That's not even a coherent straw man much less a cogent argument. I won't give most of that ridiculous fantasy you posted much thought, other than to say you don't have much knowledge of military recruiting practices if you think an individual unable to gain any employment whatsoever that could provide minimum care to his or her family could become a member of the American military.
There are literally THOUSANDS of examples that prove you wrong, this just happens to be the most recent. The fact is, neither of the two major parties can claim to be superior when it comes to protecting rights in an absolute, libertarian sense as you imply.
Hence, physical/scientific discoveries often discredit the credibility of various religions.
Often? I know of cases where science has discredit people who claim religion, but none where an actual religion has been discredited. Also, he wasn't talking about specific religions, but religion in general. That is a very important distinction.
It's important that you try to find someone you relate to. They don't necessarily need to have the same interests you do, but should have a similar lifestyle. For example, if many of your team members have a wife and kids at home, try to find someone in the same situation. He'll understand the value of sticking to a focused 8-5 schedule and will better understand your needs to stay at home with the kids when they are sick, to have your weekends free to spend time with your family, etc.
On the other hand, if you guys are all workaholics who spend every daylight minute at the office and you hire a guy that prefers a tight, 8-5 schedule you'll naturally have some tension and frustration when it gets crunch time and he chooses to go home at 5 every day. He may get twice as much work done as everyone else in a shorter period of time but that doesn't seem to matter at midnight to a grouchy, sleep-deprived developer.
The majority (I'd say 70%) of the skills I've obtained have been acquired by means of self-teaching and learning from friends.
This is pretty much the case no matter where you go to school. A good school will only give you the tools and understanding to be more efficient at acquiring and utilizing the skills. A good school will not be teaching you those skills.
Let's assume that you are well versed in Trig and Algebra (you should have learned them both in HS). Take, at minimum:
Discrete Mathematics (some call it Applied Mathematics) Calculus Number Theory (Cryptography) Linear Algebra
I have a CS degree with a math minor and have been completely surprised at how often I've used the math portion of my education in the workplace. I'd recommend taking a good mathematical modeling course as well, as it typically offers a great mix of math, engineering, and CS.
I think you totally missed the point. When discussing the erosion of freedoms, it's important that the line items themselves be discussed. Comparing the United States to Russia or Germany is not meant to promote the discourse, it's meant to incite anger or to play to an audience (or to get mod points from others with equally idiotic worldviews). We have to keep things in perspective. Russia and Germany killed millions to keep their leaders in power and to grab more. Here in the USA, when a new President is ELECTED to office, power will change hands with a handshake, as its been done since George Washington passed power to John Adams.
In our world, Russia/Germany and the United States are actually on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the freedoms its citizens have. The very fact that we can have this discussion without fear of governmental retribution is evidence of that.
Name the country that, if you were a citizen of said country and made your comment, would not put you in prison (or just put a bullet through your skull): A) Soviet Russia (USSR) B) Nazi Germany C) United States of America D) All of the above
If you didn't answer C then you are simply a reactionary fool.
Listen, I'm all for fighting for privacy, security, and equal rights, but can we please keep the knee-jerk paranoid comparisons out of the discourse? It doesn't serve any purpose but to delegitimize you arguments in reasonable minds.
What do you mean? Merely because a natural means was used to accomplish something does not mean that divine intervention wasn't the catalyst for the event. Maybe a better term is to say that God actualized the physical circumstances from which an incredibly improbable event (say, life 'evolving' from primordial soup) occurred.
If there was a physical occurrence, say, a virgin birth, then there are physical explanations as to how the process occurred. That doesn't make it any less miraculous.
Besides the neat way the archiving is being done, this will help out the Library of Congress immensely in getting their archives digitized before the originals deteriorate to the point they cannot be archived at all. A few years ago, PBS (maybe on Nova) had a special about the digital restoration project at the Library of Congress. They were having to take special care to prioritize the works they wanted to save, as they didn't have enough manpower to digitize all of them before the original recordings completely rotted. Most of the recordings were one-of-a-kind, so much of the archives was expected to eventually be lost forever.
They also emphasized about how they wanted digital version of the original recording, with all of the noise, clicks, and dropouts intact. After all, they are digitally archiving what they have, not restoring it.
One of the biggest finds was an original recording of "This Land is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie with the following stanza intact:
Was a big high wall there that tried to stop me, Was a great big sign that said, "Private Property," But on the other side, it didn't say nothing, That side was made for you and me.
