I'm young, and I've had a job doing assorted computer/tech work since before I was 18. I can remember a time, before I started doing this for a living, that I thoroughly enjoyed programming. I loved being able to pour my creativity into a small, yet satisfying hack in its own right. It was the first thing I did in the morning and the last thing at night (usually a couple of hours before the morning;).
Then, I was an Operations guy in a data center for a school district with an old Burroughs system; it wasn't long before I started spending less time with my home systems. After a while I was promoted to a programmer, without a pay or title increase, and got to spend my nights writing Y2K fixes in Cobol, and looking for ways to make the old Unisys mainframe stop thinking it had a card reader attached to it (all the data for the "jobs" being run was hardcoded in the programs themselves, as a sort of legacy from a time when the card reader was replaced with a disk pack and nobody bothered to rethink the way the system should work).
Nowadays, I've got a new job as a Remedy developer, trying to build forms and systems using a tool that isn't suited to programmers. (If you've never done Remedy, don't do it. It can pay damn good, but as far as I care, it's simply not worth it. If it's in the job description, find a different job.)
I can't hardly stand to look at a computer anymore. I hate the damned things. I hate having to deal with a cranky NT workstation fitted to an old P200MMX system on a slow network with a slow server. I hate having to fight my development system every damned step of the way to get it to do what it should be able to do. What used to be art, for me, has become an exhausting chore. I've effectively had my hacking bits torn from my body. I'm tired of working for bosses that don't get it, companies that talk about "Business Process Mastering and Improvement" but yet never change the way they operate, I'm tired of the doublespeak, and if, one more time, I'm given three days to build what should take a week, I'm going to go postal.
Unless you can get into that sort of Employment Eldorado, a place with some think tank that pays you to be an artful hacker, it's simply not worth it anymore.
I'm ready to go get a job with the national park service, meanwhile...
IT shortage? Who cares? For me, that's kinda like somebody reporting that there's a shortage of acid rain in the world.
Because it would be incredibly difficult, and it would be antithetical to Slashdot's general form as it stands today.
Think about it; if you code rules for users with periods, then they'll use some other form of punctuation. Or maybe a dash. And then it will be misplaced characters. "Linuss Torvald".
By the time you're done, you might as well have developed a pattern recognizing artificial intelligence. =}
Besides of which, Slashdot hasn't in the past taken steps to deny access to its forums simply because someone is a complete and utter idiot.
Eventually, they'll get bored and move back to Usenet or wherever else it is that they came from (under a rock?).
Incidentally, actually reading the article will point out that it's Prolume that's trying to raise research money by manufacturing the squirt guns. Biotoy is just a company doing similar things, apparently.
Unfortunately, I can't get to the site from work (I hate Cyber Patrol =P ).
The Grand Unified Field Theory wouldn't account for the so-called "missing mass" as much as it aims to unite the standard model with the relativistic model; three of the four known forces (or interactions) have been united under the standard model (although questionably so); it's gravity that's putting up a fuss under Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (which pretty much directly contradicts some key parts of quantum physics).
If this guy didn't find a way to explain the gravitational force that works in terms of quantum mechanics, then he hasn't achieved a unified field theory.
The most recent (December) issue of Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/ , I believe) has some other useful information on these subjects and more.
...Which is a second, though slightly less immediate, reason that the scientists might want to slow up a bit.
They don't really understand it yet. I'm sure they would be cautious, working in a sealed, contained lab, etc. But if they happen to miss one of their guesses on, say, those 100 mysterious genes, they might end up with an organism poised to decimate all living creatures on the planet larger than a doormouse.
If I were presented with a nuclear warhead and asked to examine the electronics, about the last thing I would do is apply some electricity to the circuit I didn't understand.;}
But, eh. I guess it's gonna happen whether we want it to, or not. The "Genetic Age" is right around the corner. Oughtta be interesting times.
It's sorta hard to argue for or against the existence of something when it can't really be defined.;}
Depending on who you talk to, a "soul" is anything from some mysterious energy temporarily bound to the body, to the electrical signals that course through our nervous system, to a product of our imagination.
That's part of why there's a debate raging over abortion.
It's also the same idea as in artificial intelligence; if I were to design a complex, adaptable program that was able to converse with people in a manner indistinguishable from any other person, does that make it "conscious"? Who knows.
I am glad that the scientists have decided to wait on the results of a public debate before taking the next steps, but I think that bringing religion into the debate will only start a long, drawn out flame war that won't accomplish or decide anything.
Most rational people would agree that theological debates never get anywhere because the basis of religion is personal belief; you can't prove that you're right to anyone else.
What *should* be debated is an issue that Albert Einstein originally posed many years ago. He believed that technology was developing faster than popular morality (a basic examination of the majority of the posts above would indicate that he underestimated the problem; many individuals are being presented with a fantastic communications medium, and they're using it to babble senselessly).
The scientists are indeed creating life. Bacteria are living organisms, and the scientists are planning on engineering living organisms using the most basic building blocks possible. This is a far cry from creating anything pet-worthy, but, look at how far this technology has advanced in the last decade, and extrapolate from that an estimate of about how long it will be before we can create something pet-worthy (I'll probably see it in my lifetime).
At what point would a society stop and decide to reflect on itself instead of pushing the envelope? Experiments and learning are very good things to practice, but it's also a wise idea to stop pushing outward and reflect inward every once in a while.
