RE: See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right
Martin Luther stood for a literal reading of the Bible, I understand. Whether that is "right" or not is conjecture. And what he called for was becoming very hard-line about taking the Scripture as much to heart as possible. Hardly a free-thinker.
RE: I must confess that this is the first time I've heard of this 'fallacy'.
It's a fallacy where when you say something like "no Scotsman pours maple syrup on his porridge! They all use salt!" and I say "well, look at Angus, over there..." and you say, well, no TRUE Scotsman would... You seem to say that religion is the root of ethics and I disagree. I think a lot of unethical behaviour (e.g. slavery) went on with approval from the Bible and said scholars. At which point you said the equivalent of "well, no TRUE Christian would..."
RE: Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid.
"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Mt 7:21
And do you know what that is?
RE: You shall not murder. Murder differs from killing.
The KJV I used to read said "thou shalt not kill".
RE: I find it rather silly that you insult him for his accent*, and then go on to shit out an almost unintelligable sentence such as the above.
Three things:
1) I am not an American.
2) That IS his accent, like it or not
3) It is a contradiction to say you think human life is utterly sacred when it's two or three cells, but a fully formed mentally retarded adult incapable of forming mens rea? It's OK for him to be fried like a slice of bacon. Is that ethical? No. But I'm sure there's something in the Bible saying that's OK somewhere.
1) Suburban sprawl on both sides, with a greenbelt in the middle, and a decaying pile of city in the dead center?
2) The high tech community bordering on farmland and/or in suburban hell?
3) Strange laws that say you can't have garage sales, clotheslines, etc
4) 50%+ taxes
5) Enforced francophony
6) Lousy pick of jobs, and low pay in almost all of them
Yes, he's serious. Quebec has some very draconian language laws. No English outside buildings, and half the font size of mandatory french translations within buildings. Children whose PARENTS did not attend QUEBEC ENGLISH SCHOOLS must learn in French schools entirely in French.
Packaging must be in French. Software must be produced in French, first, then the English version...
RE: Have you heard of Martin Luther? (You know, the man who started the whole protestant thing?)
"I have a dream....?" Sure, everyone has. (Just kidding). This would be the guy who claimed that the church at the time wasn't following the party line as stated in Ye Bigge Booke Of Rules, right?
many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible
RE: Many people who claim to be Christians use biblical passages out of context to justify their positions.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Man, you're full of them today!
RE: According to whom? What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
RE: Raping children? I'm not familiar with that passage.
It was something along the lines (Midianites, I think) where it was "kill all the men and women and boys and all non-virgin girls, and the rest keep for yourselves."
RE: God never granted the right to the chosen people to determine who to destroy. He did that, based on His understanding of their "right" to continue to live.
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you had these beliefs. OK, just because God says it's OK to kill people, the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window, got it.
You miss the point of the crux of ad hominem. This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. You said "when a materialist makes [this claim]..." you refer to a person's quality affecting the assertion.
RE: What I'm saying it I'm saying is that pure science - absent the influence of morality - leads to disastrous consequences. Science is not able to determine right from wrong.
Pure science is exactly that. Neither right nor wrong. So how does a theologian get to ascribe morality to knowledge? Or you, for that matter? Pure science in and of itself isn't evil - but theologians and others have said so, because they believe it to threaten their world-view. The world not being flat, therefore the Bible is wrong, that kind of worry.
RE: Because according to the laws of science, we are not able to produce matter from non-matter.
E=mc squared. We can create energy from matter - it should be a matter of time before we do the reverse. Again, you're ducking the question. Whether Charlton Heston bathed in light suddenly caused everything to appear, or it just came into being, it had to come into being, from nothing.
RE: God is non-material, and is not subject to the laws of science.
You assume God exists.
RE: Based on our experience, it does not make sense to assert that the universe came from nothing.
Just because we didn't experience it doesn't mean
That is not naturally possible.
RE: Therefore, we need to look to supernatural causes.
Well, you go off and pray for enlightenment, and leave research to the rational people.
