I once did tech support for our customers. The folks were obviously heavy smokers, because you could see ashes over the keyboard, desk & computer. When I opened it up, you could see ashes inside, if I recall correctly. I was so amazed @ how filthy the place was.
Are you asking him, "whoa, it worked when you bought it?" or "whoa, it worked when you bought it?"? I laughed @ 1st, thinking that it was the 2nd question, but now I'm beginning to wonder.:^)
But I think that it does help, because the spammer would be required to behave for an extended period of time, as opposed to just signing up & sending out gazillions of emails within the 1st hour. After he gets kicked off, he just has to start over again. If he is required to behave for a year, then the rate of spam goes from gazillions per hour to gazillions per year [or whatever the time period is, & give or take a few jazillion emails].
As long as the ISP is willing to look over it by hand to give a final check before disconnecting [or whatever negative things can happen], then it should be okay.
Maybe they should also add a standard that you have to send out X emails before you get more privileges. This way a spammer can't just leave an account idle & then start to use it. I suppose that he could just make a cron job to make him look active, but every little bit helps.
After all, we are talking about risk management. If people can't keep themselves safe, then we have to help them [within reason, of course]. Remember, if the drunk driver kills someone, then most often it lasts forever. So, it's not unreasonable to have to serve capital punishment, or to mar his reputation. Part of the debt he pays to society is taking punishment with his reputation.
A reputation is worth more than silver & gold, or driving drunk @ a million miles per hour. If people can't grasp that concept, then they deserve cruel punishment. It's not unusual, though.
I would be interested in seeing what kind of tasks users were asked to perform and rate their "three-clickability" (terrible term). Almost anything involving a store, inventory, or selection process voids that "rule" for the end result, but not for the category.
I would also be interested in seeing what kind of tasks they had to do. To me, their statistics are kind of meaningless, until we can study the tests & try them out.
That being said, I'm not in favour or against the 3 click rule. I just don't think that they deserve credit for debunking the 3 click rule.
There were a couple of future items that they seemed to mention. I can't recall because it seemed so irrelevant to my use of X.
I feel kind of cheated, in that they wasted my time. I deliberated read through the most of the page despite what my gut told me when I looked through the table of contents. Did anybody notice how the table of contents had a major point #1, but no #2? Maybe it's there but I'm just too tired to see it. All I know is that I can't be bothered to check because it definitely won't tell me anything new.
I believe that solidarity is often used to justify selfishness, where no solidarity is needed. We all have limited resources. It's not as if non-selfish people are characterized by helping everybody to get everything that everybody wants.
I agree with what you say. When I say what I'm about to say, please don't interpret it as disagreeing. I'm just asking if the antivirus software is able to help out, by going above & beyond the call of duty.
It would be nice if the virus software would alert the admins to the possible change in settings, & offer to disable the account. In fact, I would rather have the software disable the account by default. When people complain, then enable the account. The idea is that they should be on the safe side to avoid sending us spam.
The way I see it, being condescending is bad no matter which set of opinions that person has -- even if it matches some of my own opinions. Being condescending is certainly not a bad attribute unique to science.
If your point is that people (in general) shouldn't behave like jerks, then I fully agree with you even if I may not agree with you in some other areas.
Yes, we do agree. You phrased it accurately in your 1st paragraph.
So your saying that God regulates the bodies natural healing process, and without his divine intervention and healing I would never recover from a pepercut or a broken arm?
Yes, & no. Yes, I mean that God set a lot of these laws of physics & biology into place, & he sustains these rules. No, I don't mean that it is a special divine intervention.
So in other words, if you were an unbeliever & nobody prayed for you, then your papercuts & broken arms should heal naturally under normal circumstances, without divine intervention. I think that we should be greatful for anything that works out well, as opposed to being happy when people are stuck in the hospitals, etc. There are other opposites. I'm just trying to explain what I mean by "greatful".
From what I recall, I sensed a bit of bitterness from the others in that they believed that praying should help out no matter what. I'll let them speak for themselves. I'm just trying to give a context to what you quoted me as saying.
Science and religion are totally different things. I still don't see how it would be a crutch for "most", when in fact everyone benefits from scientific achievement. Fanatical evangilism on the other hand is beneficial to no one.