I think it would be ideal if the scientists waited at the creation point and concentrated instead on understanding more of the process that makes life work, but I also know that won't happen. These people are scientists because of their inquiring minds and boundless curiosity.
Realize that it was only (relatively) very recently that "civilized" societies decided that servitude was unethical. We as a race still treat each other abysmally, and we treat the living things around us even worse. I'm not fond of imagining the results when those ideals are coupled with technology that will eventually allow us to create living beings to do whatever work we care to have them do for us.
The scientists mean well. They are, for the most part, moral, intelligent people. But it is hubristic of them to think that the technology they're developing now won't soon reach the public sector, which, I think, simply isn't mature enough to handle it yet.
You said, "However, most of this 'research' stuff is pretty pointless", and "Would you mind explaining to me how a PhD. in the liberal arts...really advances the human condition?"
This sounds like some fun stuff to take a crack at.
First off, it seems to me that a lot of individuals here are under the mistaken impression that all a professor does is sit around and give out information to students. That's not the case; a (good) professor got to be a professor by being one of the best of the best, who for whatever reason decided to teach it instead of sell it. As a result, it's common for a lot of these professors to do field research in their spare time. This is especially true in physics and mathematics (especially especially mathematics). It's not at all pointless.
That doesn't even touch upon the fact that without "this [pointless] 'research' stuff", the majority of people who became sufficiently knowledgeable in a particular field to contribute to it would not have started in the first place.
Granted, the relatively new computer industry has turned a lot of this on its ear. But we wouldn't have a computer industry without all of this previous work and "[pointless] 'research'".
No, I can't give names or specific examples, without doing a lot of lookup.
As far as the liberal arts.. come on. You really think that those subjects, just because you don't appear to have any interest in them, haven't advanced the human condition? Especially philosophy?
You know about the so-called "Dark Ages", right? That was an extended period of time in which there was relatively no philosophical or theological, discussion. In the very least, both of those subjects makes people think about their world and life. At best, they advance the ideals of right and wrong.
Sorry to say, but we wouldn't be very far along without decent managerial abilities, too. Any decent programmer has to have some managerial skills. And if any company is going to turn out a usable product, they're going to have to have some damned good managers ('cause everyone knows that managing programmers is like herding cats).
Let me ask you this: Do you think Henry Ford was more of a developer or more of a manager?
I don't think too many people any more really pay attention to the way that everything interconnects; they just pay attention to their little spheres of interest, and that's a shame.
Now, see, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Read what I originally posted, again. My ISP had _NO_ direct contact with the spammer. They simply provided upstream access to another ISP. It was _that_ ISP's fault.
Think about it. Should the RBL blackhole everything that comes through, oh, say, UUNet, because the RBL team can't get ahold of one of UUNet's subscribing ISPs? How do you think UUNet would respond to being called up by some group of people saying, "Either you stop hosting so and so provider right now, or we won't let email from any of your users reach the inboxes of anybody who uses our service!" Doesn't that sound, in the least bit, wrong to you?
How do you make the RBL an opt-in option? To my knowledge, it's a feature of sendmail. Either it's on, or off, and you can't activate it or deactivate it on a per-user basis.
I'm happy that you notify your subscribers that their email is being filtered by a third party program resident on your server, but that still doesn't validate all of the other providers that fail to say a single thing to their users.
First off: I hate spam as much as the next person. I've called ISPs about their spammers before.
Here's where I say "BUT"...
BUT.. I don't think the RBL is a good idea, for the same reasons that most of the Slashdot community doesn't think that things like CyberPatrol is a good idea.
How many of the ISPs tell their customers that they filter the customer's email? Not a single ISP I have ever subscribed to has disclosed that to me, a paying customer. And all of them (save 1) used the RBL.
A while back I had a fun experience with the RBL. The ISP that I use for my email account is also an upstream provider for other service providers. One of those providers, which used my ISP, had a customer which sent some spam out (the bastard, right? I agree, but he was also within the bounds of the law...). The RBL got wind of this, had their little discussion, and since they couldn't reach anyone at the spammer's provider, they decided they would just blackhole the provider's provider - my ISP. I was in the middle of trying to coordinate a move across the country at the time, and now I can't get in touch with anyone via email.
My ISP resisted this, and so it was a drawn out effort. But I support my ISP in this; they're good people, and they keep their servers configured correctly. They know what they're doing.
Their objection was that a small group of individuals does not have the right to decide who will and will not recieve email from whom. Who monitors the actions of the RBL?
A lot of individuals will bristle at the very mention of the word "Cyber Patrol", or one of its cousins. But those products, and the RBL, work the _same_way_. Except that people rally behind it, because it's "fighting spam", and spam is a big, bad, evil thing.
I don't have a problem fighting spam, but this is not the way to do it. There could just as easily be a way for individuals to download a constantly updated set of email filters, or a program a la McAfee, that would filter their email based on the latest set of spam codes. The point is, it should be an individual's responsibility to filter their own email; it shouldn't be the self-delegated responsibility of some small group of unmonitored people that decide who gets what and when.
...I want the damned things to take my 5$ bills. I dream about them accepting 10$ bills. I dare not dream about them taking the 20$ bill, like the one and only strip of green paper that resided in my wallet today when I went looking for something to drink at work... *mutter*
Oh, and it has to give back the right change, too.;}
If they sing, dance, give me the weather (hey, stupid, I can look outside the bloody window if I want to see the weather report;), give me a stock quote, or give me anything other than change for something more than a 1$ bill, I'll hate them.
