I heard a funny comment on the news last night by an economist with a huge string of credentials about bush's faith based policies. Such as his faith that the economy will recover and that the national debt will not increase (lowering taxes)... and his faith that the environment will get better with out any commitments by governments (kyoto). Heh.
"But if "1" really describes your perception of religion ...
"1) religions have agendas, (eg: anti-choice / anti-woman / anti-gay / anti-aids victims / anti-other religion)"
I am surprised that you have not been exposed (at least in the news) to religions that have propagated bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-other-religion-ism. I have heard an anti - gay sermons... and statements by a minister to the effect of 'aids is gods way of punishing the sodomites'. I have heard statements concerning the woman's place and/or role in society that was very non-progressive, and very 1800's-ish. I have heard non - Christian religious groups being referred to as sinners or heathens by Christians. Abortion clinic bombings that are religiously motivated are not unheard of... and sometimes encouraged by ministers... I have seen groups (religious) get laws passed to enforce their idea of morality on others. I have observed, read about, and heard of too much abuse of power within and by churches to be comfortable with them.
"Your "givens" are so carefully selected/filtered"
I had not perceived any filtering... admittedly 1, 6, 7, and 8 are generalizations, but they are valid for at least several dominant sects of Christianity. I try to see things other points of view, but what I inevitably conclude is that, even if my suppositions do not apply to them and they are perfectly benign, most religious groups already have a place to meet... and they even have the means to 'reach' potential recruits if that is their desire.
Well, you pretty much ignored the rest of my argument which is as follows:
what I take as givens:
-----
1) religions have agendas, (eg: anti-choice / anti-woman / anti-gay / anti-aids victims / anti-other religion)
2) religion has caused the middle east strife, contributed to the nazi pograms, and crusades/jihads. Did i forget to mention the inquisition?
3) they already have a place to meet , namely the church.
4) religions can and do pass out pamphlets, organize, lobby, organize and sponsor events, try to recruit powerful members of the government and communities, and preach on street corners.
5) they already receive many government benefits... a tax free status, and that is off the top of my head.
6) many religions want to recruit more members
7) many religions try to indoctrinate their members, and their potential members
8) many religions use propaganda and indoctrination to archive 1) 6), and 7)
9) it is My community to. (even if you want to disregard the fact that I pay taxes)
10) I pay taxes, taxes are used to fund schools. Churches do not have to pay taxes.
Logic (note this is English logic, and not strictly mathematical logic):
-----
because of 3, I conclude that their is an ulterior motive for wanting to be in schools.
the most likely reasons (that I can think of) are 6, 7 and 8.
because of 1 and 2 (among other things) I am wary of religions and their (ab)use of power.
because of 9 and 10, I feel that it is my right to say that 3 and 5 are enough, and if they want to do 6, 7, and 8, then they can do it with 4, just as they have always done (even if I find some of it distasteful). I do not feel that they deserve (especially given 1 and 2) to have even more (than 5 and 4) special treatment, especially since it involves the recruiting and indoctrination of the youth at an impressionable and naive age (well, at least for some of them;).
If there were to be any kind of direct involvement of churches in public schools, it should be in the form of an open minded discussion forum for all religions (and atheism), where none are 'pushed' and where tolerance is taught. Although finding people open minded enough to present all angles without letting their personal bias guide their actions is quite a challenge.
Oh, yes, and sex education, evolution, and racial equality are not a faith based (by definition without any physical evidence) subject. Not to mention the agendas behind them (preventing std transmission and underage pregnancy, furthering science, promoting awareness of racial inequities and trying to prevent their reoccurrence) are all things that I pretty much agree with and condone.
I am not opposed to the expression. I am opposed to cults recruiting on my tax dollars. They have the right to build churches, pass out pamphlets, lobby, and petition, all tax free. The fact is that many, and I dear say most , religions have a political agenda. Now, why should I have my taxes go towards their cause if I do Not agree with their message?
I do not mind debate, I do not think that religion should be a condemned word in school. But I also do not think that I should be required to fund their recruiting, indoctrination, and political forays.
These are not some poor group that has nowhere to meet, most of these religous communities have churches already, and the only reason that they want to be in the school is so that they can 'spread their word'. I seriously doubt that these groups will equally represent all religions, or even the majority of religions in the world. And will they even consider atheists? I think not.
This is not about freedom of speech. People are free to say what they want. This is about groups trying to abuse the system even further to try and get funding and permission to use our schools as recruiting and training grounds.
Just how many crusades and jihads were waged in the name of football (except perhaps during the super bowl). And how many in the name of religion.
