But I don't want my kids learning Bible stories in their science classes.
Why? Just because they are bible stories? So you disprove of all bible Stories just because they are in the bible? Isn't this bigotry?
I don't want the religious morality of a minority of this country to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV
Do you want anybody to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV? Why are religous groups any different.
I don't want a statue of the ten commandments outside the Alabama courthouse
Why? Just because it is in the Bible, or because you disagree with it. Try and read the ten commandments you may actually agree with most of it. Rejecting a statue of the 10 commandments just because christians assosicate with it is bigotry.
Christianity is never about laws. It is about personal choices. Those "christians" that think they are acheiving anything by legislating moral issues are as bigotted as those that object to anything that has a christian stamp on it.
The Old Testament is there to teach us through the experience of the Isrealites that laws are not sufficient to make us good because you can perform the requirements of the law and appear good on the outside but be very bad on the inside. For example, a woman who keeps her baby just because there is a law against abortion (not because she wants the baby) is not better than one who goes through with the abortion. Christianity is about changing people from the inside out, not from the outside through legislation.
So I'm not exactly sure if Bush's re-election is a result of christianity. Bigotry, maybe but not exactly christianity.
For example, we have: A - Bush B - Kerry C - Nader
A vote for Nader sends three messages: 1 - Nader 2 - NOT Bush 3 - NOT Kerry
Abstaining also sends three messages: 1 - NOT Nader 2 - NOT Bush 3 - NOT Kerry
In effect, for a 3 party election, a single vote is actually three votes of value (1 or -1), only one of which can be positive.
Additionally, making a choice in an election is about maximizing the outcome. Say each candidate has the following scores %) according to your preferences
Bush - 5 Kerry - 35 Nader - 60
But the following probabilities of success
Bush -.49 Kerry -.49 Nader -.02
Then the effective score is (probability x %score) which gives
Bush - 2.45 Kerry - 17.15 Nader - 1.2
This score is directly proportional to the "value" of your vote, according to your preferences.
Clearly, you can see that by voting for Nader, you get out only -18.4 (1.2-17.15-2.45) units, which is less than nothing. It is better to abstain than to vote for Nader.
Suprisingly you get out more by voting for Bush (-15.9) than Nader even though you agree 60% with Nader and just 5% with bush.
So if you are really interested in getting out more "value" from your vote, you MUST vote for Kerry (+13.5). Of course the values above are hypothetical, your mileage may vary.
In fact, it is impossible for Nader to win so the probability of success is actually zero (0), leading to a worse situation that show above but it makes little difference to the final outcome.
Essentially Nader does not figure into this election.
The constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Why then is this amendment necessary? And if Bush is FOR civil unions for gays, what difference exists between his position and Kerry's? And if his position is not essentially different from Kerry's, why are the religious groups supporting Bush's position on homosexuality but not Kerry's?
Kerry said in the last debate that he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the constitutional amendment was not necessary.
This sounds to me as if Bush is lying. Just like with the draft situation.
Truth = Reality Knowledge = true belief backed by evidence faith = belief beyond reasonable doubt
faith,knowledge ==> conviction
So the real question is What do you believe in? For any belief to be useful, it must correspond to reality, held beyond reasonable doubt, and the holder must be aware that it is true. This is conviction.
It is not sufficient that you are certain it is true. It must actually be true to count.
We assume that aliens will have similar body features like us (eyes, a head, hands etc) when we have organisms even on earth without those features. I begin to wonder if we will be able to recognize an alien if we met one.
We assume that aliens will communicate in a similar fashion to us (radio freq., lasers etc) when we have organisms even on earth, whose language of communication we have no clue of. I begin to wonder if we'll be able to recognize an alien signal if we came across it.