RE: Ethics and morality typically have a theological basis.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. OK, we'll leave the discrepancies between ethics and religion out of it, OK?
RE: Not only that, but GWB lives in a political world where the majority of his constituency believes in God.
That's arguing to the masses, another fallacy. Just because a bunch of Texans and Arknasawsians (sp?) think that a guy in a bathrobe wove a wand and made everything doesn't mean it should be the basis for research.
RE: Perhaps you should actually READ and UNDERSTAND godwin's law
Well, here it is!
Godwin's Law (prov.)
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."
Doesn't mention something being on-topic, it mentions any comparison to Nazis or Hitler. And invoking Holocaust expriments counts. Nice try though, fink.
RE: When a materialist asserts this position, (s)he effectively declares that non-material things should have no influence on scientific research.
What if a non-materialist does so? Are you assuming I am a materialist? Note: what difference does it makes WHO asserts something (see ad hominem attack)
RE: There's the rub - non-material - ideas, love, ethics - and the like have no measurable basis.
You're saying there's no such thing as a moral standard?
RE: We don't live in a culture or world where non-material influences are completely separated from material endeavors.
I see: so if a Voodoo priestess hexes the scientific experiment, it won't work?
RE: The idea of an ordered universe fits quite rationally with the idea of a designer who planned for the universe to function according to order.
This is not proof of a designer, though. We can always take the road to ask "who made God?" Well, God is unmade! Well, if you can accept that this white-robed Charlton Heston celestial being just poof'd into existence, that's never been seen, why the difficulty in understanding that the universe just came into existence?
RE: Many of the scientific giants of history were Christians. Should Blaise Pascal's world view and theological basis have disqualified him from scientific efforts?
No, because Pascal produced science. Pascal was not a theologian, commenting on science. He separated the two.
RE: What about Donald Knuth? Should he be banned from mathematics research simply because he asserts that Jesus Christ is the creator of and Lord over the universe?
No. So long as he can prove his points mathematically and leave Jesus out of the picture. The moment he says 3+1=5 by the grace a Jesus, hallylewyah! I'll start questioning his math skills.
RE: Science doesn't occur separated from ethics and morality - these things have tremendous influence on scientific work.
But inquiry should not be hamstrung by coming to conclusions BEFORE the experiment has been made.
RE:It makes sense to have people educated in the areas of ethics and morality play a part in this discussion.
See my apology above. He did say theologian not cleric, but someone who makes a study of religion and is there to advise people that the Bible says X or the Qu'Ran says Y or the Baghavad-Gita says Z... aren't going to be dealing from the deck of empiricity, now, are they>?
RE: By the same logic, why are bioethicists being allowed to participate?
I have a problem with that, too... but less so. The ethicists, hopefully, look at the problem from the POV of ethics - as opposed to the theologians, who will follow the party line, whether the path is ethical, or not.
Remember, many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible. Wasn't right. But then again, neither is massacring people and raping their children. Which according to the OT is just fine and dandy because God delivers these people into your hands. Ethics, sure I can buy that. Making sure that religious issues are covered, ennnnhhhhhh, no.
Meh, sorry, I got confused, mea grande culpa to both you and Captain - thanks for catching that.
The core of my argument is not really that swayed - theologians study religion and forward religious views. This has no place in science.
One is the study of faith (hopefully) and the other the study of rationality and truth. The twain can never meet. Unless we suddenly want "faith-based science".
RE: If it weren't for religious/ethical complaints, the Nazi "scientific" experiments wouldn't have been noticed...
RE: A religeous man can still be a scientist quite easily really. It depends on HIS views...which may or may not be the same as the higher ups of the faith he practices
Re-read it AGAIN. I said a C-L-E-R-I-C. A cleric is not just a "religious man", he is someone in the employ of a religious organisation to ensure that the belief system of that particular system are put forth. Kinda contradicts the whole "do science with an impartial mind" thing. I don't see "make sure that it doesn't contradict Thessalonians 1:24 or Derek 9:16 or Surah 42:11" in the Scientific Method, anywhere.
