Cloud Atlas would be a semi-recent one. But usually utopian and dystopian science-fiction are kind of one in the same. Think of The Giver. That's a utopian society but the book exposes the flaws of such a "perfect" society. I can't think of any that would fit the bill though that are recent besides Cloud Atlas. Stranger from a Strange Land and some of the other Heinlein novels I'd put under utopian sci-fi. But those are obviously old hat for most sci-fi readers by now.
"But things are going to get really cool in 20 years when it is not just me collecting data about, it is not just all my friends who we are collecting data about, but it is our town, it is our country, it is our world. That’s going to be really cool. And that’s going to be transformational. We are in the really early days of that right now."
Please tell me I'm not the only one that's scared by this sentiment. Maybe I've been reading and watching too much dystopian science-fiction...
I'm fully aware this is an emotional reaction on my part, but I can't help but feel that this isn't a good thing. We already are up in arms over the NSA stuff, what's the difference? Mr Rosenbaum seems to understand the risks but is excited about this "transformational" future. That just seems scarily depressing to me.
I can't completely agree that the real cause is socioeconomic. If that were true, Caucasians would make up the majority of gun violence/crime. 13% poverty rate for Caucasians. Estimate of Caucasians in this country is about 223,553,265. That'd be 29,061,924 impoverished Caucasions. The amount of African Americans in this country is 38,929,319. I don't need to do the math that impoverished Caucasians are more prevalent than impoverished African Americans. I don't think socio-economic status can account for the disproportionate ratio of gun crimes by race in this country reported by the FBI.
Please feel free to check me on those numbers. The poverty rate comes from the Institute for Research on Poverty and the population numbers come from the US Census, both are from 2010.
The current law that was extended already says that. The amendments that Senate Dems wanted to add, said that the metal piece has to be a critical or important functional component of the gun. The logic there being, well you can sell a gun with a metal insert that is unnecessary to the functioning of the gun and bypass the law that way.
I don't necessarily disagree with that broadening, but I disagree with the amendment to a bill with already bi-partisan support. No need to stop the extension to get that in. Thankfully Schumer and the Dems seemed to realize that they can try to add that stipulation any time they want.
The summary and the linked article within are worded poorly. What happened was that the original bill was extended. Democrats in the Senate wanted to broaden it to better prevent 3-D printed guns. Those amendments to the bill were blocked and the original unaltered bill was signed and extended for 10 years.
Covet - "to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others"
I mean come on, pretty easy, though I'll agree of the last six that's probably the most debatable as far as general acceptance goes. Honestly, I think it's kind of redundant, stealing is just coveting your neighbor's stuff in action.
Here's the problem though; people, everyone even the Atheist, votes based on their own moral and ethical guidelines. If you are religious, your morals and ethics will be influenced by that. There's nothing wrong with that, religion is a part of culture and society. Those things influence us, negatively and positively. It seems hypocritical to me, that we should ask the religious to discard a part of their beliefs when they vote. In a democratic country, somebody's ideals and beliefs are going to be "forced" on another person. It's just the way it is. The social contract forces beliefs and ideals on other people, pure and simple. The ideal of free society and democracy is that people are protected and empowered to share and discuss their opinions. And ultimately to vote based on them. You can't force people to believe that homosexuals getting married is a good thing anymore than you don't want them forcing that belief on you. So long as you have the freedom to speak out about your opinions and beliefs, then government is doing okay.
1) For an atheist this is easy, they don't believe in gods so they therefore can't have any other gods before him.
2) Well if you don't believe in him why would you make images of him.
3) Why would an atheist need or want to utter the Lord's name? Particularly in vain? Personally, I'd like to see atheist shout "Dawkins!" when they stub their toe.
4) Who doesn't like having at least one day off a week?
Do I even need to go through the other six? They're pretty common cultural norms in all societies.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to who you're replying to that by "life" they meant complex or advanced life. A lot of those places we thought life couldn't exist, the life that does exist there is single-celled, or extremely rudimentary.
"that spending a trillion dollars a year on the military is a good thing because it can assist to some tiny degree in disaster relief? This is the third or fourth time I've seen that foolishness paraded around in the last couple of weeks."
I never made such an argument.
