Well if you consider him an infinite God, then he can't create someone on the same level or higher than himself without cloning himself. So you're asking him to clone himself? Sorry, but I don't want an exact clone of me running around. I'm sure God doesn't want that either. I'm an individual and I like it that way.
Well, I will quit argueing with you now. But I would like to thank you for taking my sentences out of context of the paragraphs in which they were placed in your last response. Had you analyzed the entire paragraph rather than just ripped on one sentence at a time, you would have maybe put some more thought into your responses.
Whats to prove false? Its a story. A story with an all powerful God that can change the entire universe at his whim... makes it very easy to explain away just about anything. How convinient!
I supose the dinosaur bones we find are just Gods little practical joke to test our faith then? Or maybe whoever recorded the story simply forgot about the monstorous flesh eating lizards?
Read Job in the Bible. There a couple of mentions about leviathan and other huge beasts that shook the ground when they walked. The Bible isn't meant to be a science manual. God gave us brains to explore science on our own. The Bible is for telling us why we're here and how God's plan for our lives. And contrary to popular belief, dinosaur fossils have not proven evolution, but rather a massive flood or other catastrophe. If you really want me to find a link for it online I will try to do so for you. (And yes, it will contain evidence produced using the scientific method)
The "Big Bang" theory is just the best theory we have so far. The one that fits the most of the empirical evidence. When new empirical evidence is found that contradicts it, a new theory will replace it.
No Theory is written in stone.
Well, that's a real bummer for you. Like I said before, I stick by the Biblical account rather than an ever changing theory of why we're here. At least I've got some solid ground to stand on for my beliefs both scientific and spiritually. It is an amazing story, but hey, I'm not God so it's not my job to understand it, just believe it.
And I thought Fahrenheit 451 was the cheesiest, most ridiculous view of the future that I had ever seen. Guess that movie/book is becoming a little truer to life than I first thought.
But don't you think that this is rather narrow thinking considering your 70-90 years of life on this planet is microscopic compared to a million, or a billion years from now? Why worry about moving the earth 1 million years from now. If we survive that long, why would we use a 1 million year old technology?
If you must participate in wild fantasy based on the speculations and ghost stories of ages past,to feel "Fullfilled" in your life... then enjoy I supose.
I will stick to my 'ghost stories' as you like to call them, because at least they make more sense than believing in something that may or may not have happened 17 billion years ago to 'create' the universe. At least my 'ghost stories' (which I take literally from the Genesis account in the Bible) have never been proven false, include a caring, loving God, and tell me that I have a purpose in this universe. Sadly, Big Bang theory says that I'm here just because it happened like that. Sorry, but that theory doesn't give me any purpose for living. I choose to believe in Creation theory based on faith of course, while you choose to believe in Big Bang theory, also based on faith. I just feel that at least mine gives me a reason for existing. So to drag this back on topic...
It's not necessary to be trying to figure out how to move the earth around now. My view of the universe says that the Earth is right where it should be. Other planets, sure, might be a good theory to look into moving them around, but even so, technology a 10-20 years from now will undoubtedly have much better solutions to global warming than this. And I don't think global warming is as big a deal as everyone is making it. To be sure we should be concerned, but let's not discount civilizations' advances technologically, economically, and societally as bad things. People today on average live much longer lives than those 100 years ago.
This whole thing about perceived violence as it is seen on the net is a tough issue to tackle. For instance, I have seen my own high school brother talked about with much vulgarity on a website by some of his classmates that according to him, are 'messed up kids'. Now I know my brother and fully trust his judgement, but how can you tell if a person is just being really sarcastic or really has some mental issues? I don't think their is a good way to tackle this, but I would like to at least know that those students had knowingly signed away their rights to proper search and seizure laws. Seems like the campus cops just came in and did what they wanted without much legal precedent. Anyone have some clarification on the laws in this case?
The barriers to entry are too high I think for this to get very far off the ground. Maybe some very small, simple processors, but nothing viable to run most of today's computer software.