Is Bush's "We will have a committee to oversee this, made up of doctors, scientists, bio-ethicists, and THEOLOGIANS" (I'm paraphrasing, emphasis mine - he DID say the word theologians EXPLICITLY)
Sorry, but clerics have NO place in science. Just as scientists have no place dictating religion.
I find it funny that he talks of "th' sanctutty uh hyumin life" - but executes the mentally retarded HAHAHAHAHAHA what a hypocrite.
No, you can't study the heavens! The Bible already tells us the world is flat! No! You can't dissect people to find out what their organ systems do - that's against the dignity of human life, excuse me... yes, that heretic... draw him and quarter him, flay the other one alive...
RE: Eh? I'm the same age group as you, and there definitely WERE trends in the 80s (let's see - Pac-Man, Rubik's Cube, leg-warmers, Atari,
Pac-Man was a Japanese game that became popular. That is NOT the same thing as a committee brain trust sitting at some corporate think tank coming up with something to sell to the vapid hordes.
I'm not talking about fads, I'm talking about manufactured, homogenized culture.
RE: radio. I guess I haven't seen much of different subcultures that were so prevalent in the 80's
That was because the 80s kids were __MORE__ individualistic. This was not acceptable by corporate standards, hence everyone being shoved into the baggy-pants, pierced lip Hot-Topic skate/rap/metal/Tom Green blender (boys) or the Britney blender (girls).
RE: I guess I could sum up my comments by saying that you are sounding like an old man (which I esp. don't like because you are same age as me) casting aspersions on the next generation.
It's a valid critique. And one I am entitled to make. When I was a kid (Christ I do sound like an old man) when we wanted to be punks, we got the airplane paint out, did the jackets up OURSELVES, mailed the bands via their tiny labels, offered them whatever cash we could scrounge up, arranged a venue, sold tickets, and put on shows (ended up with the Circle Jerks, Accused, UK Subs etc... in a small Canadian city). We didn't swan down to Hot Topic, buy a "spear Britney" T-shirt and Manic Panic hair dye, then spend the day in front of the Simon brand mall, spitting on the sidewalk waiting for American Pie 3 to come out.
RE: They are really that much different from us AT ALL, in my eyes.
My wife tried to carry on the tradition after we went to college (I didn't know her then - she's about 8 years younger) - all the kids did was stand around - noone offered to do anything - they just whined that things weren't perfect. So it all collapsed. Far cry from the can-do attitude we had.
re: Marilyn rehashed NIN and Skinny Puppy for them.
Don't you DARE put Marilyn and Skinny Puppy in the same sentence. Skinny Puppy was a ground-breaking industrial band, Marilyn Manson is a designed-by-committee, corporate-label, cookie cutter death metal band (who owes more to Alice Cooper, Kiss, Celtic Frost, etc. than he'll admit - but then again he's a WHORE, and knows it). As for NIN, that guy has some balls insulting Bill Leeb. Bill Leeb has practically helped build industrial music - NIN has had two hits. TWO.
RE: We had that stupid mullet, they have the close cut hair with the love patch.
The mullet is why I burned ALL of my early 80s pics. *shudders*
I'm not talking about what ended up being a good buy, I'm talking about what got sold. Marketing is about getting product out the door, not about it being useful.
I left Ottawa to go live in the USA, where I could get a better job than Call Center Phone Answerer, and six times the pay, with a 21% tax rate.
Again, this is classic Canadian idiocy. "What can the GOVERNMENT do, spending LOTS OF DOLLARS, to get suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople to come and live and work here, and thus increase the TAX BASE?"
Lower the taxes, increase the salaries, and get in some decent jobs. It won't happen, so what they'll do instead is jack up the taxes to pay for a couple of skating rinks named after a couple of French Canadians, or something.
The advertised, hyped, dot-com stocks that were touted at making millionaires out of just about anyone?
Or those of well managed companies with sensible and attainable goals?