And then you attacked that argument. "Realize that for the price the US spends on its military they could just give every person on the planet $140, which for many of those people would double their yearly income."
Agree, but one addendum, it wasn't just Germany developing atomic weapons, Japan was as well.
I want people to reflect for a moment on the psychology of the Japanese war machine, or at least the perception that the US military had of them. Surrender is dishonorable, killing yourself by ramming your plane (and other vehicles) into an enemy was admirable. Now imagine Japan with the atomic bomb. How long into a a joint US/Soviet invasion of Japan do you think they'd use it on their own territory? I'm not saying they would've done it, but you have to admit it's not an unreasonable assumption.
Did I say the United States? No. Your argument is invalid.
But I'll say this, that force projected across the globe is able to provide relief for disaster stricken people, like those hit by the typhoon in the Philippines. Or protect important shipping lanes from pirates or other disruption.
I fail to see what is inherently immoral or unethical about designing weapons or other technologies for you own country's defense. If you can prevent that missile from landing on an unintended target (civilian) or prevent terrorists from blowing up your fellow citizens, that is also a morally good choice.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. When designing and building weapons you want the weapon to hit where you intend it to hit, if not to prevent civilian casualties then to make sure you kill or disable your target.
First, I didn't say you had to own one. Second, non-violent non-cooperation doesn't work when you and others are being shipped off to Siberia or a gas chamber.
Because a standing military is necessary to the security of a country, the civilian populace must therefore be armed in order to prevent a military coup or government tyranny. That's what the 2nd Amendment means. It's not about ensuring a military. It's about ensuring that the American people can protect themselves from their own military if necessary.
Regarding tanks, you do know that there are private citizens who own (legally) weapons capable of incapacitating a tank right? You do know that you can own a demilitarized tank as well right? The armor is still there, but the gun(s) is not operational. It's not prohibitively difficult to get those guns working again.
Government is not society. To even implicitly equate the two is wrong. Government is a tool of society used to police and protect itself. It is run by representatives of society, who are duly elected in Democratic/Republican societies.
There's no arguing with you because no matter how it's explained to you, you will manage to argue he was being partisan. But I'll run down a little list of reasons why any state Governor would've wanted to stay out of making their own state website. Haslam's quoted reason, their cost analysis actually came up pricier, they saw how messy it was going to be and opted to let the Feds handle it, other issues in their state were more important and since the Feds were going to do it they didn't have to make it a need to do on their agenda.
So you quoted me and then said I should ask the very question I asked? What?
Your comment is why I asked the question. People don't get what Saints are and why Catholics pray to them. First there are four distinct forms of prayer. Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Intercession. The words themselves are pretty self-explanatory. Second, a Saint is simply put, a person that we know is in heaven. Through miracles or some other sign by God. The Catholic stance on this is, they do not make Saints only recognize them.
Last, when you pray to a Saint, it is an intercessory prayer. You are asking the Saint to pray for you to God. To Catholics (and other denominations), if you can ask a living person to pray for you, then you can ask person who is in heaven as well. Because those who are were given everlasting life. Now you argue something from scripture and even though Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, I'll give you these pieces from the Bible that back this belief up.
Luke 16: 19-31 indicates that the dead can pray for the living.
John 11:25 - Those who believe in Christ, though they are dead will live.
Romans 8:38-39 Nothing can separate you from the love of God.
Hebrews 2:11 - He that sanctifieth and the those who are sanctified are one.
Hebrews: 10:10 - Jesus is the sanctifier.
1 Timothy 2: 1-5 - The type of prayer and Jesus is the mediator of God and men.
If you're going to go on a rant about grammar, at least get it right. You do use the apostrophe to denote a plural in very limited cases. I'll give you two examples.
You use them to form the plural of an abbreviation that combines upper and lowercase letters or has interior periods. Example: The department graduated five M.A.’s and two Ph.D.’s this year.
You use them to form the plural of lowercase letters. Example: Mind your p’s and q’s.
Wooh dude, I'm not going to get into it with the rest of your rambling, but let's be clear. The Inquisition (those sanctioned and carried out by the Church) only applied to heretics, i.e. Christians. You can not be a heretic if you were never Christian.
