown on piracy, what other activities will society make harder to detect, punish, or prevent?
A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material. They could touch on Manning's plight in jail, on the embassy drama, the fights within the organization, etc. By choosing to fabricate key elements of the plot to push an agenda that is anti-wikileaks and pro war with Iran, Dreamworks is passing up a massive opportunity as a studio, and opening themselves up to a PR nightmare.
He's got way more clout now, so I bet they'd let him run with it. I'd just expect him to kill off Luke and/or Leia. With Reavers. Sith Reavers.
I smell a new White House petition. I wouldn't mind paying in inspiring thoughts and butterfly paintings based on a percentage of buildings that collapsed in my home state during the fiscal year. Its for the children.
Fewer services, not less. It is a rare (and fun!) conservative who wants to cut government spending in every arena. Usually its all about preserving and extending the military and projects in their district. So they are less about spending less, and more about "I don't want to spend money on THAT".
And turn Star Wars 7 into Star Wars 7, 8, and 9?
You explained it yourself. "The same or more work". Companies are picking "the same" over "more", or replacing middle class jobs with poverty line jobs.
Tech could just as easily extend middle class jobs, if we chose productivity over cost efficiency. The problem is the people making those decisions seem to lean heavily towards saving their wealth, rather than investing and creating more. We ought to look into why they are making that decision, and also, why they are the ones who get to make it.
A piece of software might be #1 in one market (the US), #1 overall (the world), but not #1 in other markets (like Europe, Japan, or South Africa).
Requiring this of software developed by the government makes a lot of sense. However the language "considered for a bid" suggests you want this to include all software vendors the government employs. While some software (voting machine) should always be open, need ALL software a government uses fit this requirement?
What about higher thresholds with bigger results?
Spitballing the specifics:
Get 10 million and news networks need to devote time to its discussion.
Get 50 million and it needs to go before congress as a bill.
Is it just me, or is "why should I care?" the new "first!!!" on slashdot posts?
Make that argument, don't just reference it. I think representative democracy as it stands in the US now fits that description, but it needn't. We can change it for the better.
What is YOUR point? It is good to call out tactics like this no matter who is pulling them, whether its one kind of government or another, or a corporation. That Hanoi occupies so weak a PR position they need to hire people to attack critics says a lot about their strength as a country. Don't get me wrong, where we find these tactics being deployed at home - the very same conclusions apply. That shouldn't stop us from calling them out. I *would* stop short of saying everyone out there does the same, sans evidence.
Incorrect: Reddit Cofounder RIP. Front page. 1294 votes and climbing. Submitted 4 hours ago. 84 comments vs the 24 here.
They also have a brand problem in general. PR people must be salivating...
US Congress Rules Huawei a security threat, Vulnerabilities, may scare off customers.
Different animals. I'm not talking about banning guns, I'm talking about implementing changes to registration, eliminating loopholes, and having standard federal rules. For something akin to prohibition, check out the war on drugs.
There are a large number of contributing factors to gun violence. Poverty is surely one of them. We should identify and address them all, agreed. At the same time, we need to radically change who has access to what kind of weapon.
Nokia is now the devil we know. Is anyone else pulling a similar stunt?
This invites massive logistical issues that only expand if you take malfunctions and deliberate hacking into account. All because we live in a country where paranoia about gun rights trumps taking rational action to reduce gun deaths.