"Oh yeah my grades were lousy, but I was really the smartest person in the class".
Mt recent experiences have led me to believe that this person (if they are not lying about their intelligence and they are not a lazy bastard) needs a prescription for ADD medication.
If they make it past the depression caused by realizing they could have done so much more with their life had they been medicated at an earlier age, they will usually shape up into a phenomenally professional and competent employee.
Well, that kind of changes things...Really takes the wind out of the sick and twisted sails I have been running for the last few decades. Excuse me, but I gotta go rethink my entire life.
"I've read it, cover to cover, several times, and it's very straightforward...and you're re-interpreting the work long after it was originally put together."
In my time studying the Bible I have learned that the English translation is not as straightforward as you might think. It is an irrefutable fact that the text from the oldest and most accurate manuscripts available contain details and content the current English translation does not. Saying that the obvious differences between the two should just be swept under the rug because the English version is so "straightforward" is illogical. Doubly so considering the huge volume of easily accessed scholarly research into this subject.
Deciphering the Bible is not meant to be a "reinterpretation," but a careful consideration of the text to see what was originally meant by the writers. This includes (but is not limited to) applying textual criticism to ancient texts to determine which is closest to the autograph, understanding the connotation and denotation of each individual word, how those words were used at the time the text was written, deciphering idioms, understanding the sometimes tricky and alien structure of ancient languages (for instance first, second, and third class conditions in the Greek), exploring the historical and cultural frame of reference of the writer and the recipient audience, and categorically organizing the doctrines and subjects discussed in the Bible so unspoken or topically referenced complex subjects are clear and not a stumbling block to the reader.
Without this careful reconstruction of the original intent and meaning of the document, a truthful and coherent reading is impossible. This also means that any conclusion or criticism reached about the veracity of the book without first referencing the original languages will be incomplete and inaccurate.
I once stood in the same shoes you are in. The contradictions I saw made me curious. In response, I discarded those contradicting opinions and statements and formed my own based on the source material itself. I would recommend the same for anyone. Don't take the word of someone else without doing some checking of your own. How deep you want to go is up to you.
Let me retort in kind with another famous author's quote.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
As someone who has, in the interests of science only I might add, studied those 4 frames you mention quite intensely for hours and hours and hours on end, I can officially state that was not a "small nipple."
Based on my extensive measurements, it is soundly in the upper 84th percentile of the "humongous" category. Sadly, it doesn't quite reach the rarafied heights of "gargantuan" (except possibly on my 60" TV), but she isn't hungarian either so that wasn't to be expected.
In the future please leave the classification of nipple sizes to qualified experts. It is already hard enough for the average layman to get back the results he wants from Google when searching between "large," "big," "huge," "giant," "GIANT," "humongous," and the aforementioned "gargantuan" without you hacks muddying these oft-motorboated waters with your slipshod appraisals.
If you are so inclined, I do have quite a few reference documents (867 gigs) that will help you with your future attempts at nipple classification. Alas, the accompanying certification classes have been cancelled due to lack of attendance. For some reason no one shows up after the first day when we distribute the resource materials.
I didn't RTFA, and the first thing I thought about was using a powered exoskeleton for rehabilitation and healthy excercise for disabled persons while providing them with the necessary mobility to be functional and even productive in society.
Use this article as an object lesson in meta-reading and learn what many conservatives have learned over the years: If you take the sentiments expressed by journalists as the sum total of American values you will miss the real landscape of American opinion. Also, generalizations like those you use are just a form of self imposed ignorance. And, as we all know, ignorance leads to bigotry. Give your fellow Americans some credit and use a little logic. One journalist's story does not express a majority opinion for the people of the US and is insignificant data for a consensus.
"Remember, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. "
This is the silliest regurgitated saying ever. The whole principle of "an eye for an eye" is that when lawful justice is applied it should be commensurate with the transgression. "Let the punishment fit the crime" is a pithier way to express the sentiment. Either way, the idea is to make sure that both the victim, the criminal, and the court are all subject to an overarching principle of fairness and neutrality.
Somehow I can't see how an appropriate punishemnt for a convicted criminal will make anyone blind, even figuratively. The only way to make this venerable re-saying resemble anything cognitively relevant is to think that justice is blind (treats all people the same regardless of station and without prejudice) and therefore we should all embody that spirit of blindnes when considering fair treatment of others when they offend.