...I'm going back to kick the soda machine here a few more times.
Fortunately, I think that any corporation as large as Coca-Cola (and with the kind of competition they have) realizes that this would be nothing less than corporate suicide.
It would encourage the damage and vandalization of their vending machines, and it would encourage their competitors to advertise, "We don't raise our prices like the Other Guy does when it gets warm outside."
For example, Christianity tries to claim that God is good, but unfortunately He created me without the inclination to believe in Him, for which I am set to languish in Hell for eternity. Thanks a bunch. How good is free will when you're basically faced with the choice of a.) Go with God's will or b.) suffer for it?
Heh, you've hit upon one of my other hangups with Christianity; people use the terms "Free Will" to explain a lot of things in the religion and the stories of the religion, but is it really free will if you must bend to God's will, or suffer in Hell otherwise? That seems to me more an illusion of free will than the real thing; true free will would mean that a person was free to investigate the religions of the world without punishment afterward.
I don't know. Christianity, in its entirety, isn't for me. But it does seem to do for many people whatever it is that they need it to do, and I'm fine with that.
Actually, I almost hope that I'm proved wrong when I die; I hope that I'll get a moment to ask God a few questions before He sends me to Hell for being a blasphemer and heathen. *grin*
...I do, of course, disagree with the both of you. *grin*
Agnosticism isn't about laziness. It simply says, "I don't know, and I don't think it's possible to know, right now". There are good reasons for this; as an agnostic, I've examined evidence for both the existence and lack of existence of a deity of some form, and there simply isn't enough evidence to make a properly sound scientific argument.
Human beings have existed on the planet for a very relatively short amount of time, and society and organized culture for even shorter a period of time. It is a sign of immaturity if we, as a race, decide that we can right now find the answer to every question, instead of concentrating on those questions which can be solved, and solving the others at a more appropriate time.
Can you tell me what the universe was like before the Big Bang? Can you even tell me what light and gravity really are? Is time truly infinite? Or is time simply a human invention, perception of one event after another, much like the human ability for pattern matching? These are things we don't know the answer to, yet, and they're very simple problems compared to the problem of the existence of a deity, deities, creator, or creators.
Omniscience is, I think, self-contradictory (it's been a while since I ran through the proof on that one, properly). Does that mean that any deity that might exist is not omniscient, or does that mean simply that our notion of omniscience is completely invalid?
Agnosticism isn't about saying, "I don't care about the solution", or "you can't [ever] know", it's about "it's really stupid for us to fight over this, when none of us knows. Let's think about it." At least, that's the direction I take on it.
I can't prove that a God exists, and neither can I prove that it doesn't (Ichoran, a greater abundance of arguments does not a proof make). So, I decide that I don't know, and maybe I'll solve the problem, and maybe not.
Fence-sitting? Maybe. I know it frustrates a lot of people; some people seem to like to argue, and they take offense at people who say, "this argument isn't going to go anywhere, it's pointless to argue about it, so let's get a cheeseburger and think about it some more".
James: Agnostic != Atheism; atheism says that God _can't_ (or does not) exist. Agnosticism says that God might exist, or God might not exist, but that we don't know.
Best of all, agnostics are the most open-minded, so if anybody out there can convince me that God indeed does or does not exist, I'll go along with it. Have at it. *grin*
OK, before I really reply to this, I've got a question for you, that I've been just _burning_ to spring on someone here in Slashdot. *grin*
I noticed that some of the first things you mentioned were, "..the only way to get to Heaven...", and "...correct set [of beliefs]..."
So, here's my question: what does religion mean to you?
I've seen lots of people talk about what's needed to get into God's kingdom, or that they want to find the objectively "correct" religion... and, without hinting at a third answer, I think they've all strayed from religion's original purpose. Whether or not you agree with that, I'd still be interested in hearing what it means to you.
In that context, I agree with you. Teaching _about_ religion is good; that's education, and knowledge, and that's what will keep humanity from regressing back into a modern dark ages.
But I don't agree with indoctrinating anyone with a particular set of beliefs before they have a chance to critically review them, as Lightn said. Present them with the information and let them choose.
> Since you postulated that the organization made the virus, doesn't that mean that atheism isn't as much of a virus?
Not quite; I said that I thought of organized religion as a kind of social virus. Just because there isn't a "church of Atheism", doesn't mean that it isn't a virus, or that it isn't (at least a little bit) organized. By organized, I don't necessarily mean that individuals all go to the same building to get the same information; that's simply a very high level of organization. A lower level of organization would be one in which multiple individuals shared viewpoints or beliefs that they did not arrive at individually.
I agree that, on the whole, the atheists I've met are, on average, more willing to critically examine their own beliefs. However.. have you ever tried convincing an atheist that a God in some form might exist? You'll get about as far as trying to convince a Christian that God doesn't exist, yet atheists can't really offer any more proof for their belief than Christians can.
Put another way, atheists have at least considered the universe and the existence of a God at some point (that's almost a requirement of that belief), but that doesn't mean that they're any more willing to reconsider that belief than anyone else is.