I'm not trying to say that everything is how it was created and should remain that way forever and always. I am stating that if the Earth were moved now or several million (let alone billion) years from now it would screw up our beautiful planet and all the wonderful man-made inventions (like canals and dams) that are here now. So why worry about it. Rather, let's worry about how to 'fix' some of the other planets around our solar system and/or galaxy so that we can survive on those planets as well. And if you think my God is a lousy architect, take a closer look at your DNA. The probabilities of that evolving from chaos is at least 10^33 power just to get a single cell organism to live. Add in humanities current state of higher intelligence and I think it would calculate out to well beyond the age of the universe as it is aged according to popular Evolutionary/Big Bang theory. Sorry, but I just can't have the kind of faith required to think I'm just a product of extraodinary chance. What hope of a fulfilling life is there in that?
And to all those who will argue me on global warming being a reason for moving the Earth, here is my response: Replace the ozone, not our orbit.
Oh he may have been an early backer of it, true, but he surely didn't invent it by any stretch of the word 'invent'. That's what I meant when I say he likes to lengthen the truth into something that approaches complete ridiculousness. I may have given a bunch of money to McDonald's before they were a 'chain' (I didn't, but just follow me on this), but I surely didn't 'invent' the fast food chain. I just provided them some means to get going. And I'm sure Al Gore didn't back the internet because he knew it would be such a wonderful economic boom to the economy ten years later. He did it for political reasons, and that's it. Mod me down, I don't care! I feel strongly about flaming on those who don't like to think on their own when it comes to politics.
Well, trying to move the earth a billion years from now due to the sun's expansion is retarded to say the least. But, it could have interesting uses for realiging other planets in the future for terraforming and other such expirements. Just don't waste time on trying to calculate how and when to realign Earth. God put Earth in this position for a reason. Worrying about how to change it is absurd.
I think you're wrong about tech-savvy people only using Napster. My 13 yr old, non-tech savvy sister uses it all the time, but she hardly realizes the technology behind it all. She just knows she can download songs off the internet with it. And I know there's plenty more kiddies like her downloading the latest Brittany Spears songs cause they can. I think this is a real threat, and that the RIAA needs to grow up and quit screwing over their consumers with ridiculous laws that don't protect the artists, but protect their own profit margins. Most artists want more people to see, hear, smell, touch, or taste their creations, not have some big corporation tell them what they can and cannot do with their creation. If I put out an album and got signed on by a record company that worked with or was part of the RIAA, I'd be mad as hell if they told me I couldn't put it on Napster to let everyone hear it because it would violate my 'copyrights'. Screw that! If other people play my songs and claim them as their own creation that's a reason to have copyrights. But there's not a reason for copyrights to say that other people can't share my music with each other and say, "you gotta hear this guy, he's great!". Who cares if they pay for it or not. If my music is good enough than hopefully they will buy the album and attend my concerts. And even if they burn a CD off of the MP3's they downloaded, that means 1 more person is listening to my music than was before. I believe that artistry is not for the greedy, it's for the talented. The RIAA is greedy, the artists are talented. What an unfortunate mix we have today.
So you agree that Napster has at the very least had little effect on record sales and therefore does not prose a threat to the RIAA? Because with your logic it appears to me that Napster is not having a definitive effect, either positively or negatively, on the RIAA and therefore you should be argueing for Napster. Here's the logic presented in a different format:
1. Record sales cannot be linked either negatively or positively to Napster use.
2. Therefore, there is neither a negative or positive reason for banning Napster use.
Why not argue for Napster if it's not hurting anyone?
But men are generally stronger than women. An important issue when trying to move around in those very heavy spacesuits and when working on machinery that requires brute strength at times.
And men don't have periods or other womenly complications that can arise at the most inopportune(sp?) times. Not that I'm against women in a space program, there just needs to be a balance of the sexes for obvious reasons.
This sounds like a great development for designing more 'interactive' computing. Sure, it's not going to create a robot that I love on a spiritual/emotional level per say, but it has some far reaching applicability towards computer AI. For if a computer can truly 'anticipate' what I'm going to do based on a set of simulated mirror neurons in its neural network computing structure, what's to stop computing speed increasing at the same rate it does today. Androids, helper software 'bots', etc. would all become a reality in a treuer, more natural form than today's complex AI algorithms. They would also run faster as they would not be evaluating millions of lines of code on what to do next, they would just... know!