Stem cells were postulated first in the early 1900s and were established science in the 60's and 70's. There was plenty of time for presidents to fund stem cell research out of government coffers before this. To be explicit, the NIH allowed embryonic stem cell grants during the Clinton administration. However, the Clinton administration stopped short of setting aside funds specifically reserved for stem cell research.
Oddly, many people attribute restrictions on stem cell research specifically to president Bush. However the first restrictions on embryonic setm cells were signed into law by Clinton. Bush's actions, when displayed againts the backdrop of legislative history, could be seen as continuing the legal precedents set by Clinton years prior.
Absolutely not. Hate itself is a sin. By example, does a police officer hate you when he writes you a ticket for speeding or for a parking violation? The exchange is similar, as the prohibitions you reference are like government laws.
The nation of Israel in old testament times was a theocratic governemnt ruled by God. As such there were laws for this government, just like our country has laws. The prohibitions against homosexuality and other religions are similar to many laws we see today, though the punishments in ancient times were more harsh. For instance, homosexuality is illegal in many middle eastern nations, and was illegal in the US not too many years ago. Additionally, since this was a theocracy, worshipping other dieties was tantamount to sedetion or treason, though the transgression was probably much deeper as the religion was ingrained not only in the social structure but also in the bloodlines and tribal inheritance of the people. I believe we can still execute people for treason to this day in the US, and many other nations currently execute traitors without hesitation.
"And more to the point, why do you put any credence in this tome at all if you're convinced that it is at least partially inaccurate? "
My intention was not to cast aspersions on the accuracy of the bible, but to point out how what the bible actually says is quite diffeent in many cases from what is reported about it by both believers and detractors alike. If you took that meaning from what I wrote I should have been more clear. What I explicitly meant to say is that the Bible is a difficult book to understand and requires a scholarly approach to parse appropriately. Understanding the book is made even more difficult by the innumerable misinterpretations flouted as truth by the uninformed. However, just because people have used the bible in a way that it was never intended to be, or have ascribed meaning to its passages that was never there does not change the actual document or its content.
Funny that people call it a ban. The "ban" was actually the first time a president had set aside funding specifically for embryonic stem cell research, to the tune of about $400 million if I remember correctly.
So, if allocating around $400 million of taxpayer funds to something that was previously not part of the budget is a "ban" what is a roughly $700 billion stimulus package? "Bankrupcy?"
"The genocide of the Canaanites isn't a parable, or an example of how you should act."
The Canaanites slaughtered their own children for sexual gratification during ceremonies designed to inspire ecstatic communion with their deity. Pederasty was a practice of their religion as well. They held human sacrifice of innocents as a sacred part of their worship orgies. They practiced a policy of genocide against other tribes weaker than themselves and practiced cultural subversion against those stronger to bring them down. Violence, debauchery, and lasciviousness were the norm for their culture and those that practiced them abundantly were rewarded. Furthermore, the destruction of that culture was a military action between states, not a religious jihad. The example from this lesson is if you allow your culture to become compromised by evil you will be destroyed. There are numerous examples of this throughout history.
"The torture of Job is a very bad life lesson (remain loyal to your god even if he tortures you on a bet? That's messed up.)"
There are many lessons from this, but the simplest is this: There are forces in the world that can cause you hardship and are completely beyond your control. Your attitude toward life (and as a believer, God) will help determine your results.
The bible does not advocate hating gays. Homosexuality is the same as any other sexual sin in the bible, like adultery. The bible does not advocate killing people of other religions. Beating your wife is not recommended either.
From your statements I can only assume you have had some experience with the bible, but have not had a sufficiently researched and broad experience to reveal the meaning behind many of the things you find objectionable within its pages. Please take no offense from this statement, but currently you are holding up your misunderstandings and lack of knowledge as an example of how bad the bible is. Unfortunately, this is not a book that lends itself to transparent understanding the first time through. The meaning behind the words is obscured by thousands of years of translations, cultural changes, and more often than not, sensational misapplication by many who purport to be believers.