One other point I'd like to make: I think that there will always exist some tenets of the universe which mankind will not solve. Every answer that we find to a puzzle simply spawns another question or puzzle; it is fractally complex. What I'm getting at is, at a certain point, "knowledge" becomes worthless, and all that a person has to go on is belief. Either you believe in something, or you don't, but knowledge (by itself) probably didn't influence your decision, because knowledge simply cannot provide the answers to the philosophical questions of existence.
Bertrand Russell said that, with few exceptions, people will adopt the belief system of their environment, which is evidence that people are not individually evaluating their beliefs in a thorough manner. I would tend to agree.
I understand that explanation, too; but, my point was that a being of truly superior morality (if that moral system resembled in any way the one that is in place among the people, and if it resembled the commandments given to Moses) would be compelled to intercede in some way. To simply observe acts of violence and suffering, especially those acts committed in His name, is...well, morally questionable.
Put another way, how would God respond to a mother's question, "Why did you let me die? Why did you let those people, your Christians, murder me in your name? Couldn't you have prevented the stake from burning? Couldn't you have at least changed their minds?"
That the people committing those acts were wrong I don't disagree with. What I am curious about is how a morally perfect deity fits into this? According to the stories in the Bible, and the actions observed today, God is neither passive nor active in the affairs of humans; He's been both, and I can't find an appropriate pattern to those times when He has been one or the other.
Keep in mind, I'm not attacking Christianity.. I would be truly delighted if someone could provide an answer or explanation that I understood.
I would go with your answer of personal choice and freedom if it weren't for a few things... God has, according to the stories, taken it upon Himself to have a direct hand in the actions of mankind in the past, and that's what I can't reconcile. For example, Moses' stone tablets, and indeed that entire quest in which God not only assisted Moses in leading his followers out of that land, but in which, on several occasions, God gave Moses the power to perform supernatural acts in the process (the parting of the Red Sea, et al). The Great Flood. Soddom and Gamorrha (sp?).
That's what I can't fit into it.. if the answer for God's _physical_ departure from the lives of people today (and in the last thousand years or so) is that God wants to give us complete free will to do as we will choose, then why did He at one time have a direct hand in the actions of His Children?
Before I go anywhere with this, I think someone should take a moment to make the distinction between religion, and organized religion. Religion, by itself, is simply a personal system of beliefs in some form of supernatural drive behind the universe. That doesn't (to me) show any evidence of a lack of critical judgement, it simply shows that the person looks at the universe a little bit differently from someone else.
Organized religion, however, _does_ rely on people not thinking for themselves. You couldn't have a massive organized religion if each of the members came up with their own viewpoints on what God is, or means to them, or on the meaning of life or the universe.
I think organized religion is a sort of virus.. it is a social idea, spread from one individual to another, using each individual as a host through which to propogate (lest anybody think I'm bashing religion, I might add that atheism is just as much a religion [and "virus"] as Christianity or any other religion; atheism is simply a belief in the impossibility of the existence of any deity. It's still a belief, without any scientifically observable foundations).
I can count on one hand the number of times I have met a Christian individual that was brought up to properly examine their beliefs and belief system for what it was or is. Likewise, I don't have the physical capacity to recall the number of individuals I've met for whom the opposite is true; they are taught Christianity (or any other religion), and then they are taught that to question that religion is to commit a sin.
It's that sentiment, I think, that the previous posters have been referring to.
Although I can empathize with your statement, I don't agree with it. Not posting religiously-related articles to Slashdot won't make the disagreement over religion go away, it will just let you ignore it a little easier.
There are individuals on both sides of the fence that are brash, bull-headed, and disagreeable. I think that if some of them were any dumber, they'd need to be watered daily...
But don't detract from what could prove to be a really interesting discussion for those that are willing to discuss it. Most of us could stand to learn something from the other; I could probably find something interesting about your religion, and you could probably find something interesting about my lack of it.
Not posting these articles won't make the disrespect that you hate go away. It will just propogate it.
...My first choice would be that there exists a "perfect" Creator with perfect moral standards that (according to the texts of the religion) has had a direct hand in some of history's relatively minor incidents, but has been idle during some of mankind's darkest hours. It has been, for me, a direct contradiction with itself, and I haven't heard yet from anyone that can provide a sufficiently acceptable explanation (I'm agnostic, not atheistic).
...For example, innocent people were burned at stakes in the name of that God. I would think that true moral superiority would have compelled your God to have intervened. He could have been subtle about it, come in the dreams of the persecutors, stopped them somehow (omniscience _and_ omnipotence, right?). But it never happened.
...So, either your God is not morally superior (and Christianity has erred), or human values and moralities don't match that of God's (and Christianity has, again, erred... "Thou shalt not kill", handed down from God himself, right?), or your God simply didn't have the ability (and Christianity errs again, in casting this God in a light of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence), or God does not exist (and Christianity has erred).
...I'd be interested in hearing a decent rebuttal. Well thought out, please. I don't pay attention to ranters, because nothing I could say would change their minds, and nothing they would say will be rational enough to change mine.
Actually, I don't think it can be said for sure whether or not it would be a popular item. There is no such thing as "they" in the sense you used; different things toot different peoples' horns.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm young, and I've had a job doing assorted computer/tech work since before I was 18. I can remember a time, before I started doing this for a living, that I thoroughly enjoyed programming. I loved being able to pour my creativity into a small, yet satisfying hack in its own right. It was the first thing I did in the morning and the last thing at night (usually a couple of hours before the morning ;).