I believe it's a one-of-a-kind and it was found on accident, as the archives literally have dozens of different "This Land is Your Land" recordings and it had previously been digitized before this version was found.
I am more than happy to give money to benefit those in need, a large number of which are elderly. However, I have very little faith in my government to do an even moderately efficient job of it. That's why I give to charities, church, etc. Still, though, the government confiscates my income to pay for these bloated monstrosities even though they are sinking slowly but surely. Eventually, we are going to have to jump ship or go down with it. There will be some hard choices to make and some unpopular choices that I doubt any politician is going to have the balls to make.
There is also a cultural issue that must be dealt with, and that's putting some responsibility in the hands of those who are taking from the system. For example, it's very important that people have and raise DECENT AND RESPONSIBLE CHILDREN. I intend to care for my parents and my wife's parents the best I can. If that means shutting off the cable TV or the cell phone then so be it.
The fact is, life is full of choices and one can invest in him or herself or one can waste their life. Far too many do the latter and expect the government to pick up the tab. Some have smoked all their lives (and continue to do so). Others eat themselves until their body can no longer support their weight. Some have consumed so much alcohol that their liver and kidneys are completely blasted.
I am thrilled that the society in which I live is affluent enough to be able to take care of its elderly and its sick. It's truly wonderful and is a testament to our prosperity. However, medicare and social security, as we know it, benefit politicians more than they benefit society.
Re:Let me be the first to say that...
on
No EZ Fix For The IRS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Even better, I would bet the sinking ships of social security and medicare could make good use of all that diffused and useless pork money (I bet it's in the tens of billions of dollars).
You're kidding...right? That's why the problems exists in the first place...the do-gooders who put those pyramid schemes together said that we'll just pay enough so that they don't have to deal with it. As a result, the taxpayer is gouged incrementally until he feels a sense of entitlement to what is essentially elderly welfare, and politicians throw more money at the problem so as to not lose the votes of their dependents, thus passing the problem on to the next generation of taxpayers.
How about, for once, Washington actually save money in order that it stays in the hands of its rightful owners, the taxpayer. In Washington, a project never fails because it was a poorly hatched, retarded ponzi scheme but instead because it is "underfunded".
If it 'nearly failed', doesn't that mean it still succeeded?
How does a 'nearly failed' attempt to modernize the IRS still run code from 1962?
I doubt there was anything 'nearly' about it. Looks like they spent 8.2 billion, adjusted expectations, and called the project a success (or a 'near failure').
Re:Let me be the first to say that...
on
No EZ Fix For The IRS
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Even in a theistic worldview there's no good definition of an objective morality.
First of all, what makes a definition 'good'? By what criteria do you judge a definition's merit?
I don't disagree with your logic, it's just that your presuppositions are flawed. You are trying to judge the reasoning for a theistic-based objective morality from a subjective viewpoint. To truly judge the merits of a theistic-based objective morality, you yourself would have to have your own objective view of reality, and I contend that noone does. That is why it's important to understand that whatever you believe about the world, whether you be an atheist or a theist, you pressupose certain things based on faith.
Now, this little circle of problems is not reason enough to give up altogether. One can still judge a man's definition of morality based on his own 'personal morality', as we discussed before. I'm a believer in natural law and I believe that nothing God does is arbitrary, so from those grounds, I believe that all moral code espoused by the Bible can be explained in a rational and utilitarian way.
I also believe that God is unchanging, in that his nature is static for all eternity, so from our perspective, his nature is the same since creation and until the universe is destroyed. If it is God's nature that defines what is good (and, therefore, what is evil), then the definitions of what is good and what is evil are unchanging as well, leading one to believe in an static, objective morality.
I'm sure that was as clear as mud, but this is a very difficult concept to grasp for anyone and one that I struggle with. It's also something that has been studied and written about exhaustively by philosophers and Christian apologists alike, who are much better at explaining things than I am.
Romans 2 also "deals" with homosexuality, and calls it an abomination. Jesus defined marriage in Matthew as being between a man and a woman. All sex outside of that covenant is adultery. Therefore, taking part in a homosexual act can only be construed as an adulterous and, therefore, sinful act.
As far as your "inconvenient" statement and "mismash" statement, you greatly oversimplify something you do not understand. Maybe it is so you can understand it perhaps.