Picking and choosing happens frequently with believers. It also happens with people who find objectionable material in the bible. I think both can benefit from better understanding. However, this is a formidable task and requires time and discipline. For instance, to understand the meaning therein you need to read the bible from the original languages (or translate it from them), in the context of the time and culture in which it was written, and know the underlying categories of doctrine that the bible is built on. Without that framework, misunderstanding and misinterpreting the bible will happen more often than not and it will be impossible to extrapolate the meaning to today's society. Moreover, with that knowledge you will find that many things you though were basic tenants of the Bible are irrelevancies or nonexistent. You will also see the hypocrisy of many believers in the realms of power brokering and politics today. You might even begin to see how people throughout the ages have usurped the bible and its believers, twisted and perverted the true meaning of the document, and used it as a tool to affect their own human agendas on the world.
You say "traditional thinking," but this is just the manefestation of religious beliefs and the cultural expression of those beliefs. That people portray the women's rights movement as a western plot doesn't change the fact that the basis for the opression of women there is religious.
You beat me to the punch on this article. This inspired me to use a checklist in my daily work.
Other notable quotes are this one that talks about the checklist results when applied to the Michigan State hospital system:
In the Keystone Initiative's first eighteen months, the hospitals saved an estimated hundred and seventy-five million dollars in costs and more than fifteen hundred lives. The successes have been sustained for almost four years--all because of a stupid little checklist.
Or this one about the cost of implementing this system nationwide:
I asked him how much it would cost for him to do for the whole country what he did for Michigan. About two million dollars, he said, maybe three, mostly for the technical work of signing up hospitals to participate state by state and coördinating a database to track the results. He's already devised a plan to do it in all of Spain for less.
"We could get I.C.U. checklists in use throughout the United States within two years, if the country wanted it," he said.
So we have here a technology that is simple to implement and use, cheap to roll out throughout the nation, and has be decisively shown to reduce deaths and save massive amounts of money. So why has this not been implemented? Doctors won't support it.
Those companies should try something novel, like expanding their offerings. For instance, find me one legitimate source for "Flight of the Conchords" karaoke songs or B side Cure songs from the 80's.
Also, from my experience, most karaoke websites and disks are set up in a very "to the trade" format. The companies don't have a good presence with the end consumer (the singers). They don't market to them either. Ignoring your customers usually does not bode well for you business future.
If karaoke is taking off like you say, it seems to me that the companies should be adapting their methods to reach the new audience. If they are not, they are acting just like the RIAA and digging their own graves. A particularly neat trick because they can dig so furiously without displacing any of the sand piled around their heads.
You are crying over milk that has not yet spilled. This is just pre-birth eugenics between self selected breeding partners. Sure there will be some Asian cultures that will select overwhelmingly for male babies. Truth be told, it might help reduce the population pressure there and save us all some much needed scarcity complications in the next decades. We should be so lucky. Unfortunately the sad sad truth is the number of people able to afford such procedures will be insignificant compared to the masses in those countries. Infanticide will continue, population pressure will increase, and the shit will still continue inexorably toward the fan at ever increasing speeds.
Now, when we start adding, subtracting, and editing the genome of as-yet-unborn children you can start getting freaked out. I won't, but I am sure you and many others will.
Personally, I see this as the first step to transcending the limitations of the evolutionary process. People talk about intelligent design, I wanna see it for real. I want to be alive when we take control of our own genetic heritage and refine and manipulate it to the same degree we do with silicon. Those will be exciting times.
As for Darwin, sure he described the evolutionary process, but how can you be sure that he felt it was sacrosanct in some way? If given the chioice to be something more than human, greater than the lineage of your inherited parts, or just free from the ancient taint of flawed evolutionary remnants don't you think a scientist like Darwin would jump at the chance? I know I certainly would. Furthermore, as a parent with 3 children that may inherit genetically transmitted epilepsy that didn't show up in my wife until AFTER they were born, I would not begrudge any couple the ability to choose an embryo without such flaws, much less improve upon them.
I was under the impression that subjugation of women in middle eastern countires was due in large to the religious tennants that many of them practice. I was not aware this was a fight against westernization.
Not quite true. Power centered governments that view their population as tools and resources will continue to violate what we consider human rights. I think the transition has more to do with the governments disposition toward its people than it does to do with industrialization. See Russia industrial development and accompanying rights record as a counter example. Communism and the ideas that go with it are definitley a hindrance to the advancement of rights agendas.
Also, if the history of the US and the UK has anything to say about this subject it is that these violations will get alot worse before they get better.