Never underestimate the American mindset that wants new and improved, in your face, NOW.
Make a product that actually works. Please.
If that was the case there'd be no diet industry. "Uh, eat less and exercise?" NO! BUY MY NEW FAT INCINERATOR 2000, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GET UP OFF THE COUCH! USING A SYNERGISTIC BLEND OF PLACEBOS, (our) SATISFACTION IS GUARANTEED OR YOUR MONEY BACK!
Ain't that simple. Sure, there are parents that feel guilty for picking the kids up from the sitter at 7, getting home at 8, and working every other Saturday, and try and replace time with the kids with presents for the kids.
But these kids, rather than finding their own way, are being MARKETED TO very hard. It starts with the Channel 5 news hysteria "There's a pervert behind the shed! If you leave your kids to their own devices they'll end up as crack whores! Studies show that kids involved in activities do better and don't fall to DRUGS and SEX yadda yadda yadda". So, the time-honored "screwing around doin' nothin'" kids used to do now gets replaced with part-time-job, band practice, tennis lessons, Chinese lessons, math tutoring, soccer practice, etc. Easy for mom, she just ferries the kids in the SUV and pays for it. The kids in essence get catered to. Given that we now have free-choice in almost anything (I didn't grow up with 300 channels, the Internet, and on-demand everything) these kids have never known anything other than everything being done to suit them and their nearly every whim.
Actually it was Pac-Man that got me interested in assembly language graphics routines, because my attempts at doing a Pac-Man clone in BASIC were far too slow. I figured this one out after maxing BASIC's capabilities. At 14.
I also learned, before then, from seeing a buffer overflow (high score overrunning the max limit) on a Pac-Man machine, some interesting things about what you can and cannot encode in eight bits.
I learned to use a soldering iron building "50 second backup" (I think it was called that) for the C-64, and some tricksy things about how the hardware works, as well.
I have excellent hand-eye coordination thanks to various video games, even though I only see in 2-D (vision defect).
I would gather that these kids are learning how to FIND and EXPLOIT information, which has ALWAYS been the number one skill mankind has ever had to have.
Ooooh, I disagree somewhat. What they have, is strength in numbers.
I was born in the very early 70s, when carob was all the rage and parents were going to teach what few children there were to resist advertising, think for themselves, etc. We were told that we'd have our PICK of jobs, cause there'd be less of us than there would be jobs, and salaries would be higher.
Well, what happened as a result was, advertisers got REALLY annoyed, cause you can't have "trends" or whatever for a really diverse group. The next wave of kids, the Millennials (those getting 15-20 right about now) were raised for the same groupthink the Baby Boomers were. What is N'Sync but the Beatles? You can bet your bottom dollar that market is not only huge but almost completely homogenous. And unlike the 13thGen that preceded it (sometimes mistakenly called GenX) they don't insist on quality.
They're used to getting their own way - custom web feeds, custom foods, can-we-bend-over-backwards-for-you. It stands to reason that there should be some degree of selfishness and bratiness that comes with it.
Most 15 year olds I've seen couldn't outthink a wet paper bag - but they're worth hella cash, so the power's based on money, nothing else.
Re:The three most important reasons for seeing RH2
on
Review: Rush Hour 2
·
· Score: 2
The explicit reason I am not going to see this film is that given that Tucker and Chan have talent, it seems pointless to use "Exotic Oriental Chicks in Leather" or whatever as a draw.
Figures that the slashdot crew would be drooling over the Tiger Lily exotic whatever stuff.
Whenever a filmmaker resorts to T&A it's cause he or she has nothing else to say.
No, I meant putting the development tools out there so that people could continue to build software. That's the one thing Palm's got going for it - there's free development tools, and people are going gung ho writing neat stuff...
Slashdot Mirror
RE: See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right
Martin Luther stood for a literal reading of the Bible, I understand. Whether that is "right" or not is conjecture. And what he called for was becoming very hard-line about taking the Scripture as much to heart as possible. Hardly a free-thinker.