Then, I was an Operations guy in a data center for a school district with an old Burroughs system; it wasn't long before I started spending less time with my home systems. After a while I was promoted to a programmer, without a pay or title increase, and got to spend my nights writing Y2K fixes in Cobol, and looking for ways to make the old Unisys mainframe stop thinking it had a card reader attached to it (all the data for the "jobs" being run was hardcoded in the programs themselves, as a sort of legacy from a time when the card reader was replaced with a disk pack and nobody bothered to rethink the way the system should work).
Nowadays, I've got a new job as a Remedy developer, trying to build forms and systems using a tool that isn't suited to programmers. (If you've never done Remedy, don't do it. It can pay damn good, but as far as I care, it's simply not worth it. If it's in the job description, find a different job.)
I can't hardly stand to look at a computer anymore. I hate the damned things. I hate having to deal with a cranky NT workstation fitted to an old P200MMX system on a slow network with a slow server. I hate having to fight my development system every damned step of the way to get it to do what it should be able to do. What used to be art, for me, has become an exhausting chore. I've effectively had my hacking bits torn from my body. I'm tired of working for bosses that don't get it, companies that talk about "Business Process Mastering and Improvement" but yet never change the way they operate, I'm tired of the doublespeak, and if, one more time, I'm given three days to build what should take a week, I'm going to go postal.
Unless you can get into that sort of Employment Eldorado, a place with some think tank that pays you to be an artful hacker, it's simply not worth it anymore.
I'm ready to go get a job with the national park service, meanwhile...
IT shortage? Who cares? For me, that's kinda like somebody reporting that there's a shortage of acid rain in the world.
Because it would be incredibly difficult, and it would be antithetical to Slashdot's general form as it stands today.
Think about it; if you code rules for users with periods, then they'll use some other form of punctuation. Or maybe a dash. And then it will be misplaced characters. "Linuss Torvald".
By the time you're done, you might as well have developed a pattern recognizing artificial intelligence. =}
Besides of which, Slashdot hasn't in the past taken steps to deny access to its forums simply because someone is a complete and utter idiot.
Eventually, they'll get bored and move back to Usenet or wherever else it is that they came from (under a rock?).
- C.
Heh, I've got the same problem, too, and I don't smoke. A 3500 calorie/day diet didn't get me a pound over 140, and I'm 6'2" on a short day.
;)
Not that I think the fact that I can't sit still to be unrelated.
On the other note, sheer weight doesn't necessarily dictate strength.
- Cattywampus.
Incidentally, actually reading the article will point out that it's Prolume that's trying to raise research money by manufacturing the squirt guns. Biotoy is just a company doing similar things, apparently.
- Cattywampus.
...Then he really is making false claims.
Unfortunately, I can't get to the site from work (I hate Cyber Patrol =P ).
The Grand Unified Field Theory wouldn't account for the so-called "missing mass" as much as it aims to unite the standard model with the relativistic model; three of the four known forces (or interactions) have been united under the standard model (although questionably so); it's gravity that's putting up a fuss under Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (which pretty much directly contradicts some key parts of quantum physics).
If this guy didn't find a way to explain the gravitational force that works in terms of quantum mechanics, then he hasn't achieved a unified field theory.
The most recent (December) issue of Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/ , I believe) has some other useful information on these subjects and more.
- Cattywampus.
Boy, I sure wish I knew which addle-brained moderator tacked that up to "Informative". *grin*
- C.
...Which is a second, though slightly less immediate, reason that the scientists might want to slow up a bit.
;}
They don't really understand it yet. I'm sure they would be cautious, working in a sealed, contained lab, etc. But if they happen to miss one of their guesses on, say, those 100 mysterious genes, they might end up with an organism poised to decimate all living creatures on the planet larger than a doormouse.
If I were presented with a nuclear warhead and asked to examine the electronics, about the last thing I would do is apply some electricity to the circuit I didn't understand.
But, eh. I guess it's gonna happen whether we want it to, or not. The "Genetic Age" is right around the corner. Oughtta be interesting times.
- Cattywampus.
It's sorta hard to argue for or against the existence of something when it can't really be defined. ;}
Depending on who you talk to, a "soul" is anything from some mysterious energy temporarily bound to the body, to the electrical signals that course through our nervous system, to a product of our imagination.
That's part of why there's a debate raging over abortion.
It's also the same idea as in artificial intelligence; if I were to design a complex, adaptable program that was able to converse with people in a manner indistinguishable from any other person, does that make it "conscious"? Who knows.
- Cattywampus.
I am glad that the scientists have decided to wait on the results of a public debate before taking the next steps, but I think that bringing religion into the debate will only start a long, drawn out flame war that won't accomplish or decide anything.
Most rational people would agree that theological debates never get anywhere because the basis of religion is personal belief; you can't prove that you're right to anyone else.
What *should* be debated is an issue that Albert Einstein originally posed many years ago. He believed that technology was developing faster than popular morality (a basic examination of the majority of the posts above would indicate that he underestimated the problem; many individuals are being presented with a fantastic communications medium, and they're using it to babble senselessly).
The scientists are indeed creating life. Bacteria are living organisms, and the scientists are planning on engineering living organisms using the most basic building blocks possible. This is a far cry from creating anything pet-worthy, but, look at how far this technology has advanced in the last decade, and extrapolate from that an estimate of about how long it will be before we can create something pet-worthy (I'll probably see it in my lifetime).