I have a different take on Quake 2 that I now realize lines up directly with this survey's results.
For me Quake 2 will always be the ultimate in first person shooters. The joy I derived from the game was based entirely on my self-perceived mastery of the game, especially with respect to the grappling hook and what I call game psychology.
I learned some blistering tricks and techniques with the hook that gave me an incredible advantage against most players. With the hook enabled I could fly spiderman-like down hallways without touching the floor, change course in midair with precision and forethought, accelerate my toon to ridiculous speed for suprise attacks or a hasty retreat, and pop up on unsuspecting campers with impunity. On the game psychology side I learned how to predict and even manipulate the behavior of my opponents to an uncanny degree. There were times I felt psychic because I KNEW that if I moved just like *this* my opponent would move exactly like *that*, and I would have them dead to rights. Of course this was just the cumulative effects of hours of gameplay (maybe?), but it is an indescribable feeling to be able to accurately foresee and control you opponent's thoughts through such a simple online interface.
There were also times I would have "peak experiences" or what some people would call being "in the zone" while I was playing. Time slowed down, my thoughts became quick, crystal clear, incisive, and well-nigh prescient. My aiming and movements were perfect and playing would be entirely effortless. I became invincible and inescapable. No other game I have ever played has catalysed anything comparable to those experiences.
Those fleeting moments of perfection and the feeling of total mastery were the most addictive things I have ever experienced in all my many long years of incessant gaming. I eventually deleted the game from my computer because I was losing sleep, social opportunity, and study time from playing so much. Oddly, as much as I remember about the game, I did not remember the flies and gore that bothered you so much until I read your post. Apparently, the implied violence was not a memorable component of my experience and, I can honestly say, had nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Traffic laws also encompass the duration of a yellow light. If this is violated people have a real reason to protest; calling it whining is enabling the government to abuse those traffic rules you appeal to.
It really is a simple thing. Longer yellow lights prevent accidents and even deaths. This has been proven. When governments set yellow light times to short intervals they are inflicting harm on us. This is negligent and downright destructive even if the lights are set to the shortest time allowed by law, more so if it is shorter. Obviously the motivation for setting the yellow lights to shorter times (yes even those times allowed by law) is to generate revenue with red light cameras and traffic tickets from accidents, not to make the intersections safer. This means that the government is intentionally causing accidents and sacrificing our safety and well being in order to drum up money; literally bleeding us for cash.
Would it not make more sense to figure out what optimal yellow light times are for safety and implement those times? How strange! I just noticed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Federal Highway Administration have already done this! In fact, they did this decades ago, factoring in reaction times, decision making, posted road speeds, surface quality, etc. In spite of their well funded and researched recommendations, minimum yellow light times have been shortened repeatedly below what is scientifically proven to be safe. As it stands, if yellow traffic lights were set to the shortest time allowed by law, in most places people would be physically unable to stop their vehicles in a safe manner without violating the law, despite their best intentions and vigilance.
What you need to ask yourself is why you are calling people whiners when they protest about laws that cannot be complied with, that don't make sense, and are dangerous. Realize that the laws, as written, are increasing the carnage you rail against. I would also think long and hard about redirecting your ire at governments that would swap a few thousand traffic accidents a year for some quick cash, instead of people who are trying to get a solution that saves lives.
I say this not to be contrary, and certainly not to give fodder to our poor paranoid schitzo brothers and sisters or their closely related tin-foil-hatted kin, but out of true curiosity. Barring something that is actually harmful why whould the government destroy research materials?
Mind you I don't believe this shit works, but the government certainly felt threatened by it enough to take some drastic action. Curious to me, and offensive that our government can do that to an area of research, regardless of the way it is marketed.
Reading the wikipedia entry about orgone made me think "conspiracy" and I don't smoke pot.
"Investigation into orgone was effectively ended when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) obtained a federal injunction barring the interstate distribution of orgone-related materials, on the charge that Reich and his associates were making false and misleading claims, and under the terms of that injunction destroyed all devices and written material associated with orgone or its promotion.
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh yeah my grades were lousy, but I was really the smartest person in the class".
Mt recent experiences have led me to believe that this person (if they are not lying about their intelligence and they are not a lazy bastard) needs a prescription for ADD medication.