RE: I must confess that this is the first time I've heard of this 'fallacy'.
It's a fallacy where when you say something like "no Scotsman pours maple syrup on his porridge! They all use salt!" and I say "well, look at Angus, over there..." and you say, well, no TRUE Scotsman would... You seem to say that religion is the root of ethics and I disagree. I think a lot of unethical behaviour (e.g. slavery) went on with approval from the Bible and said scholars. At which point you said the equivalent of "well, no TRUE Christian would..."
RE: Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid. "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Mt 7:21
And do you know what that is?
RE: You shall not murder. Murder differs from killing.
The KJV I used to read said "thou shalt not kill".
What question did you want answered?
RE: I find it rather silly that you insult him for his accent*, and then go on to shit out an almost unintelligable sentence such as the above.
Three things:
1) I am not an American.
2) That IS his accent, like it or not
3) It is a contradiction to say you think human life is utterly sacred when it's two or three cells, but a fully formed mentally retarded adult incapable of forming mens rea? It's OK for him to be fried like a slice of bacon. Is that ethical? No. But I'm sure there's something in the Bible saying that's OK somewhere.
There's a difference between asserting a material position and being a materialist.
How about
1) Suburban sprawl on both sides, with a greenbelt in the middle, and a decaying pile of city in the dead center?
2) The high tech community bordering on farmland and/or in suburban hell?
3) Strange laws that say you can't have garage sales, clotheslines, etc
4) 50%+ taxes
5) Enforced francophony
6) Lousy pick of jobs, and low pay in almost all of them
Yes, he's serious. Quebec has some very draconian language laws. No English outside buildings, and half the font size of mandatory french translations within buildings. Children whose PARENTS did not attend QUEBEC ENGLISH SCHOOLS must learn in French schools entirely in French. Packaging must be in French. Software must be produced in French, first, then the English version...
RE: science is the study of truth is in itself a religious statement
Truth: Conformity to fact or actuality. Reality; actuality.
I'd say the scientific method (empirical study) is closer to "truth" than "well, the earth is flat cause the Bible says so."
RE: Have you heard of Martin Luther? (You know, the man who started the whole protestant thing?)
"I have a dream....?" Sure, everyone has. (Just kidding). This would be the guy who claimed that the church at the time wasn't following the party line as stated in Ye Bigge Booke Of Rules, right? many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible
RE: Many people who claim to be Christians use biblical passages out of context to justify their positions.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Man, you're full of them today!
RE: According to whom? What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
RE: Raping children? I'm not familiar with that passage.
It was something along the lines (Midianites, I think) where it was "kill all the men and women and boys and all non-virgin girls, and the rest keep for yourselves."
RE: God never granted the right to the chosen people to determine who to destroy. He did that, based on His understanding of their "right" to continue to live.
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you had these beliefs. OK, just because God says it's OK to kill people, the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window, got it.
RE: ad hominem
You miss the point of the crux of ad hominem. This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. You said "when a materialist makes [this claim]..." you refer to a person's quality affecting the assertion.
RE: What I'm saying it I'm saying is that pure science - absent the influence of morality - leads to disastrous consequences. Science is not able to determine right from wrong.
Pure science is exactly that. Neither right nor wrong. So how does a theologian get to ascribe morality to knowledge? Or you, for that matter? Pure science in and of itself isn't evil - but theologians and others have said so, because they believe it to threaten their world-view. The world not being flat, therefore the Bible is wrong, that kind of worry.
RE: Because according to the laws of science, we are not able to produce matter from non-matter.
E=mc squared. We can create energy from matter - it should be a matter of time before we do the reverse. Again, you're ducking the question. Whether Charlton Heston bathed in light suddenly caused everything to appear, or it just came into being, it had to come into being, from nothing.
RE: God is non-material, and is not subject to the laws of science.
You assume God exists.
RE: Based on our experience, it does not make sense to assert that the universe came from nothing.
Just because we didn't experience it doesn't mean That is not naturally possible.