At what point would a society stop and decide to reflect on itself instead of pushing the envelope? Experiments and learning are very good things to practice, but it's also a wise idea to stop pushing outward and reflect inward every once in a while.
I think it would be ideal if the scientists waited at the creation point and concentrated instead on understanding more of the process that makes life work, but I also know that won't happen. These people are scientists because of their inquiring minds and boundless curiosity.
Realize that it was only (relatively) very recently that "civilized" societies decided that servitude was unethical. We as a race still treat each other abysmally, and we treat the living things around us even worse. I'm not fond of imagining the results when those ideals are coupled with technology that will eventually allow us to create living beings to do whatever work we care to have them do for us.
The scientists mean well. They are, for the most part, moral, intelligent people. But it is hubristic of them to think that the technology they're developing now won't soon reach the public sector, which, I think, simply isn't mature enough to handle it yet.
- Cattywampus.
You said, "However, most of this 'research' stuff is pretty pointless", and "Would you mind explaining to me how a PhD. in the liberal arts...really advances the human condition?"
This sounds like some fun stuff to take a crack at.
First off, it seems to me that a lot of individuals here are under the mistaken impression that all a professor does is sit around and give out information to students. That's not the case; a (good) professor got to be a professor by being one of the best of the best, who for whatever reason decided to teach it instead of sell it. As a result, it's common for a lot of these professors to do field research in their spare time. This is especially true in physics and mathematics (especially especially mathematics). It's not at all pointless.
That doesn't even touch upon the fact that without "this [pointless] 'research' stuff", the majority of people who became sufficiently knowledgeable in a particular field to contribute to it would not have started in the first place.
Granted, the relatively new computer industry has turned a lot of this on its ear. But we wouldn't have a computer industry without all of this previous work and "[pointless] 'research'".
No, I can't give names or specific examples, without doing a lot of lookup.
As far as the liberal arts.. come on. You really think that those subjects, just because you don't appear to have any interest in them, haven't advanced the human condition? Especially philosophy?
You know about the so-called "Dark Ages", right? That was an extended period of time in which there was relatively no philosophical or theological, discussion. In the very least, both of those subjects makes people think about their world and life. At best, they advance the ideals of right and wrong.
Sorry to say, but we wouldn't be very far along without decent managerial abilities, too. Any decent programmer has to have some managerial skills. And if any company is going to turn out a usable product, they're going to have to have some damned good managers ('cause everyone knows that managing programmers is like herding cats).
Let me ask you this: Do you think Henry Ford was more of a developer or more of a manager?
I don't think too many people any more really pay attention to the way that everything interconnects; they just pay attention to their little spheres of interest, and that's a shame.
Now, see, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Read what I originally posted, again. My ISP had _NO_ direct contact with the spammer. They simply provided upstream access to another ISP. It was _that_ ISP's fault.
Think about it. Should the RBL blackhole everything that comes through, oh, say, UUNet, because the RBL team can't get ahold of one of UUNet's subscribing ISPs? How do you think UUNet would respond to being called up by some group of people saying, "Either you stop hosting so and so provider right now, or we won't let email from any of your users reach the inboxes of anybody who uses our service!" Doesn't that sound, in the least bit, wrong to you?
How do you make the RBL an opt-in option? To my knowledge, it's a feature of sendmail. Either it's on, or off, and you can't activate it or deactivate it on a per-user basis.
I'm happy that you notify your subscribers that their email is being filtered by a third party program resident on your server, but that still doesn't validate all of the other providers that fail to say a single thing to their users.
...And I'm not even going to post as an A.C. ;}
First off: I hate spam as much as the next person. I've called ISPs about their spammers before.
Here's where I say "BUT"...
BUT.. I don't think the RBL is a good idea, for the same reasons that most of the Slashdot community doesn't think that things like CyberPatrol is a good idea.
How many of the ISPs tell their customers that they filter the customer's email? Not a single ISP I have ever subscribed to has disclosed that to me, a paying customer. And all of them (save 1) used the RBL.
A while back I had a fun experience with the RBL. The ISP that I use for my email account is also an upstream provider for other service providers. One of those providers, which used my ISP, had a customer which sent some spam out (the bastard, right? I agree, but he was also within the bounds of the law...). The RBL got wind of this, had their little discussion, and since they couldn't reach anyone at the spammer's provider, they decided they would just blackhole the provider's provider - my ISP. I was in the middle of trying to coordinate a move across the country at the time, and now I can't get in touch with anyone via email.
My ISP resisted this, and so it was a drawn out effort. But I support my ISP in this; they're good people, and they keep their servers configured correctly. They know what they're doing.
Their objection was that a small group of individuals does not have the right to decide who will and will not recieve email from whom. Who monitors the actions of the RBL?
A lot of individuals will bristle at the very mention of the word "Cyber Patrol", or one of its cousins. But those products, and the RBL, work the _same_way_. Except that people rally behind it, because it's "fighting spam", and spam is a big, bad, evil thing.
I don't have a problem fighting spam, but this is not the way to do it. There could just as easily be a way for individuals to download a constantly updated set of email filters, or a program a la McAfee, that would filter their email based on the latest set of spam codes. The point is, it should be an individual's responsibility to filter their own email; it shouldn't be the self-delegated responsibility of some small group of unmonitored people that decide who gets what and when.