Now, do not get me wrong, I believe very firmly that most sports are a throwback to the days of the caveman, and are used by the elite in much the same way as in the great roman empire... namely to distract the population from the problems of the day and from thinking for themselves. And sports may be a significant factor in aggression and the 'group' mentality that is a more socially acceptable form of the 'mob' or 'gang' mentality. On the other hand, it cordons them off bullies and thugs, and keeps them busy beating each others heads in. And the participants get colorful jackets that warn the rest of society that these people are closer to the missing link than they.
Seriously though, religions have directly advocated genocide, persecution, war, and oppression. This is fact. This is not a deduction, a debatable theorem, an obscure statistical probability, or an opinion. This is a fact. Men, women, and children were sent to kill and die in the crusades. The middle east sees more death than anywhere else right now. All in the name of religion. Religion is a powerful political and military tool. And I do not want them recruiting, preaching and indoctrinating on my tax dollars. Especially since many religions do not have to pay taxes, lobby for political gain, and use their power to try to push agendas that are contrary to my beliefs.
Did I mention that the nazi's oppression of the Jews was sanctioned by the catholic pope? A fact that many a catholic has tried to obfuscate and hide. There are several religions that are anti-choice, several that are anti-gay, several that are anti-woman. These are without a question a political agendas. I do not want my tax dollars supporting any (negative) -isms.
The point of this is that religions have done many things that I do not want my tax dollars to support. Even if it were not worse in my opinion, how do two wrongs (funding football and religion) make it right?
And you missed one of my essential points, which is that they have a place to gather. It is not the function of the school to provide this, it is the function of the church.
Religious organizations differ from your standard club in a few ways:
Significant amounts of people are not opposed to the chess club, and the sports clubs. Whereas religion is a hotbed of debate. I support the other clubs. I do not support using the school as a place for any political or religious group to preach, indoctrinate, or recruit.
Religious organizations have their own agenda's. While there have been few serious bids for world domination by the football club or the chess club, religions have tried (and at times succeeded) at controlling large amounts of power. And it has not always been used for good. I am not trying to cast judgment here, just trying to put forth a little perspective.
Also, many religious organizations (especially the Christian religions) put forth their morality and attempt to enforce their 'code' on others. I do not believe that this is something that I want my tax dollars going to, just as I am fairly certain that most Christian parents would not want their money going towards the Hare Krishna or the Scientologists(sp?) (or any other cults for that matter). I am fairly certain that most proponents are not talking about the Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Native American, Satanist, African (multiple), Wiccan, Chineese, Japaneese, Celtic, or any of the plethora of other religions beliefs that exist.
Why can religious groups not meet at their churches where they use (tax free) money that comes from within the religious communities that want the meeting? Seriously. Unless the idea is to recruit, or use the school as a place to indoctrinate, what reason is there to use the school?
And I feel that the use of any communal money should be agreed upon by all involved. Those that want to create special groups outside of the goverment (such as churches) are welcome to do so. Is it not enough that churches get a tax free status? Do you really think that everyone 'wants' to be involved in your religion? Do you feel that your religion is so special that others must be subjected to it and pay for it? I am sorry, but that is just on fair.
The fact is that there are many different religions and, in fact, some of us are pretty a-religious, non-religious, or even anti-religious. Thus putting one ahead of the others is discrimination and favoritism. That is why there is such a back lash against it. I am suprised that you can actually claim that there is a valid reason for it to be otherwise.
-CrackElf
This is not a mom and pop grocery store. These is the telocos and time warrner. Do not try to tell me that they are tight on making ends meet. Bummer for all of the dsl providers that dropped out. But the real reason for the failure is that the telecos were stealing from them (overcharging for the last mile, and putting roadblocks in to connecting to the customer etc.)
The only time I ever used them was to create joins between a hierarchical and a relational database (using cobal rpc's). Of course the old hierarchical db should have been trashed years ago.
The biggest advantage (that I see) is that it allows you to shift some of the work to the db engine / hardware. For instance, if you have a mainframe with a lot of extra cycles, you might want to shift some of the business logic to it instead of the transaction manager, or the client.
The speed depends on the speed of the connection, the speed of the languages being used at the various tiers of the application, and the speed of the hardware at the various tiers, as well as the load. Are they easier to use? Depends on what language they are in, and which language you know better.
So, let me get this straight, ms is blaming sun for not letting ms distribute its own proprietary, non standard version of java and trying to control the future of java (and change it to ms-java)? That is not an argument. That is a pr spin.
-CrackElf
"I mean is there a Slahdot article when Microsoft gives out a new Windows 2000 SP? Including the changes and fixes (mirrored in the comments)?"