"In any field, the Establishment is not seeking the truth, because it is composed of those who, having found part of it yesterday, believe that they are in possession of all of it today. Progress requires the introduction, not just of new mathematics which is always tolerated by the Establishment; but new conceptual ideas which are necessarily different from those held by the Establishment (for, if the ideas of the Establishment were sufficient to lead to further progress, that progress would have been made)"
-- E.T. Jaynes
A casual look at their statements reveals their minds.
In this article in which they promise opening up Solaris,
They say:
"Look, you only need to look at what we've done with Java to understand
how Sun views the value of incorporating community feedback," he said.
"Java could not exist if only Sun is supporting it. It exists because
there are hundreds and thousands of partners. We need to now take the
model with Java and bring it to Solaris."
The uninformed on-lookers will only see the statement "Sun warms to
open-source for Solaris" which gives them more points.
"Schwartz also noted that people who stick to Sun's licensing terms and
maintain compatibility with Sun standards can have access to the Java
source code. Changing the licensing to an open-source model would
encourage different implementations, he said."
"We haven't worked out how to open-source Java -- but at some point it
will happen," Srinivas said. However, he noted "it might be today,
tomorrow or two years down the road".
Again, the uninformed on-lookers will only see the statement "Sun to
open-source Java" which gives them more points.
Summary:
They promised to make Solaris become like Java, meanwhile they don't
know if at all Java will be open-sourced in this lifetime.
This is what is called hybrid-source: A vapor version of open-source
meant only to gain favor with the open-source community and the business
world without any active steps or concrete plans to put it in effect.
In what alternate universe? Certainly not this one. I've read his previous articles also and in this universe his opinion is very clear.
The fact that he chose to slam GNOME rather than promote the better features of his preferred desktop system shows that the motivation for his action is jealousy rather than genuine criticism. There may be issues with GNOME but his article is way off base irrespective of the capacity (Whether review or opinion). This is simply sabotage.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Just because they are bible stories? So you disprove of all bible Stories just because they are in the bible? Isn't this bigotry?
I don't want the religious morality of a minority of this country to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV
Do you want anybody to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV? Why are religous groups any different.
I don't want a statue of the ten commandments outside the Alabama courthouse
Why? Just because it is in the Bible, or because you disagree with it. Try and read the ten commandments you may actually agree with most of it. Rejecting a statue of the 10 commandments just because christians assosicate with it is bigotry.
Christianity is never about laws. It is about personal choices. Those "christians" that think they are acheiving anything by legislating moral issues are as bigotted as those that object to anything that has a christian stamp on it.
The Old Testament is there to teach us through the experience of the Isrealites that laws are not sufficient to make us good because you can perform the requirements of the law and appear good on the outside but be very bad on the inside.
For example, a woman who keeps her baby just because there is a law against abortion (not because she wants the baby) is not better than one who goes through with the abortion. Christianity is about changing people from the inside out, not from the outside through legislation.
So I'm not exactly sure if Bush's re-election is a result of christianity. Bigotry, maybe but not exactly christianity.
A vote is not just a single statement.
.49 .49 .02
For example, we have:
A - Bush
B - Kerry
C - Nader
A vote for Nader sends three messages:
1 - Nader
2 - NOT Bush
3 - NOT Kerry
Abstaining also sends three messages:
1 - NOT Nader
2 - NOT Bush
3 - NOT Kerry
In effect, for a 3 party election, a single vote is actually three votes of value (1 or -1), only one of which can be positive.
Additionally, making a choice in an election is about maximizing the outcome. Say each candidate has the following scores %) according to your preferences
Bush - 5
Kerry - 35
Nader - 60
But the following probabilities of success
Bush -
Kerry -
Nader -
Then the effective score is (probability x %score) which gives
Bush - 2.45
Kerry - 17.15
Nader - 1.2
This score is directly proportional to the "value" of your vote, according to your preferences.
Clearly, you can see that by voting for Nader, you get out only -18.4 (1.2-17.15-2.45) units, which is less than nothing. It is better to abstain than to vote for Nader.
Suprisingly you get out more by voting for Bush (-15.9) than Nader even though you agree 60% with Nader and just 5% with bush.