RE: Therefore, we need to look to supernatural causes.
Well, you go off and pray for enlightenment, and leave research to the rational people.
RE: Ethics and morality typically have a theological basis.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. OK, we'll leave the discrepancies between ethics and religion out of it, OK?
RE: Not only that, but GWB lives in a political world where the majority of his constituency believes in God.
That's arguing to the masses, another fallacy. Just because a bunch of Texans and Arknasawsians (sp?) think that a guy in a bathrobe wove a wand and made everything doesn't mean it should be the basis for research.
RE: Perhaps you should actually READ and UNDERSTAND godwin's law
Well, here it is!
Godwin's Law (prov.)
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."
Doesn't mention something being on-topic, it mentions any comparison to Nazis or Hitler. And invoking Holocaust expriments counts. Nice try though, fink.
Sorry to interrupt your sermon, reverend.
RE: When a materialist asserts this position, (s)he effectively declares that non-material things should have no influence on scientific research.
What if a non-materialist does so? Are you assuming I am a materialist? Note: what difference does it makes WHO asserts something (see ad hominem attack)
RE: There's the rub - non-material - ideas, love, ethics - and the like have no measurable basis.
You're saying there's no such thing as a moral standard? RE: We don't live in a culture or world where non-material influences are completely separated from material endeavors.
I see: so if a Voodoo priestess hexes the scientific experiment, it won't work?
RE: The idea of an ordered universe fits quite rationally with the idea of a designer who planned for the universe to function according to order.
This is not proof of a designer, though. We can always take the road to ask "who made God?" Well, God is unmade! Well, if you can accept that this white-robed Charlton Heston celestial being just poof'd into existence, that's never been seen, why the difficulty in understanding that the universe just came into existence?
RE: Many of the scientific giants of history were Christians. Should Blaise Pascal's world view and theological basis have disqualified him from scientific efforts?
No, because Pascal produced science. Pascal was not a theologian, commenting on science. He separated the two.
RE: What about Donald Knuth? Should he be banned from mathematics research simply because he asserts that Jesus Christ is the creator of and Lord over the universe?
No. So long as he can prove his points mathematically and leave Jesus out of the picture. The moment he says 3+1=5 by the grace a Jesus, hallylewyah! I'll start questioning his math skills.
RE: Science doesn't occur separated from ethics and morality - these things have tremendous influence on scientific work.
But inquiry should not be hamstrung by coming to conclusions BEFORE the experiment has been made.
RE:It makes sense to have people educated in the areas of ethics and morality play a part in this discussion.
Yeah, but where does THEOLOGY play into this?
See my apology above. He did say theologian not cleric, but someone who makes a study of religion and is there to advise people that the Bible says X or the Qu'Ran says Y or the Baghavad-Gita says Z... aren't going to be dealing from the deck of empiricity, now, are they>?
RE: By the same logic, why are bioethicists being allowed to participate?
I have a problem with that, too... but less so. The ethicists, hopefully, look at the problem from the POV of ethics - as opposed to the theologians, who will follow the party line, whether the path is ethical, or not.
Remember, many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible. Wasn't right. But then again, neither is massacring people and raping their children. Which according to the OT is just fine and dandy because God delivers these people into your hands. Ethics, sure I can buy that. Making sure that religious issues are covered, ennnnhhhhhh, no.
Meh, sorry, I got confused, mea grande culpa to both you and Captain - thanks for catching that. The core of my argument is not really that swayed - theologians study religion and forward religious views. This has no place in science.
One is the study of faith (hopefully) and the other the study of rationality and truth. The twain can never meet. Unless we suddenly want "faith-based science".
RE: If it weren't for religious/ethical complaints, the Nazi "scientific" experiments wouldn't have been noticed...
I invoke Godwin's Law.