However, Christ is clear that the mosaic law was fulfilled and that we are under a new covenant. Paul and Peter debated the very issue of whether hte law applied to gentiles and concluded that no, it did not. It is not a "cultural" thing, it is a Biblical thing.
And what is "the church"?
It's one thing if are not a Christian and don't believe in the Bible, but please don't purposefully misrepresent what is contained in it.
I've got news for you, in case you slept through your philosophy classes: There is no objective morality. A few people have tried to define objective morality, and "community standards" are about as close as you can come.
They've tried to define objective morality within the context of an atheistic worldview. It's no wonder they failed, because you'd have to claim an objective view of reality to claim to know an 'objective morality'.
A well-schooled atheist recognizes that he has to be a humanist to be consistent with his own worldview and he realizes that humanism doesn't jive with his own intuition...lets say...what he 'feels' inside of him. I think you called it 'personal morality'. He know there are certain things that are simply wrong because they are, not because society has drilled those things into his skull and not simply because it perpetuates the species. That's why it's critically important that, for the atheist to reconcile his philosophy with his intuition that he logically conclude that there exists an objective morality that is NOT governed by society.
Hey! I'll bet you even believe in absolute truthfulness.
The very nature of truth is that it is exclusive and absolute.
If Satan can quote scripture, how can you tell the difference between him and a true priest? In case you find this concept hard, here's an answer: You judge based on your own personal morality, which by necessity must be at least partially NOT based on what you have learned from people quoting the bible, since we've just established that as a not totaly reliable source.
You've established nothing of the sort, but you do raise an insightful question. The Bible answers it, as well. Satan will not violate his nature as God will not violate his. The Bible also exhorts to examine anything supernatural as to figure out whether it is 'of God' or not.
I hope you don't take my post as an attack on your post, as it was interesting and you obviously have read "a thing or two". I also hope you don't take offense to my interjection into the conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not even a coherent straw man much less a cogent argument. I won't give most of that ridiculous fantasy you posted much thought, other than to say you don't have much knowledge of military recruiting practices if you think an individual unable to gain any employment whatsoever that could provide minimum care to his or her family could become a member of the American military.
They can't find any other work so many are forced to enlist.
Forced to enlist?
You don't know many people in the military do you?
So you don't think that any event the President might attend should be a 'special security event'?
Maybe you should be consistent before you go mouthing off.
No traces huh?
Yes, yes...this type of stuff only happens because of those on the 'ultra right':
Protestors to be Caged at Democratic National Convention
There are literally THOUSANDS of examples that prove you wrong, this just happens to be the most recent. The fact is, neither of the two major parties can claim to be superior when it comes to protecting rights in an absolute, libertarian sense as you imply.
...will those who are 'vaccinated' become physically ill every time someone plays Beethoven's No. 9?
Hence, physical/scientific discoveries often discredit the credibility of various religions.
Often? I know of cases where science has discredit people who claim religion, but none where an actual religion has been discredited. Also, he wasn't talking about specific religions, but religion in general. That is a very important distinction.
If you have a HTPC you'll likely have an HDTV. If you want to play any HD video on your PC, you'll need something pretty stout.
It's important that you try to find someone you relate to. They don't necessarily need to have the same interests you do, but should have a similar lifestyle. For example, if many of your team members have a wife and kids at home, try to find someone in the same situation. He'll understand the value of sticking to a focused 8-5 schedule and will better understand your needs to stay at home with the kids when they are sick, to have your weekends free to spend time with your family, etc.
On the other hand, if you guys are all workaholics who spend every daylight minute at the office and you hire a guy that prefers a tight, 8-5 schedule you'll naturally have some tension and frustration when it gets crunch time and he chooses to go home at 5 every day. He may get twice as much work done as everyone else in a shorter period of time but that doesn't seem to matter at midnight to a grouchy, sleep-deprived developer.
Digital photo enthusiasts, developers, HTPC (Home Theater PC) buffs, digital video editing enthusiasts, and 3D graphics modelers disagree with you.
The majority (I'd say 70%) of the skills I've obtained have been acquired by means of self-teaching and learning from friends.
This is pretty much the case no matter where you go to school. A good school will only give you the tools and understanding to be more efficient at acquiring and utilizing the skills. A good school will not be teaching you those skills.