Well no, they are similar in that both can be used as a crutch. Science is a crutch for most. They do benefit from science, but it can also be used as a crutch. Condescending scientists & their science is beneficial to noone. Someone may argue that that isn't science. Well, if you can take out the bad from science, then it's reasonable for us to take out the bad in religion.
If we really wish to continue this, then we should use dictionary.com's definitions as a starting point.
My whole point in the sig was to say that we shouldn't get cocky & assume that science could only be used for good, nor that scientists are always benevolent & altruistic.
It takes a cup of oil to process the aluminium in one soda can. I'm sure plastic materials take even more oil. Anything to reduce our consumption of oil, and the corresponding dependence on the Middle East, is a Good Thing (environmental concerns aside).
& let's not forget how much water & oil it takes to produce that 1 cup of oil. I hear that it takes around 6 parts of water for 1 part of usable oil.
I'm referring to some places which pump water in to push oil out, & that isn't the case with most of the places. Unfortunately, the water never again [for the foreseeable future] goes back into the water cycle.
Inks are often times [or @ least some times] vegetable based these days, so it is possible that there are no toxic effects. In fact, it might be better overall to just throw it into the compost bin.
Okay, but why then do you have to neal or fold your hands or burn insense or whatever? Does that appeal to God's alleged ego or something?
As with most things, I can't answer for everybody, but I'll try.:^) So, take it with a big grain of salt. I'm really just spewing forth theories.
When you say, "neal", do you really mean that or "kneel"? I'm not trying to be a spelling Nazi, but I checked with dictionary.com, just in case there really was a word, & oddly enough there was. It shouldn't be relevant to our discussion, so I'm going to assume that was an honest misspelling, which is no problem to me. In other words, just correct me if I misunderstand you, otherwise no worries.
I assume that kneeling is a way of saying that we are lower than whoever. I noticed that 1 of the prophets bowed before a king [was it Nathan before Saul in 1 Samuel?]. Because the prophet seemed to have a good reputation from the contexts, I assume that it is okay to bow & kneel before others. I liken it to kneeling before a woman to ask for her hand in marriage, & take it to mean, "You are higher than me!". Perhaps it's like calling the woman the better half. In some cases, it might be true. In others, not. In the church that I go to [Anglican], they do get us to kneel, but there have been times when I don't kneel. In fact, I don't usually because those kneeling benches seem so dirty. Nobody says anything good or bad.
As for folding of hands, I couldn't begin to even guess until I do a google search. I speculate that it has something to do with preventing our hands from wandering & keeping focused on the prayer. I can honestly say that I do that somewhat reflexively, but it doesn't really help. My mind wanders all the time. On a slightly unrelated note, there are Bible passages that speak of raising our hands in worship, clapping, etc. So, it's not as if there is only 1 way for worship @ all times.
For me personally, any kneeling & bowing before God is saying to him that he is above me. For me, any kneeling before women will mean that I value her, & figuratively she is higher than me, but not literally. For me, any kneeling before royalty will mean that they are legally higher than me, but not in any other way.
Perhaps it all might be likened to sign language, using body language. Maybe, maybe not. For now, I'm going to assume that it is.
Looking @ it @ a deeper level, I'm willing to bet that people use these actions for the same reason that we quote Shakespeare or Simpsons. Quotes are usually familiar enough that they invoke a certain sentiment or emotion, & thus help us to relate just a little bit more.
I don't know that it appeals to anybody's ego, anymore than saying, "I love you.". It is important to acknowledge that God is higher than us, according to the Bible. I hope that you don't get the idea that there's an arrogant deity. I suppose that you might, but I hope that you change your mind 1 day.
On an unrelated note, thanks for not being rude. If you have thoughts, then don't hesitate to share them.
PS. I almost missed the part about insense. I've never seen them in a Christian context, but I assume that in the Old Testament time period, they were used as a symbol of how things worked in the spiritual world. Calling them holy is like calling a concept legal. "Holy" is setting aside for special religious use. "Legal" is for special "law" use. Do you have good china for guests? I equate holy objects to good china: holy objects are to religious activities, where good china is to guests visiting. Maybe I misunderstand your question?