...I want the damned things to take my 5$ bills. I dream about them accepting 10$ bills. I dare not dream about them taking the 20$ bill, like the one and only strip of green paper that resided in my wallet today when I went looking for something to drink at work... *mutter*
;}
;), give me a stock quote, or give me anything other than change for something more than a 1$ bill, I'll hate them.
Oh, and it has to give back the right change, too.
If they sing, dance, give me the weather (hey, stupid, I can look outside the bloody window if I want to see the weather report
...I'm going back to kick the soda machine here a few more times.
Fortunately, I think that any corporation as large as Coca-Cola (and with the kind of competition they have) realizes that this would be nothing less than corporate suicide.
It would encourage the damage and vandalization of their vending machines, and it would encourage their competitors to advertise, "We don't raise our prices like the Other Guy does when it gets warm outside."
Oh well, I liked Pepsi's products better anyway. *grin* (Mountain Dew!)
For example, Christianity tries to claim that God is good, but unfortunately He created me without the inclination to believe in Him, for which I am set to languish in Hell for eternity. Thanks a bunch. How good is free will when you're basically faced with the choice of a.) Go with God's will or b.) suffer for it?
Heh, you've hit upon one of my other hangups with Christianity; people use the terms "Free Will" to explain a lot of things in the religion and the stories of the religion, but is it really free will if you must bend to God's will, or suffer in Hell otherwise? That seems to me more an illusion of free will than the real thing; true free will would mean that a person was free to investigate the religions of the world without punishment afterward.
I don't know. Christianity, in its entirety, isn't for me. But it does seem to do for many people whatever it is that they need it to do, and I'm fine with that.
Actually, I almost hope that I'm proved wrong when I die; I hope that I'll get a moment to ask God a few questions before He sends me to Hell for being a blasphemer and heathen. *grin*
...I do, of course, disagree with the both of you. *grin*
Agnosticism isn't about laziness. It simply says, "I don't know, and I don't think it's possible to know, right now". There are good reasons for this; as an agnostic, I've examined evidence for both the existence and lack of existence of a deity of some form, and there simply isn't enough evidence to make a properly sound scientific argument.
Human beings have existed on the planet for a very relatively short amount of time, and society and organized culture for even shorter a period of time. It is a sign of immaturity if we, as a race, decide that we can right now find the answer to every question, instead of concentrating on those questions which can be solved, and solving the others at a more appropriate time.
Can you tell me what the universe was like before the Big Bang? Can you even tell me what light and gravity really are? Is time truly infinite? Or is time simply a human invention, perception of one event after another, much like the human ability for pattern matching? These are things we don't know the answer to, yet, and they're very simple problems compared to the problem of the existence of a deity, deities, creator, or creators.
Omniscience is, I think, self-contradictory (it's been a while since I ran through the proof on that one, properly). Does that mean that any deity that might exist is not omniscient, or does that mean simply that our notion of omniscience is completely invalid?
Agnosticism isn't about saying, "I don't care about the solution", or "you can't [ever] know", it's about "it's really stupid for us to fight over this, when none of us knows. Let's think about it." At least, that's the direction I take on it.
I can't prove that a God exists, and neither can I prove that it doesn't (Ichoran, a greater abundance of arguments does not a proof make). So, I decide that I don't know, and maybe I'll solve the problem, and maybe not.
Fence-sitting? Maybe. I know it frustrates a lot of people; some people seem to like to argue, and they take offense at people who say, "this argument isn't going to go anywhere, it's pointless to argue about it, so let's get a cheeseburger and think about it some more".
James: Agnostic != Atheism; atheism says that God _can't_ (or does not) exist. Agnosticism says that God might exist, or God might not exist, but that we don't know.
Best of all, agnostics are the most open-minded, so if anybody out there can convince me that God indeed does or does not exist, I'll go along with it. Have at it. *grin*
OK, before I really reply to this, I've got a question for you, that I've been just _burning_ to spring on someone here in Slashdot. *grin*
I noticed that some of the first things you mentioned were, "..the only way to get to Heaven...", and "...correct set [of beliefs]..."
So, here's my question: what does religion mean to you?
I've seen lots of people talk about what's needed to get into God's kingdom, or that they want to find the objectively "correct" religion... and, without hinting at a third answer, I think they've all strayed from religion's original purpose. Whether or not you agree with that, I'd still be interested in hearing what it means to you.
In that context, I agree with you. Teaching _about_ religion is good; that's education, and knowledge, and that's what will keep humanity from regressing back into a modern dark ages.
But I don't agree with indoctrinating anyone with a particular set of beliefs before they have a chance to critically review them, as Lightn said. Present them with the information and let them choose.
> Since you postulated that the organization made the virus, doesn't that mean that atheism isn't as much of a virus?
Not quite; I said that I thought of organized religion as a kind of social virus. Just because there isn't a "church of Atheism", doesn't mean that it isn't a virus, or that it isn't (at least a little bit) organized. By organized, I don't necessarily mean that individuals all go to the same building to get the same information; that's simply a very high level of organization. A lower level of organization would be one in which multiple individuals shared viewpoints or beliefs that they did not arrive at individually.
I agree that, on the whole, the atheists I've met are, on average, more willing to critically examine their own beliefs. However.. have you ever tried convincing an atheist that a God in some form might exist? You'll get about as far as trying to convince a Christian that God doesn't exist, yet atheists can't really offer any more proof for their belief than Christians can.