If they make it past the depression caused by realizing they could have done so much more with their life had they been medicated at an earlier age, they will usually shape up into a phenomenally professional and competent employee.
...Eat? Did you say "EAT!?!?"
Damn, I always thought he said "beat."
Well, that kind of changes things...Really takes the wind out of the sick and twisted sails I have been running for the last few decades. Excuse me, but I gotta go rethink my entire life.
"I've read it, cover to cover, several times, and it's very straightforward...and you're re-interpreting the work long after it was originally put together."
In my time studying the Bible I have learned that the English translation is not as straightforward as you might think. It is an irrefutable fact that the text from the oldest and most accurate manuscripts available contain details and content the current English translation does not. Saying that the obvious differences between the two should just be swept under the rug because the English version is so "straightforward" is illogical. Doubly so considering the huge volume of easily accessed scholarly research into this subject.
Deciphering the Bible is not meant to be a "reinterpretation," but a careful consideration of the text to see what was originally meant by the writers. This includes (but is not limited to) applying textual criticism to ancient texts to determine which is closest to the autograph, understanding the connotation and denotation of each individual word, how those words were used at the time the text was written, deciphering idioms, understanding the sometimes tricky and alien structure of ancient languages (for instance first, second, and third class conditions in the Greek), exploring the historical and cultural frame of reference of the writer and the recipient audience, and categorically organizing the doctrines and subjects discussed in the Bible so unspoken or topically referenced complex subjects are clear and not a stumbling block to the reader.
Without this careful reconstruction of the original intent and meaning of the document, a truthful and coherent reading is impossible. This also means that any conclusion or criticism reached about the veracity of the book without first referencing the original languages will be incomplete and inaccurate.
I once stood in the same shoes you are in. The contradictions I saw made me curious. In response, I discarded those contradicting opinions and statements and formed my own based on the source material itself. I would recommend the same for anyone. Don't take the word of someone else without doing some checking of your own. How deep you want to go is up to you.
I want to know if the NOAA figures include the Antarctic continent. Last time I looked it was covered completely by water.
Also, what about the total land area that is continually covered with snow? Tall mountains would be my primary concern. Did they count that too?
In other words, my inner smartass is telling me all those people who answered correctly could be wrong.
Let me retort in kind with another famous author's quote.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
As someone who has, in the interests of science only I might add, studied those 4 frames you mention quite intensely for hours and hours and hours on end, I can officially state that was not a "small nipple."
Based on my extensive measurements, it is soundly in the upper 84th percentile of the "humongous" category. Sadly, it doesn't quite reach the rarafied heights of "gargantuan" (except possibly on my 60" TV), but she isn't hungarian either so that wasn't to be expected.
In the future please leave the classification of nipple sizes to qualified experts. It is already hard enough for the average layman to get back the results he wants from Google when searching between "large," "big," "huge," "giant," "GIANT," "humongous," and the aforementioned "gargantuan" without you hacks muddying these oft-motorboated waters with your slipshod appraisals.
If you are so inclined, I do have quite a few reference documents (867 gigs) that will help you with your future attempts at nipple classification. Alas, the accompanying certification classes have been cancelled due to lack of attendance. For some reason no one shows up after the first day when we distribute the resource materials.
I didn't RTFA, and the first thing I thought about was using a powered exoskeleton for rehabilitation and healthy excercise for disabled persons while providing them with the necessary mobility to be functional and even productive in society.
Use this article as an object lesson in meta-reading and learn what many conservatives have learned over the years: If you take the sentiments expressed by journalists as the sum total of American values you will miss the real landscape of American opinion. Also, generalizations like those you use are just a form of self imposed ignorance. And, as we all know, ignorance leads to bigotry. Give your fellow Americans some credit and use a little logic. One journalist's story does not express a majority opinion for the people of the US and is insignificant data for a consensus.
"Unless one wishes to risk death, absolutely nothing moves in or out of Gaza without the Israeli's sayso"
If this is the case then where do all the fucking rockets come from? Pardon me if I stopped reading you post after that part.
"Remember, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. "
This is the silliest regurgitated saying ever. The whole principle of "an eye for an eye" is that when lawful justice is applied it should be commensurate with the transgression. "Let the punishment fit the crime" is a pithier way to express the sentiment. Either way, the idea is to make sure that both the victim, the criminal, and the court are all subject to an overarching principle of fairness and neutrality.