SimCity, SimCity2000, or SimCity3000. All three are meant to be played without blowing 'the other guy' up. I think this is what the original guy who asked the question about zero-sum/non zero-sum games was getting at. And to answer all those who have posted before me, everything has a 'goal'. You build things in SimCity to aqcuire more money to build more things. You play a football game to acquire the higher score, thereby winning the game. Some games are just more open-ended than others, such as SimCity, MUD's, and role-playing 'games'.
Good point on the personal responsibility thing. It is the person's responsibility to maintain a set of moral standards in life. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people can not do that on their own. At least it would be good to remove this sort of thing from the primary sector of society and place it in a more difficult to reach place. You'll never be able to get rid of it completely, but at least get it off the main internet and into its own domain. This will at least remove the inadvertant temptation for the majority of people. Those who really have to have it, as much as I may hate their actions, can have it, but they'll need to go seeking to do what I would consider sin. They may not consider it that, but at least it's not readily (and acidentally by clicking on a seemingly harmless URL) available to me or other people with a better set of morals.
And you, like most people led by popular media myth, think 'Star Wars' is all about missiles, period. You fail to miss the fact that it's about building a Missile Defense System, not a missile attack system. We already have plenty of nukes and inter-continental ballistic missiles that could annihilate any country on earth. A missile defense system is much more difficult to build, and much more important now that anti-US countries could have potential access and ability to build nuclear and biological warfare missiles to be used in an attack against one of the most powerful countries on earth. What's the harm in builiding up our defenses based on technology we have already developed for offensive capabilities?
On the contrary, I think the boogeymen that you refer to do exist today, and can pose a threat to the US and her allies. Sadam Hussein (who we should have thrown in jail when we won the Gulf War) and Slobodan Milosevic are prime examples. Sure they only have regional control at best right now, but primarily because we (and our allies) got involved before their terror could spread too far. This is precisely why we need a powerful military. It is not the government's job to take care of me, that's my job. It's the government's job to protect me. Hence, the need for military spending.
I don't totally agree with most people that have posted so far about Bush being all bad. Sure he is pro-corporations, and pro-morality laws that can be often-times constricting, but that's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because I think he will at least do these 3 things:
1) He has stated numerous times that he trusts people. I think this makes a big difference in his beliefs on what the governent should and should not be involved in.
2) He knows one of the government's primary jobs is to provide defense for the nation. I am extraordinarily pleased that Bush has vowed to increase spending on the military. Yes, it will mean less social programs at home, but I'd rather have fewer social programs than having China, North Korea, or any other sufficiently armed country knocking on our door with nukes because they think they can beat on us without repercussions. Besides, the fewer money the feds have to spend on running people's lives in social programs (like Social Security), the more individual freedoms we are able to have.
3) Although I disagree with some of his agenda's, he is more trustworthy to do what he says. Gore reversed his opinions on things so many times it was beginning to make me sick to my stomach.
This is all meant to say that while I do not think that Bush was the best candidate for the Presidency (especially with respect to individual freedoms and the internet in particular), I do think he was the best choice for the nation as a whole. I'm sure their will be people that mod me down for my "pro-Bush" stance, but it's important to realize that you cannot have your cake and eat it to - so to speak. We all have to make compromises, and unfortunately, I chose the compromise that could potentially limit some of my freedoms in exchange for a stronger country overall. I think this is important because I am not voting out of selfishness for what I want, but rather what I thought would be best for *everyone*.
True, but at least the media and every other lame brain out there will at least take note of the fact that 'Hey! Compaq is now selling Linux with its computers. Maybe that's a good operating system.'
Yet another step to getting Linux more mainstream. I'm glad to see that large companies like Dell, Compaq, etc. are finding that M$ Windows isn't the only solution for users needs these days.