Let's assume that you are well versed in Trig and Algebra (you should have learned them both in HS). Take, at minimum:
Discrete Mathematics (some call it Applied Mathematics)
Calculus
Number Theory (Cryptography)
Linear Algebra
I have a CS degree with a math minor and have been completely surprised at how often I've used the math portion of my education in the workplace. I'd recommend taking a good mathematical modeling course as well, as it typically offers a great mix of math, engineering, and CS.
I think you totally missed the point. When discussing the erosion of freedoms, it's important that the line items themselves be discussed. Comparing the United States to Russia or Germany is not meant to promote the discourse, it's meant to incite anger or to play to an audience (or to get mod points from others with equally idiotic worldviews). We have to keep things in perspective. Russia and Germany killed millions to keep their leaders in power and to grab more. Here in the USA, when a new President is ELECTED to office, power will change hands with a handshake, as its been done since George Washington passed power to John Adams.
In our world, Russia/Germany and the United States are actually on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the freedoms its citizens have. The very fact that we can have this discussion without fear of governmental retribution is evidence of that.
And I thought it was for my ravishing good looks!
Name the country that, if you were a citizen of said country and made your comment, would not put you in prison (or just put a bullet through your skull):
A) Soviet Russia (USSR)
B) Nazi Germany
C) United States of America
D) All of the above
If you didn't answer C then you are simply a reactionary fool.
Listen, I'm all for fighting for privacy, security, and equal rights, but can we please keep the knee-jerk paranoid comparisons out of the discourse? It doesn't serve any purpose but to delegitimize you arguments in reasonable minds.
Divine intervention is not natural.
What do you mean? Merely because a natural means was used to accomplish something does not mean that divine intervention wasn't the catalyst for the event. Maybe a better term is to say that God actualized the physical circumstances from which an incredibly improbable event (say, life 'evolving' from primordial soup) occurred.
If there was a physical occurrence, say, a virgin birth, then there are physical explanations as to how the process occurred. That doesn't make it any less miraculous.
Here's a link with more information about the uniqueness of the recording:
Woody Guthrie - This Land Is Your Land
Besides the neat way the archiving is being done, this will help out the Library of Congress immensely in getting their archives digitized before the originals deteriorate to the point they cannot be archived at all. A few years ago, PBS (maybe on Nova) had a special about the digital restoration project at the Library of Congress. They were having to take special care to prioritize the works they wanted to save, as they didn't have enough manpower to digitize all of them before the original recordings completely rotted. Most of the recordings were one-of-a-kind, so much of the archives was expected to eventually be lost forever.
They also emphasized about how they wanted digital version of the original recording, with all of the noise, clicks, and dropouts intact. After all, they are digitally archiving what they have, not restoring it.
One of the biggest finds was an original recording of "This Land is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie with the following stanza intact:
Was a big high wall there that tried to stop me,
Was a great big sign that said, "Private Property,"
But on the other side, it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
I believe it's a one-of-a-kind and it was found on accident, as the archives literally have dozens of different "This Land is Your Land" recordings and it had previously been digitized before this version was found.
Good to see Milton is putting the money he stole to good use.
I am more than happy to give money to benefit those in need, a large number of which are elderly. However, I have very little faith in my government to do an even moderately efficient job of it. That's why I give to charities, church, etc. Still, though, the government confiscates my income to pay for these bloated monstrosities even though they are sinking slowly but surely. Eventually, we are going to have to jump ship or go down with it. There will be some hard choices to make and some unpopular choices that I doubt any politician is going to have the balls to make.
There is also a cultural issue that must be dealt with, and that's putting some responsibility in the hands of those who are taking from the system. For example, it's very important that people have and raise DECENT AND RESPONSIBLE CHILDREN. I intend to care for my parents and my wife's parents the best I can. If that means shutting off the cable TV or the cell phone then so be it.
The fact is, life is full of choices and one can invest in him or herself or one can waste their life. Far too many do the latter and expect the government to pick up the tab. Some have smoked all their lives (and continue to do so). Others eat themselves until their body can no longer support their weight. Some have consumed so much alcohol that their liver and kidneys are completely blasted.
I am thrilled that the society in which I live is affluent enough to be able to take care of its elderly and its sick. It's truly wonderful and is a testament to our prosperity. However, medicare and social security, as we know it, benefit politicians more than they benefit society.
Even better, I would bet the sinking ships of social security and medicare could make good use of all that diffused and useless pork money (I bet it's in the tens of billions of dollars).