Somehow I can't see how an appropriate punishemnt for a convicted criminal will make anyone blind, even figuratively. The only way to make this venerable re-saying resemble anything cognitively relevant is to think that justice is blind (treats all people the same regardless of station and without prejudice) and therefore we should all embody that spirit of blindnes when considering fair treatment of others when they offend.
Are you mad?
Stem cells were postulated first in the early 1900s and were established science in the 60's and 70's. There was plenty of time for presidents to fund stem cell research out of government coffers before this. To be explicit, the NIH allowed embryonic stem cell grants during the Clinton administration. However, the Clinton administration stopped short of setting aside funds specifically reserved for stem cell research.
Oddly, many people attribute restrictions on stem cell research specifically to president Bush. However the first restrictions on embryonic setm cells were signed into law by Clinton. Bush's actions, when displayed againts the backdrop of legislative history, could be seen as continuing the legal precedents set by Clinton years prior.
"I'm not supposed to hate those who sin?"
Absolutely not. Hate itself is a sin. By example, does a police officer hate you when he writes you a ticket for speeding or for a parking violation? The exchange is similar, as the prohibitions you reference are like government laws.
The nation of Israel in old testament times was a theocratic governemnt ruled by God. As such there were laws for this government, just like our country has laws. The prohibitions against homosexuality and other religions are similar to many laws we see today, though the punishments in ancient times were more harsh. For instance, homosexuality is illegal in many middle eastern nations, and was illegal in the US not too many years ago. Additionally, since this was a theocracy, worshipping other dieties was tantamount to sedetion or treason, though the transgression was probably much deeper as the religion was ingrained not only in the social structure but also in the bloodlines and tribal inheritance of the people. I believe we can still execute people for treason to this day in the US, and many other nations currently execute traitors without hesitation.
"And more to the point, why do you put any credence in this tome at all if you're convinced that it is at least partially inaccurate? "
My intention was not to cast aspersions on the accuracy of the bible, but to point out how what the bible actually says is quite diffeent in many cases from what is reported about it by both believers and detractors alike. If you took that meaning from what I wrote I should have been more clear. What I explicitly meant to say is that the Bible is a difficult book to understand and requires a scholarly approach to parse appropriately. Understanding the book is made even more difficult by the innumerable misinterpretations flouted as truth by the uninformed. However, just because people have used the bible in a way that it was never intended to be, or have ascribed meaning to its passages that was never there does not change the actual document or its content.
Funny that people call it a ban. The "ban" was actually the first time a president had set aside funding specifically for embryonic stem cell research, to the tune of about $400 million if I remember correctly.
So, if allocating around $400 million of taxpayer funds to something that was previously not part of the budget is a "ban" what is a roughly $700 billion stimulus package? "Bankrupcy?"
On second thought, please don't answer that.
Sorry to jump in but I can't help myself. :)
"The genocide of the Canaanites isn't a parable, or an example of how you should act."
The Canaanites slaughtered their own children for sexual gratification during ceremonies designed to inspire ecstatic communion with their deity. Pederasty was a practice of their religion as well. They held human sacrifice of innocents as a sacred part of their worship orgies. They practiced a policy of genocide against other tribes weaker than themselves and practiced cultural subversion against those stronger to bring them down. Violence, debauchery, and lasciviousness were the norm for their culture and those that practiced them abundantly were rewarded. Furthermore, the destruction of that culture was a military action between states, not a religious jihad. The example from this lesson is if you allow your culture to become compromised by evil you will be destroyed. There are numerous examples of this throughout history.
"The torture of Job is a very bad life lesson (remain loyal to your god even if he tortures you on a bet? That's messed up.)"
There are many lessons from this, but the simplest is this: There are forces in the world that can cause you hardship and are completely beyond your control. Your attitude toward life (and as a believer, God) will help determine your results.
The bible does not advocate hating gays. Homosexuality is the same as any other sexual sin in the bible, like adultery. The bible does not advocate killing people of other religions. Beating your wife is not recommended either.