They might, except knowledge of the SP (let alone the changes) implies a knowledge of proprietary intellectual knowledge, and you must have code ultra-violet m$ clearance to even think about pondering its existence.
The only theorem that I can postulate is that most of the (language) evangelists only know one language, and to rationalize it they try to put down other languages. Instead of "I do not use [language x] because I do not know the syntax" they say "I do not use [language x] because it is not as good as [lnaguage y] language". Ok, yes I am generalizing, but I am trying to figure out why there are so many people claiming that their language will be able to complete any and all tasks better. Maybe they are afraid that the other programmers thing is bigger.
-CrackElf
That isn't a failure of the free market; that's just the result of customers being stupid. A free market (as well as a democratic government) is only as good as the people who participate in it. Garbage in, garbage out...
Well, we (the US) are not a democracy (oh my god!). We are a representative republic or some such. Which means that instead of bribing every man, woman and child, a corp just needs to bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby a few politicians.
The people can only make descisions based on what they know. And corporations more than happy to supply people with 'facts'.
The toleration of corporate abuse of power is only valid if you assume that the duty of the government is to protect the corporations. I seem to recall something about protecting its citizens.
The point is that the free market does not do what it is touted to do. To shift the blame to the population for succumbing to the corporations very effective manipulations is not valid. People have been manipulated for centuries. There are entire departments devoted to discovering new ways of tricking, scamming, hoodwinking, lying to, cheating fast talking, and screwing every last penny out of clients and potential clients. (I call them marketing and sales). Dismissing the failings of the free market by claiming that this was in some way an unknown factor is incorrect and a sly misdirection.
/me looks suspiciously in your direction ...
Are you in marketing or sales?
Of course cost is part of it. That was my point. That costs (not to mention time to install, and other things) are artificially raised (cost of production (line leasing) is the example in this case) for companies that are not the telephone company by that telephone company. The end result being that the teleco does not have to produce a better product, they can just raise the cost for other companies to do business in their territory. Even though we are simplifing the issue and making generalizations, I believe that this argument is still valid.
As for what I addressed, I addressed the question that he/she posed. I went on the premise that Broadband and dsl are not equivalent. I should have explicitly stated that.
In my area I have two (residential) broadband choices. A cable modem (Time Werner) With the bandwidth shared, I have heard reports that it is equivilent to a 56k modem. That is not equivalent (at least in this area) to dsl. The other option is DSL from one of many providers, either bellsouth or going through bellsouth. In this case I have chosen to address the specific situation pertaining to the teleco and the question that he/she poised.
-CrackElf
Sir, your caps key is stuck. Err. If I recall correctly, the Government had to break up ma bell. Then they forced 'competition' by requiring that other services (be started... allow to be started ? IANAL, and I do not recall the exact language anyway). If that had not happened, it would still be one big bell with no competition. And, not only would they still have a distinct advantage in the dsl market, but they would be able to present a united front.
Currently I can only get dsl through either bellsouth or someone who rents from bellsouth. Those that rent from bellsouth are at a disadvantage, and thus are more likely to go under, and thus fewer people subscribe to it, and thus bellsouth has the advantage (that does not even get into the whole marketing to everyone that get gets a phone thing, again using their monopoly in one area to bolster another, thereby bypassing the whole competition thing that is supposed to make service better for the consumer.) Bellsouth also puts an artificial wait time to allow other dsl providers to install on their lines.
How can you claim that the situation will get better by itself? The only people that I have met in person who seriously propose that are employees of Bellsouth.
"What do you want or expect? Are they supposed to disallow phone companies from the DSL market?"
Yes. They have a monopoly on the phone lines, and thus can give themselves a 'better deal' on renting/ using them. That gives them an advantage that is not tied to the better quality that is the heart of the touted free market. And yes, when it comes down to it, it is hurting me, the consumer. And no, I do not want that. That should seem self evident to me.
-CrackElf
"The best way to foster this type of innovation is to get the government out and let the free market work its magic."
Well look at what happened in the OS market with microsoft... the free market and its magic. Now we have an OS that costs more than a new hard drive. I happen to get my dsl here in the states from a baby bell (bellsouth), because they make it 'easy' for you to get it from them, and hard to get it from their competitors. The result - cheap service, horrible support (i refuse to legitimize it by using the word technical, because they are about as technical as my grandmother, who is afraid of email), lots of gratuitous outages, no static ip, and lots of technical errors (I am going to change over, which, again, bs makes overly complex and difficult). My point is that when a single powerful entity that is funded from another source (in this case telephone revenue) where they have a stranglehold on the transportation medium, the free market fails. The service does not get better through competition.
