Re:What *evidence* for a miracle would be sufficie
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 2
I think I (mostly) agree with you here.
The point I was trying to make is that naturalism IS an assumption. Ultimately, given enough evidence "God spoke and BANG it happened" is an adequate explanation. The problem people face is that they have not SEEN that mode of operation in a direct, tangible way.
The successors of David Hume would deny that such proof is ever possible. I think it is possible, and have even seen it on a small scale.
For what it's worth, the prohibition of simultaneity does not necessarily apply in all circumstances. Anything that exceeds the speed of light would break it (and such things appear to exist even in our limited scientific knowledge).
Which universe did you take your physics classes in again?
The recent discoveries universe. Can you say "quantum teleportation"? The point is that there are phenonenon now known which appear to happen instantly over distance, and the whole basis of the objection to simulataneity was the impossibility of exceeding the speedof light.
As it so happens, I do know the original Greek, but both the translations you site are good ones -- I won't try to trump you with it.
You seem to argue that that verse means that all Christians MUST drink poision, wrastle snakes, etc. Can you not follow how the phrase "these signs will accompany those who believe" allows for something other than a one-to-one relationship between Christians and snake handlers?
Incidentally, that particular verse is questioned by a lot of people because the earliest manuscripts of Mark simply don't have it. It is possible that the (few) early manuscripts we have could well be wrong, and that these verses might be part of THE manuscript that Mark wrote. But honestly I doubt it.
In any case: I am not an inerrantist. That is, while I will defend the reliability and usefulness of the Bible to the death, I feel no need to claim that "every word is the literal word of God". Literal inerrancy is a weak position because it ignores the fact that the step from language to meaning is a big one.
If you weren't just trying to pick knits, you would realize that this question does not require/true/ simultaneity in the physical sense, but simply thinks that happened within the same time frame according to each group's reference frames.
For what it's worth, the prohibition of simultaneity does not necessarily apply in all circumstances. Anything that exceeds the speed of light would break it (and such things appear to exist even in our limited scientific knowledge).
This sounds like a novel way to explore the practical effects of a rationalist philosophy.
David Hume, a Scot philosopher who lived in the 18th century, basically said that "no matter what I see or what you tell me, I could never believe in a miracle, because it is totally contrary to my normal experience". This idea has been picked up by a lot of people who avow a pseudo-scientific "faith" that requires atheism. The best you can do with this is a kind of deism. (Deism is the belief in a "clockmaker God", who created the world and then left it to run its course.)
But what if you did see such complete evidence for the miraculous that you MUST suppose it actually happened? Would Hume or his successors suppose that they had lost their mind before they conceeded a miracle?
Anyway, it sounds like these are the topics that this book explores. I look forward to reading it.
Unambiguously? Can you not understand the distintion (which the Greek leaves unclear) between "my followers will have the ability to do these things, and some will do them" and "all my followers will do these things"?
Are you too dim to understand the difference between Glosasalia (ecstatic tongues as I referred to in my post) and the ability to speak in an unknown foreign language through apparently supernatural means?
It is apparent that you have acquired all your "knowledge" of the subject from Snow Crash.
As for Western Christianity -- that's a common designation. It doesn't mean Catholicism. go do some research.
As much as I'm sick of arguing religion on Slashdot...
You have to draw a careful distinction between the Bible and our interpretation of the Bible. Even more so, you have to draw a distinction between the Bible and Western Christianity's application of the Bible.
Globally and historically, Christianity has had its fair share of miracles. I know a LOT of people who have seen "big" miracles: healings, miraculous tongues (not to be confused with ecstatic tongues), etc. The subject of why they seem to happen more often in Mexico than here is up for debate. The thing is that I've known too many people that I trust completely to talk about the same things independently to believe tht it's all a lie.
FWIW, I've seen a number of small ones myself. Yeah, yeah. If my ATM card with a damaged magnetic strip starts working when I pray over it in need, it might be coincidence. But the coincedences sure happen a lot more when I pray. And I really think that, if I continue TRAINING for godliness, I will see the big miracles.
Remember: in the Bible, miracles never happened in a void. They served a purpose, and were done at the behest of one of God's servants, doing his will.