You're kidding...right? That's why the problems exists in the first place...the do-gooders who put those pyramid schemes together said that we'll just pay enough so that they don't have to deal with it. As a result, the taxpayer is gouged incrementally until he feels a sense of entitlement to what is essentially elderly welfare, and politicians throw more money at the problem so as to not lose the votes of their dependents, thus passing the problem on to the next generation of taxpayers.
How about, for once, Washington actually save money in order that it stays in the hands of its rightful owners, the taxpayer. In Washington, a project never fails because it was a poorly hatched, retarded ponzi scheme but instead because it is "underfunded".
If it 'nearly failed', doesn't that mean it still succeeded?
How does a 'nearly failed' attempt to modernize the IRS still run code from 1962?
I doubt there was anything 'nearly' about it. Looks like they spent 8.2 billion, adjusted expectations, and called the project a success (or a 'near failure').
That's exactly how Joe Congressman defends pork.
Even in a theistic worldview there's no good definition of an objective morality.
First of all, what makes a definition 'good'? By what criteria do you judge a definition's merit?
I don't disagree with your logic, it's just that your presuppositions are flawed. You are trying to judge the reasoning for a theistic-based objective morality from a subjective viewpoint. To truly judge the merits of a theistic-based objective morality, you yourself would have to have your own objective view of reality, and I contend that noone does. That is why it's important to understand that whatever you believe about the world, whether you be an atheist or a theist, you pressupose certain things based on faith.
Now, this little circle of problems is not reason enough to give up altogether. One can still judge a man's definition of morality based on his own 'personal morality', as we discussed before. I'm a believer in natural law and I believe that nothing God does is arbitrary, so from those grounds, I believe that all moral code espoused by the Bible can be explained in a rational and utilitarian way.
I also believe that God is unchanging, in that his nature is static for all eternity, so from our perspective, his nature is the same since creation and until the universe is destroyed. If it is God's nature that defines what is good (and, therefore, what is evil), then the definitions of what is good and what is evil are unchanging as well, leading one to believe in an static, objective morality.
I'm sure that was as clear as mud, but this is a very difficult concept to grasp for anyone and one that I struggle with. It's also something that has been studied and written about exhaustively by philosophers and Christian apologists alike, who are much better at explaining things than I am.
Romans 2 also "deals" with homosexuality, and calls it an abomination. Jesus defined marriage in Matthew as being between a man and a woman. All sex outside of that covenant is adultery. Therefore, taking part in a homosexual act can only be construed as an adulterous and, therefore, sinful act.
As far as your "inconvenient" statement and "mismash" statement, you greatly oversimplify something you do not understand. Maybe it is so you can understand it perhaps.
However, Christ is clear that the mosaic law was fulfilled and that we are under a new covenant. Paul and Peter debated the very issue of whether hte law applied to gentiles and concluded that no, it did not. It is not a "cultural" thing, it is a Biblical thing.
And what is "the church"?
It's one thing if are not a Christian and don't believe in the Bible, but please don't purposefully misrepresent what is contained in it.
I've got news for you, in case you slept through your philosophy classes: There is no objective morality. A few people have tried to define objective morality, and "community standards" are about as close as you can come.
They've tried to define objective morality within the context of an atheistic worldview. It's no wonder they failed, because you'd have to claim an objective view of reality to claim to know an 'objective morality'.
A well-schooled atheist recognizes that he has to be a humanist to be consistent with his own worldview and he realizes that humanism doesn't jive with his own intuition...lets say...what he 'feels' inside of him. I think you called it 'personal morality'. He know there are certain things that are simply wrong because they are, not because society has drilled those things into his skull and not simply because it perpetuates the species. That's why it's critically important that, for the atheist to reconcile his philosophy with his intuition that he logically conclude that there exists an objective morality that is NOT governed by society.
Hey! I'll bet you even believe in absolute truthfulness.
The very nature of truth is that it is exclusive and absolute.
If Satan can quote scripture, how can you tell the difference between him and a true priest? In case you find this concept hard, here's an answer: You judge based on your own personal morality, which by necessity must be at least partially NOT based on what you have learned from people quoting the bible, since we've just established that as a not totaly reliable source.
You've established nothing of the sort, but you do raise an insightful question. The Bible answers it, as well. Satan will not violate his nature as God will not violate his. The Bible also exhorts to examine anything supernatural as to figure out whether it is 'of God' or not.
I hope you don't take my post as an attack on your post, as it was interesting and you obviously have read "a thing or two". I also hope you don't take offense to my interjection into the conversation.