RE: A religeous man can still be a scientist quite easily really. It depends on HIS views...which may or may not be the same as the higher ups of the faith he practices
Re-read it AGAIN. I said a C-L-E-R-I-C. A cleric is not just a "religious man", he is someone in the employ of a religious organisation to ensure that the belief system of that particular system are put forth. Kinda contradicts the whole "do science with an impartial mind" thing. I don't see "make sure that it doesn't contradict Thessalonians 1:24 or Derek 9:16 or Surah 42:11" in the Scientific Method, anywhere.
Is Bush's "We will have a committee to oversee this, made up of doctors, scientists, bio-ethicists, and THEOLOGIANS" (I'm paraphrasing, emphasis mine - he DID say the word theologians EXPLICITLY)
Sorry, but clerics have NO place in science. Just as scientists have no place dictating religion.
I find it funny that he talks of "th' sanctutty uh hyumin life" - but executes the mentally retarded HAHAHAHAHAHA what a hypocrite.
No, you can't study the heavens! The Bible already tells us the world is flat! No! You can't dissect people to find out what their organ systems do - that's against the dignity of human life, excuse me... yes, that heretic... draw him and quarter him, flay the other one alive...
RE: Eh? I'm the same age group as you, and there definitely WERE trends in the 80s (let's see - Pac-Man, Rubik's Cube, leg-warmers, Atari,
Pac-Man was a Japanese game that became popular. That is NOT the same thing as a committee brain trust sitting at some corporate think tank coming up with something to sell to the vapid hordes. I'm not talking about fads, I'm talking about manufactured, homogenized culture.
RE: radio. I guess I haven't seen much of different subcultures that were so prevalent in the 80's
That was because the 80s kids were __MORE__ individualistic. This was not acceptable by corporate standards, hence everyone being shoved into the baggy-pants, pierced lip Hot-Topic skate/rap/metal/Tom Green blender (boys) or the Britney blender (girls).
RE: I guess I could sum up my comments by saying that you are sounding like an old man (which I esp. don't like because you are same age as me) casting aspersions on the next generation.
It's a valid critique. And one I am entitled to make. When I was a kid (Christ I do sound like an old man) when we wanted to be punks, we got the airplane paint out, did the jackets up OURSELVES, mailed the bands via their tiny labels, offered them whatever cash we could scrounge up, arranged a venue, sold tickets, and put on shows (ended up with the Circle Jerks, Accused, UK Subs etc... in a small Canadian city). We didn't swan down to Hot Topic, buy a "spear Britney" T-shirt and Manic Panic hair dye, then spend the day in front of the Simon brand mall, spitting on the sidewalk waiting for American Pie 3 to come out.
RE: They are really that much different from us AT ALL, in my eyes.
My wife tried to carry on the tradition after we went to college (I didn't know her then - she's about 8 years younger) - all the kids did was stand around - noone offered to do anything - they just whined that things weren't perfect. So it all collapsed. Far cry from the can-do attitude we had.
re: Marilyn rehashed NIN and Skinny Puppy for them.
Don't you DARE put Marilyn and Skinny Puppy in the same sentence. Skinny Puppy was a ground-breaking industrial band, Marilyn Manson is a designed-by-committee, corporate-label, cookie cutter death metal band (who owes more to Alice Cooper, Kiss, Celtic Frost, etc. than he'll admit - but then again he's a WHORE, and knows it). As for NIN, that guy has some balls insulting Bill Leeb. Bill Leeb has practically helped build industrial music - NIN has had two hits. TWO.
RE: We had that stupid mullet, they have the close cut hair with the love patch.
The mullet is why I burned ALL of my early 80s pics. *shudders*
I'm not talking about what ended up being a good buy, I'm talking about what got sold. Marketing is about getting product out the door, not about it being useful.
I left Ottawa to go live in the USA, where I could get a better job than Call Center Phone Answerer, and six times the pay, with a 21% tax rate.
Again, this is classic Canadian idiocy. "What can the GOVERNMENT do, spending LOTS OF DOLLARS, to get suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople to come and live and work here, and thus increase the TAX BASE?"