Slashdot Mirror
Cloud Atlas would be a semi-recent one. But usually utopian and dystopian science-fiction are kind of one in the same. Think of The Giver. That's a utopian society but the book exposes the flaws of such a "perfect" society. I can't think of any that would fit the bill though that are recent besides Cloud Atlas. Stranger from a Strange Land and some of the other Heinlein novels I'd put under utopian sci-fi. But those are obviously old hat for most sci-fi readers by now.
"But things are going to get really cool in 20 years when it is not just me collecting data about, it is not just all my friends who we are collecting data about, but it is our town, it is our country, it is our world. That’s going to be really cool. And that’s going to be transformational. We are in the really early days of that right now." Please tell me I'm not the only one that's scared by this sentiment. Maybe I've been reading and watching too much dystopian science-fiction... I'm fully aware this is an emotional reaction on my part, but I can't help but feel that this isn't a good thing. We already are up in arms over the NSA stuff, what's the difference? Mr Rosenbaum seems to understand the risks but is excited about this "transformational" future. That just seems scarily depressing to me.
I can't completely agree that the real cause is socioeconomic. If that were true, Caucasians would make up the majority of gun violence/crime. 13% poverty rate for Caucasians. Estimate of Caucasians in this country is about 223,553,265. That'd be 29,061,924 impoverished Caucasions. The amount of African Americans in this country is 38,929,319. I don't need to do the math that impoverished Caucasians are more prevalent than impoverished African Americans. I don't think socio-economic status can account for the disproportionate ratio of gun crimes by race in this country reported by the FBI. Please feel free to check me on those numbers. The poverty rate comes from the Institute for Research on Poverty and the population numbers come from the US Census, both are from 2010.
The current law that was extended already says that. The amendments that Senate Dems wanted to add, said that the metal piece has to be a critical or important functional component of the gun. The logic there being, well you can sell a gun with a metal insert that is unnecessary to the functioning of the gun and bypass the law that way. I don't necessarily disagree with that broadening, but I disagree with the amendment to a bill with already bi-partisan support. No need to stop the extension to get that in. Thankfully Schumer and the Dems seemed to realize that they can try to add that stipulation any time they want.
The summary and the linked article within are worded poorly. What happened was that the original bill was extended. Democrats in the Senate wanted to broaden it to better prevent 3-D printed guns. Those amendments to the bill were blocked and the original unaltered bill was signed and extended for 10 years.
It's a joke bro, get over it.
Covet - "to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others" I mean come on, pretty easy, though I'll agree of the last six that's probably the most debatable as far as general acceptance goes. Honestly, I think it's kind of redundant, stealing is just coveting your neighbor's stuff in action.
Here's the problem though; people, everyone even the Atheist, votes based on their own moral and ethical guidelines. If you are religious, your morals and ethics will be influenced by that. There's nothing wrong with that, religion is a part of culture and society. Those things influence us, negatively and positively. It seems hypocritical to me, that we should ask the religious to discard a part of their beliefs when they vote. In a democratic country, somebody's ideals and beliefs are going to be "forced" on another person. It's just the way it is. The social contract forces beliefs and ideals on other people, pure and simple. The ideal of free society and democracy is that people are protected and empowered to share and discuss their opinions. And ultimately to vote based on them. You can't force people to believe that homosexuals getting married is a good thing anymore than you don't want them forcing that belief on you. So long as you have the freedom to speak out about your opinions and beliefs, then government is doing okay.
1) For an atheist this is easy, they don't believe in gods so they therefore can't have any other gods before him. 2) Well if you don't believe in him why would you make images of him. 3) Why would an atheist need or want to utter the Lord's name? Particularly in vain? Personally, I'd like to see atheist shout "Dawkins!" when they stub their toe. 4) Who doesn't like having at least one day off a week? Do I even need to go through the other six? They're pretty common cultural norms in all societies.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to who you're replying to that by "life" they meant complex or advanced life. A lot of those places we thought life couldn't exist, the life that does exist there is single-celled, or extremely rudimentary.
"that spending a trillion dollars a year on the military is a good thing because it can assist to some tiny degree in disaster relief? This is the third or fourth time I've seen that foolishness paraded around in the last couple of weeks." I never made such an argument. And then you attacked that argument. "Realize that for the price the US spends on its military they could just give every person on the planet $140, which for many of those people would double their yearly income."