If the results went the opposite way, would you still conclude "this article is a troll"?
Maybe. Maybe not. I honestly don't know what I'd do. It all depends on how it is presented. If Michael was intending to be inflamatory, then I would have to call a spade a spade.
If not, it is unfair to attack the messenger based on how much you dislike the news.
If the messenger is doing this to cause trouble, then I can freely attack him. Michael isn't just a messenger. He could be, but he isn't. He consistently picks articles that portray views inaccurately.
If you disagree with me, then rate the article yourself. No big deal.
You are right in that it isn't fair to attack if I don't like the news. I totally agree with you.
In reply to "Science is a crutch for most...", I'd like to say this: while you may see it as a crutch, it's certainly one that YOU are using to post your comment;-) Besides, it's a "crutch" that has enabled mass-communication, mass-transportation, construction of the place you live in, etc, etc, etc.
:^) Well, I don't believe that it is only science that enables me to do these things. It is also a matter of economics & various other factors. Just so that we're on the same page, the keyword here is "most". Science is a crutch for most. Science doesn't have to be a crutch for anybody. It just has to be a tool.
The reason science is useful and religion isn't is because science takes a "I'll believe it when I see (measure) it", whereas religion takes a completely opposite view: "I'll see it when I believe it" - I would like to state this: anything that allows every possible event to be attributed to the unmeasurable and ungraspable movements of a "higher being" is useless, other than comforting or motivating the believer. By definition, there is no predictive value. The only value it has is that it gives people a broader base on which they can put their already existing prejudiced.
I tend to disagree in the sense that I think that you are forcing 2 ideas into boxes where they don't fit. When we study the Bible, we use exegesis & hermeneutics which are methodical scientific. Of course we are believing in a book, but there's a lot that goes into influencing a person's decision. Maybe he witnessed something that changed his mind, & would now like to study the principles involved. The Bible has been passed down through history, so he takes a look @ it. It's very similar in that you are not supposed to believe in evolution just because some1 said so. You're supposed to go & study it for yourself. Of course, I grant you that time & resources limit the scope of your studies, but you should be willing to do the same to me without criticism, also.
Oh, btw... "is subject to... too" is a fallacy, since it doesn't invalidate your own flaws.
I'm not sure that I follow you. Bear in mind that there is only so much room for each sig. When I wrote that I wrote it to put science on the same level as religion, in a couple of ways [or more]. I wasn't trying to make religion out to be better. So, if you are saying what I think you might be saying, then my response is that it isn't a fallacy, because it is measurable in & of itself, regardless of religion, & that that "too" refers to relgion.
If it helps, then I'll rephrase: "Science is a crutch for most and science is subject to politics and corruption just as religion is."
Does that make sense? I would never deny that religion [official & unofficial religious organizations @ the very least] isn't subject to the foolishness of people. Everything is breakable when people are involved. I honestly did try to find a way to rephrase it for my sig, but I couldn't think of anything. I'm still open to suggestions.
Does God pay more attention to you if you nag and beg? Sounds like a good way to spoil a child.
Well, no, of course not. That is evidenced by the experiment. Notice how he kept on going with whatever plan he had?
Then what DO prayers do?
In & of themselves, they are just a way of communicating. They don't do a whole lot other than achieve communication.
Do you have a wife that cooks? If you ask her to cook, then will she automatically do it? Will she only do it if she wants to? I assume that most normal wives would be willing to lay aside any plans for the day, if an "emergency" came up & she needed to prepare an important meal. In short, that which makes a person move totally depends on what circumstances & incentives are relevant to that time.
As for whether or not praying makes a person feel good, well, that all depends on the facts & how delusional/non-delusional the individual is, & the circumstance.
Either your analogy is crap, or you are saying that God said, "These people are unknowing participants in this study, so I will punish them. I cannot allow these researchers to have any evidence that I exist, so I will just ignore all of the devoted prayers I normally would have answered." Is that the God you worship?
No, the God that I worship can't be told what to do. So, let me nail this home for all of you: just because a group of no-named people got together & prayed, it doesn't mean that he was going to heal more people quicker than normal. He was gracious enough to heal any of them as it is. The next time you are a teacher & have students question your expertise by making you jump through hoops, then you can then come & tell us how humble you are.