So if you are really interested in getting out more "value" from your vote, you MUST vote for Kerry (+13.5). Of course the values above are hypothetical, your mileage may vary.
In fact, it is impossible for Nader to win so the probability of success is actually zero (0), leading to a worse situation that show above but it makes little difference to the final outcome.
Essentially Nader does not figure into this election.
What's the point of all these candidates with less than 1% of the vote even trying.
The constitution already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Why then is this amendment necessary? And if Bush is FOR civil unions for gays, what difference exists between his position and Kerry's? And if his position is not essentially different from Kerry's, why are the religious groups supporting Bush's position on homosexuality but not Kerry's?
Kerry said in the last debate that he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that the constitutional amendment was not necessary.
This sounds to me as if Bush is lying. Just like with the draft situation.
Tried www.georgewbush.com from europe says:
Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/" on this server.
I guess they are not interested in the votes of Americans living abroad.
Faith != belief. Faith is belief...
Truth = Reality
Knowledge = true belief backed by evidence
faith = belief beyond reasonable doubt
faith,knowledge ==> conviction
So the real question is What do you believe in? For any belief to be useful, it must correspond to reality, held beyond reasonable doubt, and the holder must be aware that it is true. This is conviction.
It is not sufficient that you are certain it is true. It must actually be true to count.
If not, why should the reverse be true?
Because for something to be true it has to correspond to reality.
Unfortunately for you reality is not determined by the number or percentage of people the believe it.
At one time almost everyone on earth believed the earth was flat. By your logic, Galileo was wrong in suggesting that the world is not flat.
And you wonder why everybody else considers Bush supporters as being mentally challenged?
Who is the government in the UK?
EOM
Judge: I find in favor of plaintiff and award damages to the tune of $0.37 (Thirtyseven cents).
Court is dismissed.
We assume that aliens will communicate in a similar fashion to us (radio freq., lasers etc) when we have organisms even on earth, whose language of communication we have no clue of. I begin to wonder if we'll be able to recognize an alien signal if we came across it.
Does that tell us something? That in all the benchmarks they selected those that are dependent on Mhz?
That says alot about their motive.
What was the difference between OpenOffice and StarOffice again?
And tell me. Where did the KDE guys get this idea from?
AMEN!
Ken, baby, why bother asking questions if you are not going to listen to the answers?
Because my mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts
--ken
It works on my Fedora system.
Download an RPM, double-click on it, voila, it is installing!
Get out of the dark ages.
The OpenGL Bible is not Free Documentation either. I thought the Bible was supposed to be free.
"the official Gnome2 developer's guide" is just a book named that way.
I feel exactly the same. Are you a mind reader or some'n
In this article in which they promise opening up Solaris, They say:
The uninformed on-lookers will only see the statement "Sun warms to open-source for Solaris" which gives them more points.
Next concerning Java, a few months ago they said,
Now they are saying:
Again, the uninformed on-lookers will only see the statement "Sun to open-source Java" which gives them more points.
Summary: They promised to make Solaris become like Java, meanwhile they don't know if at all Java will be open-sourced in this lifetime.
This is what is called hybrid-source: A vapor version of open-source meant only to gain favor with the open-source community and the business world without any active steps or concrete plans to put it in effect.
This is hybrid-source not open-source. Please use the right term for the right software.
Cease and decist. Copyright violation alarm!!!
It's not just America. It is manifested more there but it is THE human problem.
>
In what alternate universe? Certainly not this one. I've read his previous articles also and in this universe his opinion is very clear.
The fact that he chose to slam GNOME rather than promote the better features of his preferred desktop system shows that the motivation for his action is jealousy rather than genuine criticism. There may be issues with GNOME but his article is way off base irrespective of the capacity (Whether review or opinion). This is simply sabotage.
with your suggestiong, 99% gray and white can be chosen, even 98%. Where do you draw the line.