How many users can you expect with a T1 and a properly configured proxy server? A lot. I've seen 5000 run on one t1, and it was pretty decent. You might check to see if IAState had a proxy server configured.
I see a lot of people here missing the point of the GPL.
Under copyright law, by default you can NOT redistribute a copyrighted piece of information. And all information is copyrighted for the first hundred years or so after it is created. Those little bloopers on videotapes are totally unnecessary (except possibly that they remove the defense through ignorance): you have no rights to redistribute BY DEFAULT.
However, you can redistribute a copyrighted piece of information if you have a license to do so. The GPL gives you a license to do this. If the GPL is ruled invalid (which I regard as highly improbable) then the situation reverts to normal: that is, no redistribution allowed.
The beauty of the GPL is that, unlike most licenses, it places no restrictions on what you can do except redistribute. And this is where copyright law is most clearly on the side of the GPL. In fact, redistribution is the only thing really covered under copyright law. Standard software licenses try to use copyright's restriction on redistribution to force a lot of other things down your throat (e.g. no reverse engineering) -- as such, they might be challenged on the grounds that they are unreasonable. But the core principle of copyright law is that an author has the right to restrict distribution of his work. As such, I just can't see a successful challenge to the core of the GPL.
HUH? Say what? I studied the Constitution quite thoroughly in school and I've read a lot about the Bill of Rights and its intents, and I have NEVER heard that one. Which camp told you that? Buchannon, Robertson, or Falwell? The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court (and the ACLU, and the list goes on and on) all have consistently said that freedom of religion means the right to practice the religion of your choice - or none at all. This means that the government cannot endorse any particular religion. Period.
Learn some history bubba. Most of New England were theocracies (or at least had established religions, deeply entrenched in gov't) at the time of the revolution. I'm not saying theocracy is a good thing -- but I am saying that your knowledge of history is seriously week if you didn't know that little fact.
Oh it doessss? Where is it? Posix requires that you have a number of programs, for example a borne compatible shell. Where is it? Posix requires certain library interfaces? Where are they?
The answer for 3.51 was "buried on some cd somewhere, notincluded with the default NT install". The answer for 4.0 is, I assume, the same. I will challenge you, or any of the other MS apologists, to name one commercial program successfully using NT's POSIX module.
Corel can't put up a demo of Corel Office (presumably) because they know that, if they did, no one would buy it. Isn't the current software sales system, which refuses you a refund if the software doesn't work, wonderful?
Don't get me wrong -- I actual use wpo2000 on Linux, because it's better than booting windows. But it really is slow and somewhat unreliable. Screen updates are agonizing.
paymybills.com (the only one of these kind of things I use) does it through QIF files. I believe GNUCash supports this feature. I know gnofin (the one I use) supports it).
Response1: The.doc file format isn't proprietary, it's on the TechNet CD!
Response2: Yeah! Let's just do it!
This question misses the whole point. The problem (from following the AbiWord list for a while) is not that the.doc file format needs to be reverse engineered, it's that the format is such a piece of crap that you can't implement the spec.
Basically, you have to emulate all of Word's bugs in handling it's own file format to get the expected results. And trying to copy 65,000 bugs is non-trivial.:)
My Name is John Patrick Narkinsky. My Mother's name was Johnny McNeil Narkinsky. We shared the same birthday, but (obviously) not the same birthyear.
At some time around 1994 (not long after my mother died), the credit bureaus collectively decided that I am now "Johnny P. Narkinsky", with my Social Security Number, my Birthdate, and my mother's credit record!
I have disputed items in my credit file. I have fought. I have written letters. Nothing I do can convince them that my mother is dead and I am not she. In fact, one (which will remain nameless due to outstanding litigation) now claims that I am dead.
But wait, it gets worse. A couple of years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit. I won the lawsuit (filed by an apartment complex) and won a countersuit claiming fraud and a couple of other things. Since then, all three credit bureaus are claiming that I lost this lawsuit -- and listing this information as a matter of the public record.
I have been unable to get any of them to remove this entry -- instead, they simply list it as "disputed". I have sent them copies of the written judgement, I have pointed out their error, and they are still non-responsive.