From your statements I can only assume you have had some experience with the bible, but have not had a sufficiently researched and broad experience to reveal the meaning behind many of the things you find objectionable within its pages. Please take no offense from this statement, but currently you are holding up your misunderstandings and lack of knowledge as an example of how bad the bible is. Unfortunately, this is not a book that lends itself to transparent understanding the first time through. The meaning behind the words is obscured by thousands of years of translations, cultural changes, and more often than not, sensational misapplication by many who purport to be believers.
Picking and choosing happens frequently with believers. It also happens with people who find objectionable material in the bible. I think both can benefit from better understanding. However, this is a formidable task and requires time and discipline. For instance, to understand the meaning therein you need to read the bible from the original languages (or translate it from them), in the context of the time and culture in which it was written, and know the underlying categories of doctrine that the bible is built on. Without that framework, misunderstanding and misinterpreting the bible will happen more often than not and it will be impossible to extrapolate the meaning to today's society. Moreover, with that knowledge you will find that many things you though were basic tenants of the Bible are irrelevancies or nonexistent. You will also see the hypocrisy of many believers in the realms of power brokering and politics today. You might even begin to see how people throughout the ages have usurped the bible and its believers, twisted and perverted the true meaning of the document, and used it as a tool to affect their own human agendas on the world.
You say "traditional thinking," but this is just the manefestation of religious beliefs and the cultural expression of those beliefs. That people portray the women's rights movement as a western plot doesn't change the fact that the basis for the opression of women there is religious.
You beat me to the punch on this article. This inspired me to use a checklist in my daily work.
Other notable quotes are this one that talks about the checklist results when applied to the Michigan State hospital system:
Or this one about the cost of implementing this system nationwide:
So we have here a technology that is simple to implement and use, cheap to roll out throughout the nation, and has be decisively shown to reduce deaths and save massive amounts of money. So why has this not been implemented? Doctors won't support it.
Those companies should try something novel, like expanding their offerings. For instance, find me one legitimate source for "Flight of the Conchords" karaoke songs or B side Cure songs from the 80's.
Also, from my experience, most karaoke websites and disks are set up in a very "to the trade" format. The companies don't have a good presence with the end consumer (the singers). They don't market to them either. Ignoring your customers usually does not bode well for you business future.
If karaoke is taking off like you say, it seems to me that the companies should be adapting their methods to reach the new audience. If they are not, they are acting just like the RIAA and digging their own graves. A particularly neat trick because they can dig so furiously without displacing any of the sand piled around their heads.
You are crying over milk that has not yet spilled. This is just pre-birth eugenics between self selected breeding partners. Sure there will be some Asian cultures that will select overwhelmingly for male babies. Truth be told, it might help reduce the population pressure there and save us all some much needed scarcity complications in the next decades. We should be so lucky. Unfortunately the sad sad truth is the number of people able to afford such procedures will be insignificant compared to the masses in those countries. Infanticide will continue, population pressure will increase, and the shit will still continue inexorably toward the fan at ever increasing speeds.
Now, when we start adding, subtracting, and editing the genome of as-yet-unborn children you can start getting freaked out. I won't, but I am sure you and many others will.
Personally, I see this as the first step to transcending the limitations of the evolutionary process. People talk about intelligent design, I wanna see it for real. I want to be alive when we take control of our own genetic heritage and refine and manipulate it to the same degree we do with silicon. Those will be exciting times.
As for Darwin, sure he described the evolutionary process, but how can you be sure that he felt it was sacrosanct in some way? If given the chioice to be something more than human, greater than the lineage of your inherited parts, or just free from the ancient taint of flawed evolutionary remnants don't you think a scientist like Darwin would jump at the chance? I know I certainly would. Furthermore, as a parent with 3 children that may inherit genetically transmitted epilepsy that didn't show up in my wife until AFTER they were born, I would not begrudge any couple the ability to choose an embryo without such flaws, much less improve upon them.
I was under the impression that subjugation of women in middle eastern countires was due in large to the religious tennants that many of them practice. I was not aware this was a fight against westernization.
"However, if you are willing to knowingly cause material harm to another human being for money, you need to die."
If I am willing to cause material harm to those judges, but I will do it for free, where does that put me?
Not quite true. Power centered governments that view their population as tools and resources will continue to violate what we consider human rights. I think the transition has more to do with the governments disposition toward its people than it does to do with industrialization. See Russia industrial development and accompanying rights record as a counter example. Communism and the ideas that go with it are definitley a hindrance to the advancement of rights agendas.