The next time you decide to conduct a real scientific experiment, make sure that all variables are equal: God having no incentive to heal anybody; God willing to jump @ a moment's notice ["Jump!" "How high?"] by healing only those who were prayed for. I will always contend that when you try & force God to answer to your every whim, then you won't have enough sample data.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is it failing? What processor are you using? Have you done a Google search for the error messages?
I once did tech support for our customers. The folks were obviously heavy smokers, because you could see ashes over the keyboard, desk & computer. When I opened it up, you could see ashes inside, if I recall correctly. I was so amazed @ how filthy the place was.
Are you asking him, "whoa, it worked when you bought it?" or "whoa, it worked when you bought it?"? I laughed @ 1st, thinking that it was the 2nd question, but now I'm beginning to wonder. :^)
But I think that it does help, because the spammer would be required to behave for an extended period of time, as opposed to just signing up & sending out gazillions of emails within the 1st hour. After he gets kicked off, he just has to start over again. If he is required to behave for a year, then the rate of spam goes from gazillions per hour to gazillions per year [or whatever the time period is, & give or take a few jazillion emails].
As long as the ISP is willing to look over it by hand to give a final check before disconnecting [or whatever negative things can happen], then it should be okay.
Maybe they should also add a standard that you have to send out X emails before you get more privileges. This way a spammer can't just leave an account idle & then start to use it. I suppose that he could just make a cron job to make him look active, but every little bit helps.
After all, we are talking about risk management. If people can't keep themselves safe, then we have to help them [within reason, of course]. Remember, if the drunk driver kills someone, then most often it lasts forever. So, it's not unreasonable to have to serve capital punishment, or to mar his reputation. Part of the debt he pays to society is taking punishment with his reputation.
A reputation is worth more than silver & gold, or driving drunk @ a million miles per hour. If people can't grasp that concept, then they deserve cruel punishment. It's not unusual, though.
For handheld math, I can go all the way up to 31. For handsheld math, I can go all the way up to 1023.
That being said, I'm not in favour or against the 3 click rule. I just don't think that they deserve credit for debunking the 3 click rule.
There were a couple of future items that they seemed to mention. I can't recall because it seemed so irrelevant to my use of X.
I feel kind of cheated, in that they wasted my time. I deliberated read through the most of the page despite what my gut told me when I looked through the table of contents. Did anybody notice how the table of contents had a major point #1, but no #2? Maybe it's there but I'm just too tired to see it. All I know is that I can't be bothered to check because it definitely won't tell me anything new.
I believe that solidarity is often used to justify selfishness, where no solidarity is needed. We all have limited resources. It's not as if non-selfish people are characterized by helping everybody to get everything that everybody wants.
I agree with what you say. When I say what I'm about to say, please don't interpret it as disagreeing. I'm just asking if the antivirus software is able to help out, by going above & beyond the call of duty.
It would be nice if the virus software would alert the admins to the possible change in settings, & offer to disable the account. In fact, I would rather have the software disable the account by default. When people complain, then enable the account. The idea is that they should be on the safe side to avoid sending us spam.
Just my 2 cents.
I've enjoyed discussing this with you.
So in other words, if you were an unbeliever & nobody prayed for you, then your papercuts & broken arms should heal naturally under normal circumstances, without divine intervention. I think that we should be greatful for anything that works out well, as opposed to being happy when people are stuck in the hospitals, etc. There are other opposites. I'm just trying to explain what I mean by "greatful".
From what I recall, I sensed a bit of bitterness from the others in that they believed that praying should help out no matter what. I'll let them speak for themselves. I'm just trying to give a context to what you quoted me as saying.
Does that clarify my stand on the issue?
If we really wish to continue this, then we should use dictionary.com's definitions as a starting point.
My whole point in the sig was to say that we shouldn't get cocky & assume that science could only be used for good, nor that scientists are always benevolent & altruistic.
The water isn't always from the ocean. If they are getting the oil from the prairies, then it is fresh water from a river.
I'm referring to some places which pump water in to push oil out, & that isn't the case with most of the places. Unfortunately, the water never again [for the foreseeable future] goes back into the water cycle.
Take it all with a grain of salt, though.