Because of the laws congress passed protecting credit bureaus (while claiming to be for a consumer's protection) from defamation suits, I am unable to find a lawyer who really wants to file suit against these jerks. They have ignored threatening letters from my lawyer -- which are about all I can do.
My solution? I have named my son John Paul Narkinsky. Not John Paul Narkinsky Jr. John Paul Narkinsky. I plan to name my twins sons to be born in Nov. James Patrick Narkinsky and Jeremy Peter Narkinsky. If I am so fortunate as to have a fourth, I will name him Jonah Petronius or something equally difficult.
Girls will all be Jane Paula, Jennifer Patricia, or something equally appropriate. If I am truly blessed, one will be born on my birthday. This one, regardless of gender, will be Johnny P. Narkinsky.
I plan to teach ALL of my kids to give only their initials, and to make up a social security number whenever they are asked.
As Heinlein pointed out in Friday, it is the duty of all citizens in this day and age to confuse computers. If you can't avoid a tax, pay too much. Transpose digits. Anything to make information mining difficult.
The real problem with this is that, undoubtedly, it's functionality will be a patented, closed source, trade secret. As such, it is unlikely to be available for anything but Windows and Mac anytime in the near future.
Yeah, SCO's a big player. But this is only because of VAR's who bundle their products with SCO UNIX.
I would really expect the primary market for this Linux offering to be those same VAR's. Many, many, many of these VARs have been jumping ship of late. Linux has been cheaper, faster, and easier to use out of the box.
Namely, Preventative Maintenance. If you're running Linux, with it's fast turnaround of bug fixes, you can prevent most cracks by just installing the OS upgrades on a regular basis.
C'mon guys... I know you love your uptime. But if you download the Redhat (or Debian, or whatever) updates once a week, install them and reboot, you'll save yourself a world of trouble. Depending on the updates, you don't even need to reboot -- but it's usually the easiest way to make sure all the daemons have been restarted. Plus it cleans up your memory pool.
I have seen many boxes compromised. But there are two configurations I've never seen hacked:
Redhat w/ latest updates.
OpenBSD.
Note that closed source OS's seriously suffer in this area. Running Solaris (second only to Linux in the number of exploits), your best bet is to replace/every/ server program you can with the latest Open Source alternative. I've seen sun take 6 months to turnaround security bugs (granted years ago, but still).
"Question is, why so long? Thinkpads have been running Linux for a long time, after all."
I saw this, and it brought to mind just how far Linux has come. Think back a couple of years: two years ago, before Mozilla, before the "great database ports of '98", back when kernel 2.0 had been current for years, we were glad to see any mention of Linux, any hint of support. If IBM had so much as mentioned Linux on a web page, it would have rated a mention on Slashdot.
Anyone remember the "YALA" (Yet Another Linux Article) Stories? Back when any mention of Linux in a magazine other than Linux Journal warranted a Slashdot post?
Yet, today we complain when a major manufacturer is sluggish in pre-loading Linux. Not that we shouldn't complain, but I think it's an interesting contrast.
I look around, and I see a whole new band of Linux users. People who've never edited a Makefile -- who think that installing a program consists of "rpm -ivh" or, just maybe, "tar -xzvf" are becoming commonplace. Advanced users may know how to run "./configure; make; make install" -- but xmkmf (then editing the created makefile because xmkmf never worked right on any system I ever used) is a thing of the past. I don't resent these newcomers. In fact, I'm delighted to have them.
But it's definitely a totally different world from the Bad Old Days when I first ran Linux by booting from a floppy, then switching over to a root disk! (This was before lilo). No hard drives, no nothing. Anyone else remember SLS?
Slashdot Mirror
The point I was trying to make is that naturalism IS an assumption. Ultimately, given enough evidence "God spoke and BANG it happened" is an adequate explanation. The problem people face is that they have not SEEN that mode of operation in a direct, tangible way.
The successors of David Hume would deny that such proof is ever possible. I think it is possible, and have even seen it on a small scale.
--
--
You seem to argue that that verse means that all Christians MUST drink poision, wrastle snakes, etc. Can you not follow how the phrase "these signs will accompany those who believe" allows for something other than a one-to-one relationship between Christians and snake handlers?