-CrackElf
Wow. The propaganda show really got to you. Well, I have been creating e-commerce / dynamically driven web sites for a while now, and I have to say that there are different tools for different applications. For most jobs apache is great. If you have to run a transaction manager (with cashing / pooling), both fall short (unless you are going to write one yourself). And java, while very good at server-side html / dynamic web page generation is not the only language out there. I have seen some pretty bloated, over engineered java programs. Mostly because java is easy to learn, while good programming/engineering is not. J2EE is not really a robust web server. It is designed to support java applications. Just my 2c.
You overlook the fact that there is no essential moral distinction that can be made between this research and the research conducted by the Nazis on the Jews. It is an utter defeat for Bush to say, "Well, those babies are dead anyway." It is not fundamentally different from saying this to Mengele:
"You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
Bush revealed himself as a political opportunist with respect to this issue. This was not a decision made on the basis of any firm moral principles he allegedly holds. If he's pro-life, he sold the store; if he's not, then why any restrictions at all?
Ahh, but you can. You have pigeonholed everything into a neat little extremist view. There are different views on morality. I personally believe that a being is alive (and to some degree sentient, despite the idiocy of certain animals and humans that I have observed) if it has a functioning central nervous system (and no, you wakko's, broccoli does not count). There are many who define 'alive' with an even more extreme definition. And looser. And just different.
To state that all people have the same moral code, and that all pro-lifer's have the same moral code, and are pro-life for the same reasons is beyond unreasonable, it is insane. Try not to apply your personal beliefs to entire movements.
-CrackElf
Oh, yes, if you care about life so much, try paying attention to the abandoned and starving children that are out here now, with plenty pain and suffering instead of worrying about those that are not even born yet. How many have you taken in? Put your passion where it belongs. Help the children. Worry about the embryos once all of the ones that have already popped out are taken care of.
I do not have a viable, equitable solution to the new world views of old world rights, and I doubt that many people do. However, I personally do not think that corps should be allowed to run rampant. And niether should the basest element rule.
I think that the statement that 'When computers interfaces with our regular lives, things get messy' is not only grammatically incorrect, it is also misleading. The truth is that the 'real life' things like 'copyright' and 'intellectual property' are most often either being applied to situations that are outside of the original scope of the concept, or are corporate spins to try and reap the benefits of that which they have no inherent right to reap. It is not that computers are interfacing, it is that conventional laws and ideas are being applied, and adapted as an afterthought, to the internet. That is what is messy.
For example, what is the difference between a library buying a book and lending it out, and a website getting a document and lending it out? When what one sells can be copied, and become every bit as viable as the original, what becomes of 'property'? Does thinking of something give exclusive rights to it, and everything associated with it? What things should be considered ridiculous when 'intellectual property' rights are claimed? What rights should be policed by governing agencies, and what rights should be enforced by challange? These issues are very real, and some have as real an impact on (some of) our lives as any thing from our 'regular lives'.
Conventional ways of dealing with these issues are no longer applicable, and new ways need to be found/thought about. Sure, this at times seems like a great big ineffective bitch fest, but if the ideas are never thought about nothing will ever change. The electronic world will default to either the most profitable (for the corps, not the consumers, and thus be unfair), or, if there is no profit to be made, the option that takes the least effort. Personally, I think that there is far more potential in the internet's (and technology's) future than that.
Get a nick. they are free. I am quite willing to debate anything that I put forth on this board, but I would appreciate at least the continuity of a nick. If you dont want to debate and just want to flame, then this is kind of a pointless thread anyway. And, your over use of dramatic extremist statements without factual (even anecdotal) evidence errodes rather then supports your arguments.
Gee. You sound really tough.
I mean. You're Dad is all special forces. He must be able to beat up my dad. And you ride a motorcycle, which means you must be extremely masculine. I feel so weak now.
(if you are the same poster) the point was that I am not the 'ugly, weak, undernourished geek/nerd' that was portrayed by the first (same?) ac. The idea is to try to broaden the first ac's (your?) obviously limited experience with the world. And actually my dad did beat on a number of things and was a prime example of the kind of mentality that I despise. The very reason that I moved out in middle school.
And you use really arcane words like dojo . Obviously you spend a lot of time working on your mental training. It really shows in your post. You must spend a lot of time meditating on how you can use "my hands, chains, a broken bottle, and just about anything else that I can get my hands on" to beat up anyone who you might think is a "muscle head".