I am reminded of a recent story I saw on Slashdot regarding new evidence that scientists had discovered two large bodies like planets orbiting a distant star in very peculiar orbital patterns that scientists thought could not exist. I say just leave Pluto's planet status alone until we can classify it better. It may not be a 'planet', but let's not classify it as otherwise until we have a more solid understanding of more of the wonderfully diverse universe in which we live. Of course, I think an open mind to this whole matter is the best approach, rather than just agreeing with everyone else that it undoubtedly is a planet, as has been mentioned above in not so simple terms.
I think it is good for us to be using both radio and optical telescopes as we can learn things about the cosmos besides just alien life. A previous poster to this discussion noted that some quasars and other anomaly were found thru SETI@home, which supports this theory.
What I didn't understand, was why in the world did that article contain the bit about Russian scientists claiming evidence of: three foot tall humanoids and a robot???!!! That had almost nothing to do with the article and was from 1989! I wonder what prompted the writer of the article to throw that in?
I agree. One of our local radio stations got bought out by someone big, and now I don't have a really good rock/alternative station to listen to. Competition does seem to have been stifled in the radio market lately.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you consider him an infinite God, then he can't create someone on the same level or higher than himself without cloning himself. So you're asking him to clone himself? Sorry, but I don't want an exact clone of me running around. I'm sure God doesn't want that either. I'm an individual and I like it that way.
Well, I will quit argueing with you now. But I would like to thank you for taking my sentences out of context of the paragraphs in which they were placed in your last response. Had you analyzed the entire paragraph rather than just ripped on one sentence at a time, you would have maybe put some more thought into your responses.
Read Job in the Bible. There a couple of mentions about leviathan and other huge beasts that shook the ground when they walked. The Bible isn't meant to be a science manual. God gave us brains to explore science on our own. The Bible is for telling us why we're here and how God's plan for our lives. And contrary to popular belief, dinosaur fossils have not proven evolution, but rather a massive flood or other catastrophe. If you really want me to find a link for it online I will try to do so for you. (And yes, it will contain evidence produced using the scientific method)
The "Big Bang" theory is just the best theory we have so far. The one that fits the most of the empirical evidence. When new empirical evidence is found that contradicts it, a new theory will replace it. No Theory is written in stone.
Well, that's a real bummer for you. Like I said before, I stick by the Biblical account rather than an ever changing theory of why we're here. At least I've got some solid ground to stand on for my beliefs both scientific and spiritually. It is an amazing story, but hey, I'm not God so it's not my job to understand it, just believe it.
And I thought Fahrenheit 451 was the cheesiest, most ridiculous view of the future that I had ever seen. Guess that movie/book is becoming a little truer to life than I first thought.
If you must participate in wild fantasy based on the speculations and ghost stories of ages past,to feel "Fullfilled" in your life... then enjoy I supose.
I will stick to my 'ghost stories' as you like to call them, because at least they make more sense than believing in something that may or may not have happened 17 billion years ago to 'create' the universe. At least my 'ghost stories' (which I take literally from the Genesis account in the Bible) have never been proven false, include a caring, loving God, and tell me that I have a purpose in this universe. Sadly, Big Bang theory says that I'm here just because it happened like that. Sorry, but that theory doesn't give me any purpose for living. I choose to believe in Creation theory based on faith of course, while you choose to believe in Big Bang theory, also based on faith. I just feel that at least mine gives me a reason for existing. So to drag this back on topic...
It's not necessary to be trying to figure out how to move the earth around now. My view of the universe says that the Earth is right where it should be. Other planets, sure, might be a good theory to look into moving them around, but even so, technology a 10-20 years from now will undoubtedly have much better solutions to global warming than this. And I don't think global warming is as big a deal as everyone is making it. To be sure we should be concerned, but let's not discount civilizations' advances technologically, economically, and societally as bad things. People today on average live much longer lives than those 100 years ago.
Hahaha! And in cs_jail, you find nothing but unbound textures and other map anomolies that lock your computer indefinitely, forcing a complete reboot!
This whole thing about perceived violence as it is seen on the net is a tough issue to tackle. For instance, I have seen my own high school brother talked about with much vulgarity on a website by some of his classmates that according to him, are 'messed up kids'. Now I know my brother and fully trust his judgement, but how can you tell if a person is just being really sarcastic or really has some mental issues? I don't think their is a good way to tackle this, but I would like to at least know that those students had knowingly signed away their rights to proper search and seizure laws. Seems like the campus cops just came in and did what they wanted without much legal precedent. Anyone have some clarification on the laws in this case?