Incidentally, that particular verse is questioned by a lot of people because the earliest manuscripts of Mark simply don't have it. It is possible that the (few) early manuscripts we have could well be wrong, and that these verses might be part of THE manuscript that Mark wrote. But honestly I doubt it.
In any case: I am not an inerrantist. That is, while I will defend the reliability and usefulness of the Bible to the death, I feel no need to claim that "every word is the literal word of God". Literal inerrancy is a weak position because it ignores the fact that the step from language to meaning is a big one.
--
If you weren't just trying to pick knits, you would realize that this question does not require /true/ simultaneity in the physical sense, but simply thinks that happened within the same time frame according to each group's reference frames.
For what it's worth, the prohibition of simultaneity does not necessarily apply in all circumstances. Anything that exceeds the speed of light would break it (and such things appear to exist even in our limited scientific knowledge).
--
David Hume, a Scot philosopher who lived in the 18th century, basically said that "no matter what I see or what you tell me, I could never believe in a miracle, because it is totally contrary to my normal experience". This idea has been picked up by a lot of people who avow a pseudo-scientific "faith" that requires atheism. The best you can do with this is a kind of deism. (Deism is the belief in a "clockmaker God", who created the world and then left it to run its course.)
But what if you did see such complete evidence for the miraculous that you MUST suppose it actually happened? Would Hume or his successors suppose that they had lost their mind before they conceeded a miracle?
Anyway, it sounds like these are the topics that this book explores. I look forward to reading it.
--
Label that being as "God."
QED
--
--
It is apparent that you have acquired all your "knowledge" of the subject from Snow Crash.
As for Western Christianity -- that's a common designation. It doesn't mean Catholicism. go do some research.
--
You have to draw a careful distinction between the Bible and our interpretation of the Bible. Even more so, you have to draw a distinction between the Bible and Western Christianity's application of the Bible.
Globally and historically, Christianity has had its fair share of miracles. I know a LOT of people who have seen "big" miracles: healings, miraculous tongues (not to be confused with ecstatic tongues), etc. The subject of why they seem to happen more often in Mexico than here is up for debate. The thing is that I've known too many people that I trust completely to talk about the same things independently to believe tht it's all a lie.
FWIW, I've seen a number of small ones myself. Yeah, yeah. If my ATM card with a damaged magnetic strip starts working when I pray over it in need, it might be coincidence. But the coincedences sure happen a lot more when I pray. And I really think that, if I continue TRAINING for godliness, I will see the big miracles.
Remember: in the Bible, miracles never happened in a void. They served a purpose, and were done at the behest of one of God's servants, doing his will.
--
--
--
Under copyright law, by default you can NOT redistribute a copyrighted piece of information. And all information is copyrighted for the first hundred years or so after it is created. Those little bloopers on videotapes are totally unnecessary (except possibly that they remove the defense through ignorance): you have no rights to redistribute BY DEFAULT.
However, you can redistribute a copyrighted piece of information if you have a license to do so. The GPL gives you a license to do this. If the GPL is ruled invalid (which I regard as highly improbable) then the situation reverts to normal: that is, no redistribution allowed.
The beauty of the GPL is that, unlike most licenses, it places no restrictions on what you can do except redistribute. And this is where copyright law is most clearly on the side of the GPL. In fact, redistribution is the only thing really covered under copyright law. Standard software licenses try to use copyright's restriction on redistribution to force a lot of other things down your throat (e.g. no reverse engineering) -- as such, they might be challenged on the grounds that they are unreasonable. But the core principle of copyright law is that an author has the right to restrict distribution of his work. As such, I just can't see a successful challenge to the core of the GPL.
--
--
--
--
The answer for 3.51 was "buried on some cd somewhere, notincluded with the default NT install". The answer for 4.0 is, I assume, the same. I will challenge you, or any of the other MS apologists, to name one commercial program successfully using NT's POSIX module.
--
Corel can't put up a demo of Corel Office (presumably) because they know that, if they did, no one would buy it. Isn't the current software sales system, which refuses you a refund if the software doesn't work, wonderful?
Don't get me wrong -- I actual use wpo2000 on Linux, because it's better than booting windows. But it really is slow and somewhat unreliable. Screen updates are agonizing.
--
--
Response2: Yeah! Let's just do it!