The straw men bro, the straw men! I could roast the red herrings with them!
Agree, but one addendum, it wasn't just Germany developing atomic weapons, Japan was as well. I want people to reflect for a moment on the psychology of the Japanese war machine, or at least the perception that the US military had of them. Surrender is dishonorable, killing yourself by ramming your plane (and other vehicles) into an enemy was admirable. Now imagine Japan with the atomic bomb. How long into a a joint US/Soviet invasion of Japan do you think they'd use it on their own territory? I'm not saying they would've done it, but you have to admit it's not an unreasonable assumption.
Did I say the United States? No. Your argument is invalid. But I'll say this, that force projected across the globe is able to provide relief for disaster stricken people, like those hit by the typhoon in the Philippines. Or protect important shipping lanes from pirates or other disruption.
I fail to see what is inherently immoral or unethical about designing weapons or other technologies for you own country's defense. If you can prevent that missile from landing on an unintended target (civilian) or prevent terrorists from blowing up your fellow citizens, that is also a morally good choice.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about. When designing and building weapons you want the weapon to hit where you intend it to hit, if not to prevent civilian casualties then to make sure you kill or disable your target.
First, I didn't say you had to own one. Second, non-violent non-cooperation doesn't work when you and others are being shipped off to Siberia or a gas chamber.
Because a standing military is necessary to the security of a country, the civilian populace must therefore be armed in order to prevent a military coup or government tyranny. That's what the 2nd Amendment means. It's not about ensuring a military. It's about ensuring that the American people can protect themselves from their own military if necessary. Regarding tanks, you do know that there are private citizens who own (legally) weapons capable of incapacitating a tank right? You do know that you can own a demilitarized tank as well right? The armor is still there, but the gun(s) is not operational. It's not prohibitively difficult to get those guns working again.
Government is not society. To even implicitly equate the two is wrong. Government is a tool of society used to police and protect itself. It is run by representatives of society, who are duly elected in Democratic/Republican societies.
There's no arguing with you because no matter how it's explained to you, you will manage to argue he was being partisan. But I'll run down a little list of reasons why any state Governor would've wanted to stay out of making their own state website. Haslam's quoted reason, their cost analysis actually came up pricier, they saw how messy it was going to be and opted to let the Feds handle it, other issues in their state were more important and since the Feds were going to do it they didn't have to make it a need to do on their agenda.
Are you forgetting Chris Christie?
So you quoted me and then said I should ask the very question I asked? What? Your comment is why I asked the question. People don't get what Saints are and why Catholics pray to them. First there are four distinct forms of prayer. Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Intercession. The words themselves are pretty self-explanatory. Second, a Saint is simply put, a person that we know is in heaven. Through miracles or some other sign by God. The Catholic stance on this is, they do not make Saints only recognize them. Last, when you pray to a Saint, it is an intercessory prayer. You are asking the Saint to pray for you to God. To Catholics (and other denominations), if you can ask a living person to pray for you, then you can ask person who is in heaven as well. Because those who are were given everlasting life. Now you argue something from scripture and even though Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, I'll give you these pieces from the Bible that back this belief up. Luke 16: 19-31 indicates that the dead can pray for the living. John 11:25 - Those who believe in Christ, though they are dead will live. Romans 8:38-39 Nothing can separate you from the love of God. Hebrews 2:11 - He that sanctifieth and the those who are sanctified are one. Hebrews: 10:10 - Jesus is the sanctifier. 1 Timothy 2: 1-5 - The type of prayer and Jesus is the mediator of God and men.
If you're going to go on a rant about grammar, at least get it right. You do use the apostrophe to denote a plural in very limited cases. I'll give you two examples. You use them to form the plural of an abbreviation that combines upper and lowercase letters or has interior periods. Example: The department graduated five M.A.’s and two Ph.D.’s this year. You use them to form the plural of lowercase letters. Example: Mind your p’s and q’s.
Do you know what a Saint is and why Catholics pray to them?
Wooh dude, I'm not going to get into it with the rest of your rambling, but let's be clear. The Inquisition (those sanctioned and carried out by the Church) only applied to heretics, i.e. Christians. You can not be a heretic if you were never Christian.