Put another way, atheists have at least considered the universe and the existence of a God at some point (that's almost a requirement of that belief), but that doesn't mean that they're any more willing to reconsider that belief than anyone else is.
One other point I'd like to make: I think that there will always exist some tenets of the universe which mankind will not solve. Every answer that we find to a puzzle simply spawns another question or puzzle; it is fractally complex. What I'm getting at is, at a certain point, "knowledge" becomes worthless, and all that a person has to go on is belief. Either you believe in something, or you don't, but knowledge (by itself) probably didn't influence your decision, because knowledge simply cannot provide the answers to the philosophical questions of existence.
Bertrand Russell said that, with few exceptions, people will adopt the belief system of their environment, which is evidence that people are not individually evaluating their beliefs in a thorough manner. I would tend to agree.
I understand that explanation, too; but, my point was that a being of truly superior morality (if that moral system resembled in any way the one that is in place among the people, and if it resembled the commandments given to Moses) would be compelled to intercede in some way. To simply observe acts of violence and suffering, especially those acts committed in His name, is...well, morally questionable.
Put another way, how would God respond to a mother's question, "Why did you let me die? Why did you let those people, your Christians, murder me in your name? Couldn't you have prevented the stake from burning? Couldn't you have at least changed their minds?"
That the people committing those acts were wrong I don't disagree with. What I am curious about is how a morally perfect deity fits into this? According to the stories in the Bible, and the actions observed today, God is neither passive nor active in the affairs of humans; He's been both, and I can't find an appropriate pattern to those times when He has been one or the other.
Keep in mind, I'm not attacking Christianity.. I would be truly delighted if someone could provide an answer or explanation that I understood.
Nope, no piddly questions for me. *grin*
I would go with your answer of personal choice and freedom if it weren't for a few things... God has, according to the stories, taken it upon Himself to have a direct hand in the actions of mankind in the past, and that's what I can't reconcile. For example, Moses' stone tablets, and indeed that entire quest in which God not only assisted Moses in leading his followers out of that land, but in which, on several occasions, God gave Moses the power to perform supernatural acts in the process (the parting of the Red Sea, et al). The Great Flood. Soddom and Gamorrha (sp?).
That's what I can't fit into it.. if the answer for God's _physical_ departure from the lives of people today (and in the last thousand years or so) is that God wants to give us complete free will to do as we will choose, then why did He at one time have a direct hand in the actions of His Children?
Before I go anywhere with this, I think someone should take a moment to make the distinction between religion, and organized religion. Religion, by itself, is simply a personal system of beliefs in some form of supernatural drive behind the universe. That doesn't (to me) show any evidence of a lack of critical judgement, it simply shows that the person looks at the universe a little bit differently from someone else.
Organized religion, however, _does_ rely on people not thinking for themselves. You couldn't have a massive organized religion if each of the members came up with their own viewpoints on what God is, or means to them, or on the meaning of life or the universe.
I think organized religion is a sort of virus.. it is a social idea, spread from one individual to another, using each individual as a host through which to propogate (lest anybody think I'm bashing religion, I might add that atheism is just as much a religion [and "virus"] as Christianity or any other religion; atheism is simply a belief in the impossibility of the existence of any deity. It's still a belief, without any scientifically observable foundations).
I can count on one hand the number of times I have met a Christian individual that was brought up to properly examine their beliefs and belief system for what it was or is. Likewise, I don't have the physical capacity to recall the number of individuals I've met for whom the opposite is true; they are taught Christianity (or any other religion), and then they are taught that to question that religion is to commit a sin.
It's that sentiment, I think, that the previous posters have been referring to.
Although I can empathize with your statement, I don't agree with it. Not posting religiously-related articles to Slashdot won't make the disagreement over religion go away, it will just let you ignore it a little easier.
There are individuals on both sides of the fence that are brash, bull-headed, and disagreeable. I think that if some of them were any dumber, they'd need to be watered daily...
But don't detract from what could prove to be a really interesting discussion for those that are willing to discuss it. Most of us could stand to learn something from the other; I could probably find something interesting about your religion, and you could probably find something interesting about my lack of it.
Not posting these articles won't make the disrespect that you hate go away. It will just propogate it.
...My first choice would be that there exists a "perfect" Creator with perfect moral standards that (according to the texts of the religion) has had a direct hand in some of history's relatively minor incidents, but has been idle during some of mankind's darkest hours. It has been, for me, a direct contradiction with itself, and I haven't heard yet from anyone that can provide a sufficiently acceptable explanation (I'm agnostic, not atheistic).
...For example, innocent people were burned at stakes in the name of that God. I would think that true moral superiority would have compelled your God to have intervened. He could have been subtle about it, come in the dreams of the persecutors, stopped them somehow (omniscience _and_ omnipotence, right?). But it never happened.
...So, either your God is not morally superior (and Christianity has erred), or human values and moralities don't match that of God's (and Christianity has, again, erred... "Thou shalt not kill", handed down from God himself, right?), or your God simply didn't have the ability (and Christianity errs again, in casting this God in a light of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence), or God does not exist (and Christianity has erred).
...I'd be interested in hearing a decent rebuttal. Well thought out, please. I don't pay attention to ranters, because nothing I could say would change their minds, and nothing they would say will be rational enough to change mine.
Actually, I don't think it can be said for sure whether or not it would be a popular item. There is no such thing as "they" in the sense you used; different things toot different peoples' horns.