This question misses the whole point. The problem (from following the AbiWord list for a while) is not that the .doc file format needs to be reverse engineered, it's that the format is such a piece of crap that you can't implement the spec.
Basically, you have to emulate all of Word's bugs in handling it's own file format to get the expected results. And trying to copy 65,000 bugs is non-trivial. :)
--
--
At some time around 1994 (not long after my mother died), the credit bureaus collectively decided that I am now "Johnny P. Narkinsky", with my Social Security Number, my Birthdate, and my mother's credit record!
I have disputed items in my credit file. I have fought. I have written letters. Nothing I do can convince them that my mother is dead and I am not she. In fact, one (which will remain nameless due to outstanding litigation) now claims that I am dead.
But wait, it gets worse. A couple of years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit. I won the lawsuit (filed by an apartment complex) and won a countersuit claiming fraud and a couple of other things. Since then, all three credit bureaus are claiming that I lost this lawsuit -- and listing this information as a matter of the public record.
I have been unable to get any of them to remove this entry -- instead, they simply list it as "disputed". I have sent them copies of the written judgement, I have pointed out their error, and they are still non-responsive.
Because of the laws congress passed protecting credit bureaus (while claiming to be for a consumer's protection) from defamation suits, I am unable to find a lawyer who really wants to file suit against these jerks. They have ignored threatening letters from my lawyer -- which are about all I can do.
My solution? I have named my son John Paul Narkinsky. Not John Paul Narkinsky Jr. John Paul Narkinsky. I plan to name my twins sons to be born in Nov. James Patrick Narkinsky and Jeremy Peter Narkinsky. If I am so fortunate as to have a fourth, I will name him Jonah Petronius or something equally difficult.
Girls will all be Jane Paula, Jennifer Patricia, or something equally appropriate. If I am truly blessed, one will be born on my birthday. This one, regardless of gender, will be Johnny P. Narkinsky.
I plan to teach ALL of my kids to give only their initials, and to make up a social security number whenever they are asked.
As Heinlein pointed out in Friday, it is the duty of all citizens in this day and age to confuse computers. If you can't avoid a tax, pay too much. Transpose digits. Anything to make information mining difficult.
Are you doing YOUR part?
--
--
I would really expect the primary market for this Linux offering to be those same VAR's. Many, many, many of these VARs have been jumping ship of late. Linux has been cheaper, faster, and easier to use out of the box.
--
C'mon guys... I know you love your uptime. But if you download the Redhat (or Debian, or whatever) updates once a week, install them and reboot, you'll save yourself a world of trouble. Depending on the updates, you don't even need to reboot -- but it's usually the easiest way to make sure all the daemons have been restarted. Plus it cleans up your memory pool.
I have seen many boxes compromised. But there are two configurations I've never seen hacked:
- Redhat w/ latest updates.
- OpenBSD.
Note that closed source OS's seriously suffer in this area. Running Solaris (second only to Linux in the number of exploits), your best bet is to replace--
I saw this, and it brought to mind just how far Linux has come. Think back a couple of years: two years ago, before Mozilla, before the "great database ports of '98", back when kernel 2.0 had been current for years, we were glad to see any mention of Linux, any hint of support. If IBM had so much as mentioned Linux on a web page, it would have rated a mention on Slashdot.
Anyone remember the "YALA" (Yet Another Linux Article) Stories? Back when any mention of Linux in a magazine other than Linux Journal warranted a Slashdot post?
Yet, today we complain when a major manufacturer is sluggish in pre-loading Linux. Not that we shouldn't complain, but I think it's an interesting contrast.
I look around, and I see a whole new band of Linux users. People who've never edited a Makefile -- who think that installing a program consists of "rpm -ivh" or, just maybe, "tar -xzvf" are becoming commonplace. Advanced users may know how to run "./configure; make; make install" -- but xmkmf (then editing the created makefile because xmkmf never worked right on any system I ever used) is a thing of the past. I don't resent these newcomers. In fact, I'm delighted to have them.
But it's definitely a totally different world from the Bad Old Days when I first ran Linux by booting from a floppy, then switching over to a root disk! (This was before lilo). No hard drives, no nothing. Anyone else remember SLS?
*sigh* I guess I'm getting old.
--