Lower the taxes, increase the salaries, and get in some decent jobs. It won't happen, so what they'll do instead is jack up the taxes to pay for a couple of skating rinks named after a couple of French Canadians, or something.
The advertised, hyped, dot-com stocks that were touted at making millionaires out of just about anyone?
Or those of well managed companies with sensible and attainable goals?
Never underestimate the American mindset that wants new and improved, in your face, NOW.
Make a product that actually works. Please. If that was the case there'd be no diet industry. "Uh, eat less and exercise?" NO! BUY MY NEW FAT INCINERATOR 2000, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GET UP OFF THE COUCH! USING A SYNERGISTIC BLEND OF PLACEBOS, (our) SATISFACTION IS GUARANTEED OR YOUR MONEY BACK!
RE: Blame wealthy and overindulgent parents?
Ain't that simple. Sure, there are parents that feel guilty for picking the kids up from the sitter at 7, getting home at 8, and working every other Saturday, and try and replace time with the kids with presents for the kids.
But these kids, rather than finding their own way, are being MARKETED TO very hard. It starts with the Channel 5 news hysteria "There's a pervert behind the shed! If you leave your kids to their own devices they'll end up as crack whores! Studies show that kids involved in activities do better and don't fall to DRUGS and SEX yadda yadda yadda". So, the time-honored "screwing around doin' nothin'" kids used to do now gets replaced with part-time-job, band practice, tennis lessons, Chinese lessons, math tutoring, soccer practice, etc. Easy for mom, she just ferries the kids in the SUV and pays for it. The kids in essence get catered to. Given that we now have free-choice in almost anything (I didn't grow up with 300 channels, the Internet, and on-demand everything) these kids have never known anything other than everything being done to suit them and their nearly every whim.
I'm sure the Hare Krsnas are trying to get them to convert, too....
Actually it was Pac-Man that got me interested in assembly language graphics routines, because my attempts at doing a Pac-Man clone in BASIC were far too slow. I figured this one out after maxing BASIC's capabilities. At 14.
I also learned, before then, from seeing a buffer overflow (high score overrunning the max limit) on a Pac-Man machine, some interesting things about what you can and cannot encode in eight bits.
I learned to use a soldering iron building "50 second backup" (I think it was called that) for the C-64, and some tricksy things about how the hardware works, as well.
I have excellent hand-eye coordination thanks to various video games, even though I only see in 2-D (vision defect).
I would gather that these kids are learning how to FIND and EXPLOIT information, which has ALWAYS been the number one skill mankind has ever had to have.
Ooooh, I disagree somewhat. What they have, is strength in numbers.
I was born in the very early 70s, when carob was all the rage and parents were going to teach what few children there were to resist advertising, think for themselves, etc. We were told that we'd have our PICK of jobs, cause there'd be less of us than there would be jobs, and salaries would be higher.
Well, what happened as a result was, advertisers got REALLY annoyed, cause you can't have "trends" or whatever for a really diverse group. The next wave of kids, the Millennials (those getting 15-20 right about now) were raised for the same groupthink the Baby Boomers were. What is N'Sync but the Beatles? You can bet your bottom dollar that market is not only huge but almost completely homogenous. And unlike the 13thGen that preceded it (sometimes mistakenly called GenX) they don't insist on quality.
They're used to getting their own way - custom web feeds, custom foods, can-we-bend-over-backwards-for-you. It stands to reason that there should be some degree of selfishness and bratiness that comes with it.
Most 15 year olds I've seen couldn't outthink a wet paper bag - but they're worth hella cash, so the power's based on money, nothing else.
The explicit reason I am not going to see this film is that given that Tucker and Chan have talent, it seems pointless to use "Exotic Oriental Chicks in Leather" or whatever as a draw.
Figures that the slashdot crew would be drooling over the Tiger Lily exotic whatever stuff.
Whenever a filmmaker resorts to T&A it's cause he or she has nothing else to say.
No, I meant putting the development tools out there so that people could continue to build software. That's the one thing Palm's got going for it - there's free development tools, and people are going gung ho writing neat stuff...