The barriers to entry are too high I think for this to get very far off the ground. Maybe some very small, simple processors, but nothing viable to run most of today's computer software.
And to all those who will argue me on global warming being a reason for moving the Earth, here is my response: Replace the ozone, not our orbit.
Oh he may have been an early backer of it, true, but he surely didn't invent it by any stretch of the word 'invent'. That's what I meant when I say he likes to lengthen the truth into something that approaches complete ridiculousness. I may have given a bunch of money to McDonald's before they were a 'chain' (I didn't, but just follow me on this), but I surely didn't 'invent' the fast food chain. I just provided them some means to get going. And I'm sure Al Gore didn't back the internet because he knew it would be such a wonderful economic boom to the economy ten years later. He did it for political reasons, and that's it. Mod me down, I don't care! I feel strongly about flaming on those who don't like to think on their own when it comes to politics.
Well, trying to move the earth a billion years from now due to the sun's expansion is retarded to say the least. But, it could have interesting uses for realiging other planets in the future for terraforming and other such expirements. Just don't waste time on trying to calculate how and when to realign Earth. God put Earth in this position for a reason. Worrying about how to change it is absurd.
I think you're wrong about tech-savvy people only using Napster. My 13 yr old, non-tech savvy sister uses it all the time, but she hardly realizes the technology behind it all. She just knows she can download songs off the internet with it. And I know there's plenty more kiddies like her downloading the latest Brittany Spears songs cause they can. I think this is a real threat, and that the RIAA needs to grow up and quit screwing over their consumers with ridiculous laws that don't protect the artists, but protect their own profit margins. Most artists want more people to see, hear, smell, touch, or taste their creations, not have some big corporation tell them what they can and cannot do with their creation. If I put out an album and got signed on by a record company that worked with or was part of the RIAA, I'd be mad as hell if they told me I couldn't put it on Napster to let everyone hear it because it would violate my 'copyrights'. Screw that! If other people play my songs and claim them as their own creation that's a reason to have copyrights. But there's not a reason for copyrights to say that other people can't share my music with each other and say, "you gotta hear this guy, he's great!". Who cares if they pay for it or not. If my music is good enough than hopefully they will buy the album and attend my concerts. And even if they burn a CD off of the MP3's they downloaded, that means 1 more person is listening to my music than was before. I believe that artistry is not for the greedy, it's for the talented. The RIAA is greedy, the artists are talented. What an unfortunate mix we have today.
1. Record sales cannot be linked either negatively or positively to Napster use.
2. Therefore, there is neither a negative or positive reason for banning Napster use.
Why not argue for Napster if it's not hurting anyone?
But men are generally stronger than women. An important issue when trying to move around in those very heavy spacesuits and when working on machinery that requires brute strength at times. And men don't have periods or other womenly complications that can arise at the most inopportune(sp?) times. Not that I'm against women in a space program, there just needs to be a balance of the sexes for obvious reasons.
This sounds like a great development for designing more 'interactive' computing. Sure, it's not going to create a robot that I love on a spiritual/emotional level per say, but it has some far reaching applicability towards computer AI. For if a computer can truly 'anticipate' what I'm going to do based on a set of simulated mirror neurons in its neural network computing structure, what's to stop computing speed increasing at the same rate it does today. Androids, helper software 'bots', etc. would all become a reality in a treuer, more natural form than today's complex AI algorithms. They would also run faster as they would not be evaluating millions of lines of code on what to do next, they would just... know!
SimCity, SimCity2000, or SimCity3000. All three are meant to be played without blowing 'the other guy' up. I think this is what the original guy who asked the question about zero-sum/non zero-sum games was getting at. And to answer all those who have posted before me, everything has a 'goal'. You build things in SimCity to aqcuire more money to build more things. You play a football game to acquire the higher score, thereby winning the game. Some games are just more open-ended than others, such as SimCity, MUD's, and role-playing 'games'.