Inks are often times [or @ least some times] vegetable based these days, so it is possible that there are no toxic effects. In fact, it might be better overall to just throw it into the compost bin.
When you say, "neal", do you really mean that or "kneel"? I'm not trying to be a spelling Nazi, but I checked with dictionary.com, just in case there really was a word, & oddly enough there was. It shouldn't be relevant to our discussion, so I'm going to assume that was an honest misspelling, which is no problem to me. In other words, just correct me if I misunderstand you, otherwise no worries.
I assume that kneeling is a way of saying that we are lower than whoever. I noticed that 1 of the prophets bowed before a king [was it Nathan before Saul in 1 Samuel?]. Because the prophet seemed to have a good reputation from the contexts, I assume that it is okay to bow & kneel before others. I liken it to kneeling before a woman to ask for her hand in marriage, & take it to mean, "You are higher than me!". Perhaps it's like calling the woman the better half. In some cases, it might be true. In others, not. In the church that I go to [Anglican], they do get us to kneel, but there have been times when I don't kneel. In fact, I don't usually because those kneeling benches seem so dirty. Nobody says anything good or bad.
As for folding of hands, I couldn't begin to even guess until I do a google search. I speculate that it has something to do with preventing our hands from wandering & keeping focused on the prayer. I can honestly say that I do that somewhat reflexively, but it doesn't really help. My mind wanders all the time. On a slightly unrelated note, there are Bible passages that speak of raising our hands in worship, clapping, etc. So, it's not as if there is only 1 way for worship @ all times.
For me personally, any kneeling & bowing before God is saying to him that he is above me. For me, any kneeling before women will mean that I value her, & figuratively she is higher than me, but not literally. For me, any kneeling before royalty will mean that they are legally higher than me, but not in any other way.
Perhaps it all might be likened to sign language, using body language. Maybe, maybe not. For now, I'm going to assume that it is.
Looking @ it @ a deeper level, I'm willing to bet that people use these actions for the same reason that we quote Shakespeare or Simpsons. Quotes are usually familiar enough that they invoke a certain sentiment or emotion, & thus help us to relate just a little bit more.
I don't know that it appeals to anybody's ego, anymore than saying, "I love you.". It is important to acknowledge that God is higher than us, according to the Bible. I hope that you don't get the idea that there's an arrogant deity. I suppose that you might, but I hope that you change your mind 1 day.
On an unrelated note, thanks for not being rude. If you have thoughts, then don't hesitate to share them.
PS. I almost missed the part about insense. I've never seen them in a Christian context, but I assume that in the Old Testament time period, they were used as a symbol of how things worked in the spiritual world. Calling them holy is like calling a concept legal. "Holy" is setting aside for special religious use. "Legal" is for special "law" use. Do you have good china for guests? I equate holy objects to good china: holy objects are to religious activities, where good china is to guests visiting. Maybe I misunderstand your question?
Do you write letters to every incompetent scientist? Why not?Yeah, I know. I hate it when that happens.
If you disagree with me, then rate the article yourself. No big deal.
You are right in that it isn't fair to attack if I don't like the news. I totally agree with you.
If it helps, then I'll rephrase:
"Science is a crutch for most and science is subject to politics and corruption just as religion is."
Does that make sense? I would never deny that religion [official & unofficial religious organizations @ the very least] isn't subject to the foolishness of people. Everything is breakable when people are involved. I honestly did try to find a way to rephrase it for my sig, but I couldn't think of anything. I'm still open to suggestions.
Do you have a wife that cooks? If you ask her to cook, then will she automatically do it? Will she only do it if she wants to? I assume that most normal wives would be willing to lay aside any plans for the day, if an "emergency" came up & she needed to prepare an important meal. In short, that which makes a person move totally depends on what circumstances & incentives are relevant to that time.
As for whether or not praying makes a person feel good, well, that all depends on the facts & how delusional/non-delusional the individual is, & the circumstance.
The next time you decide to conduct a real scientific experiment, make sure that all variables are equal: God having no incentive to heal anybody; God willing to jump @ a moment's notice ["Jump!" "How high?"] by healing only those who were prayed for. I will always contend that when you try & force God to answer to your every whim, then you won't have enough sample data.