Also, if the history of the US and the UK has anything to say about this subject it is that these violations will get alot worse before they get better.
I have a different take on Quake 2 that I now realize lines up directly with this survey's results.
For me Quake 2 will always be the ultimate in first person shooters. The joy I derived from the game was based entirely on my self-perceived mastery of the game, especially with respect to the grappling hook and what I call game psychology.
I learned some blistering tricks and techniques with the hook that gave me an incredible advantage against most players. With the hook enabled I could fly spiderman-like down hallways without touching the floor, change course in midair with precision and forethought, accelerate my toon to ridiculous speed for suprise attacks or a hasty retreat, and pop up on unsuspecting campers with impunity. On the game psychology side I learned how to predict and even manipulate the behavior of my opponents to an uncanny degree. There were times I felt psychic because I KNEW that if I moved just like *this* my opponent would move exactly like *that*, and I would have them dead to rights. Of course this was just the cumulative effects of hours of gameplay (maybe?), but it is an indescribable feeling to be able to accurately foresee and control you opponent's thoughts through such a simple online interface.
There were also times I would have "peak experiences" or what some people would call being "in the zone" while I was playing. Time slowed down, my thoughts became quick, crystal clear, incisive, and well-nigh prescient. My aiming and movements were perfect and playing would be entirely effortless. I became invincible and inescapable. No other game I have ever played has catalysed anything comparable to those experiences.
Those fleeting moments of perfection and the feeling of total mastery were the most addictive things I have ever experienced in all my many long years of incessant gaming. I eventually deleted the game from my computer because I was losing sleep, social opportunity, and study time from playing so much. Oddly, as much as I remember about the game, I did not remember the flies and gore that bothered you so much until I read your post. Apparently, the implied violence was not a memorable component of my experience and, I can honestly say, had nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Traffic laws also encompass the duration of a yellow light. If this is violated people have a real reason to protest; calling it whining is enabling the government to abuse those traffic rules you appeal to.
It really is a simple thing. Longer yellow lights prevent accidents and even deaths. This has been proven. When governments set yellow light times to short intervals they are inflicting harm on us. This is negligent and downright destructive even if the lights are set to the shortest time allowed by law, more so if it is shorter. Obviously the motivation for setting the yellow lights to shorter times (yes even those times allowed by law) is to generate revenue with red light cameras and traffic tickets from accidents, not to make the intersections safer. This means that the government is intentionally causing accidents and sacrificing our safety and well being in order to drum up money; literally bleeding us for cash.
Would it not make more sense to figure out what optimal yellow light times are for safety and implement those times? How strange! I just noticed that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Federal Highway Administration have already done this! In fact, they did this decades ago, factoring in reaction times, decision making, posted road speeds, surface quality, etc. In spite of their well funded and researched recommendations, minimum yellow light times have been shortened repeatedly below what is scientifically proven to be safe. As it stands, if yellow traffic lights were set to the shortest time allowed by law, in most places people would be physically unable to stop their vehicles in a safe manner without violating the law, despite their best intentions and vigilance.
What you need to ask yourself is why you are calling people whiners when they protest about laws that cannot be complied with, that don't make sense, and are dangerous. Realize that the laws, as written, are increasing the carnage you rail against. I would also think long and hard about redirecting your ire at governments that would swap a few thousand traffic accidents a year for some quick cash, instead of people who are trying to get a solution that saves lives.
Great thing about working in HR: When it comes time to do layoffs -- they need YOU there to make sure all the paperwork gets done right.
I say this not to be contrary, and certainly not to give fodder to our poor paranoid schitzo brothers and sisters or their closely related tin-foil-hatted kin, but out of true curiosity. Barring something that is actually harmful why whould the government destroy research materials?
Mind you I don't believe this shit works, but the government certainly felt threatened by it enough to take some drastic action. Curious to me, and offensive that our government can do that to an area of research, regardless of the way it is marketed.
Reading the wikipedia entry about orgone made me think "conspiracy" and I don't smoke pot.
"Investigation into orgone was effectively ended when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) obtained a federal injunction barring the interstate distribution of orgone-related materials, on the charge that Reich and his associates were making false and misleading claims, and under the terms of that injunction destroyed all devices and written material associated with orgone or its promotion.
Damned if that doesn't sound spooky.