Good point on the personal responsibility thing. It is the person's responsibility to maintain a set of moral standards in life. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people can not do that on their own. At least it would be good to remove this sort of thing from the primary sector of society and place it in a more difficult to reach place. You'll never be able to get rid of it completely, but at least get it off the main internet and into its own domain. This will at least remove the inadvertant temptation for the majority of people. Those who really have to have it, as much as I may hate their actions, can have it, but they'll need to go seeking to do what I would consider sin. They may not consider it that, but at least it's not readily (and acidentally by clicking on a seemingly harmless URL) available to me or other people with a better set of morals.
And you, like most people led by popular media myth, think 'Star Wars' is all about missiles, period. You fail to miss the fact that it's about building a Missile Defense System, not a missile attack system. We already have plenty of nukes and inter-continental ballistic missiles that could annihilate any country on earth. A missile defense system is much more difficult to build, and much more important now that anti-US countries could have potential access and ability to build nuclear and biological warfare missiles to be used in an attack against one of the most powerful countries on earth. What's the harm in builiding up our defenses based on technology we have already developed for offensive capabilities?
On the contrary, I think the boogeymen that you refer to do exist today, and can pose a threat to the US and her allies. Sadam Hussein (who we should have thrown in jail when we won the Gulf War) and Slobodan Milosevic are prime examples. Sure they only have regional control at best right now, but primarily because we (and our allies) got involved before their terror could spread too far. This is precisely why we need a powerful military. It is not the government's job to take care of me, that's my job. It's the government's job to protect me. Hence, the need for military spending.
1) He has stated numerous times that he trusts people. I think this makes a big difference in his beliefs on what the governent should and should not be involved in.
2) He knows one of the government's primary jobs is to provide defense for the nation. I am extraordinarily pleased that Bush has vowed to increase spending on the military. Yes, it will mean less social programs at home, but I'd rather have fewer social programs than having China, North Korea, or any other sufficiently armed country knocking on our door with nukes because they think they can beat on us without repercussions. Besides, the fewer money the feds have to spend on running people's lives in social programs (like Social Security), the more individual freedoms we are able to have.
3) Although I disagree with some of his agenda's, he is more trustworthy to do what he says. Gore reversed his opinions on things so many times it was beginning to make me sick to my stomach.
This is all meant to say that while I do not think that Bush was the best candidate for the Presidency (especially with respect to individual freedoms and the internet in particular), I do think he was the best choice for the nation as a whole. I'm sure their will be people that mod me down for my "pro-Bush" stance, but it's important to realize that you cannot have your cake and eat it to - so to speak. We all have to make compromises, and unfortunately, I chose the compromise that could potentially limit some of my freedoms in exchange for a stronger country overall. I think this is important because I am not voting out of selfishness for what I want, but rather what I thought would be best for *everyone*.
True, but at least the media and every other lame brain out there will at least take note of the fact that 'Hey! Compaq is now selling Linux with its computers. Maybe that's a good operating system.'
Yet another step to getting Linux more mainstream. I'm glad to see that large companies like Dell, Compaq, etc. are finding that M$ Windows isn't the only solution for users needs these days.
I am reminded of a recent story I saw on Slashdot regarding new evidence that scientists had discovered two large bodies like planets orbiting a distant star in very peculiar orbital patterns that scientists thought could not exist. I say just leave Pluto's planet status alone until we can classify it better. It may not be a 'planet', but let's not classify it as otherwise until we have a more solid understanding of more of the wonderfully diverse universe in which we live. Of course, I think an open mind to this whole matter is the best approach, rather than just agreeing with everyone else that it undoubtedly is a planet, as has been mentioned above in not so simple terms.
What I didn't understand, was why in the world did that article contain the bit about Russian scientists claiming evidence of: three foot tall humanoids and a robot???!!! That had almost nothing to do with the article and was from 1989! I wonder what prompted the writer of the article to throw that in?
I agree. One of our local radio stations got bought out by someone big, and now I don't have a really good rock/alternative station to listen to. Competition does seem to have been stifled in the radio market lately.