Err... dojo is not arcane. It is the name for it. I did not say that I "beat up anyone who you might think is a "muscle head"." The implication was that I used my physical abilities to defend myself, and that those that attacked were usually 'muscle heads' out looking to either a) prove themselves, or b) beat up someone who they thought was weaker than themselves. The use of chains and bottles and hands were not by my choice. It was always out of self defense. I did not learn these things in a dojo. I am in a dojo now because I find it to keep me in better mental and physical shape.
You seem to like to stereotype. As do you if you are the original ac.
There are two groups: Like-Me and Not-Like-Me. You'd be hard pressed to fit me into either. But when in doubt, you'd best just hate me, call me stupid and lump me with the frat boys you so adamantly hate. I ridicule fraternities as much as the next geek, but I am mature enough to realize that not all guys in fraternities are frat-guys. And that not all atheletes are steroid popping idiots, and that many people in the military are actually intelligent.
Now that sad. You generalize about me generalizing. Do you see the irony? do you? Yes, i generalize. And that is inherently incorrect, as not all people of a given group will fit into a stereotype excepting the situation that they are grouped by the attribute that you are stereotyping (eg: bodybuilders are muscular... at least the ones that succeed at building their body). However the generalization of 'meat head' is a grouping of ppl that share the common characteristic of the 'might makes right' mindset. I have always been of the view that right is right, and it is the duty of those that have might to protect those that do not.
As for frat boys, i have known a half dozen or maybe a dozen out of the hundreds that I have met that I consider all right. However, those are few and far between, and are most definitely the exception and not the rule. What I usually observe, to a greater or lesser degree, is that those that join a frat tend to be of the gang mentality, with out even the meager excuse of having a hard life. In fact I have noticed that people that are otherwise all right will act in ways that they profess to dislike when with their 'brothers'.
Athletes and steroids? I do not recall saying that all athletes were steroid abusers. And correct me if I am wrong, but steroids tend to alter the emotional state of a person taking them, and those most likely to take them are people with that mental state in the first place.
There are intelligent people in the military. However, it is a known fact (and the intelligent ppl in the military often draw the same conclusion) that the military indoctrinates and brainwashes its members to be able to kill and live with it. That is what they are for. If they could not do these things it would be a pretty ineffective military, would it not? (and i do not recall generalizing about the military, although I might have)
I wish I could tell you the world is as simple as you want it to be. Its easier for you to think about that way. Less complicated. You dont have to actually talk to anyone. In high school, I could have been mistaken for a jock. Now that is a long time ago, but I still don't look like a stereotypical coder.
You know nothing about what I want. You assume that I am attacking you. I am attacking a mindset that i consider negative. If you have that mindset, than yes, I am attacking you. To paraphrase dune, I put forth a general garment, and you proclaim that it was unjustly tailored to you? If you are a frat boy who does not fit the stereotype and does not want to be associated with it, then get out there and change what (most) frat boys do. Take care of your own.
Well, wake up, you childish idiot. You hate stupidity? Well, there is always going to be someone smarter than both you and I. Intelligence isn't linear, like you simple mind comprehends it. Just like the world can't be split into frat-boys and geeks, you cannot seperate smart from dumb.
Childish? ye who ac's me? There is a mentality that is common to most frat boys, that I despise. It is very similar to the mentality of gangs. It is one that glorifies going with the crowd, excluding and harming those that are different, one that looks down upon individuality, that includes living selfishly without care for the harm that it inflicts on others, and that has caused harm to many that I have personally known that never chose partake of that lifestyle.
As you most diligently pointed out, the world is not black and white, not even gray, as even morality and spirituality are varied on the individual level. I would go farther and say that the world of people is even deeper than the complexity of the full spectrum of light. However there are some things that I do not approve of that harm those that I like, that are propagated (most often) by people of a particular mindset, and from a particular background. The mindset is that of the machismo alfa male trying to prove themselves. The most common background is that of the fraternal society. I have seen evidence of this society (frat boys) condoning and even encouraging such behavior. From the very simple observation that the high occurrences of such behavior would likely not occur if it not condoned and encouraged to personal observations of contradictory behavior of individuals varying with the presence of other frat boys.
If you would have watched the show more than one episode, you would realize that Crichton often seeks to do things with as little force as necessary. Something you might think of next time you have to save a girl from a drooling frat boy.
Again with the assumptions. Actually, I liked the premise, and watched two seasons of it or so. And he has advocated unnecessary revenge and violence on more than one occasion, which, being unnecessary, is not 'as little force as necessary'. You missed the point that I am trying to make, which is that he acts like an immature person who has a serious alfa male complex and does not approach even scientific issues with a scientific mindset. His actions most often remind me of a immature frat boy who is out to prove to the world that he is bad ass shit, and has not learned that he is not, in fact, the center of the universe. I do not find him to be a believable scientist. I would take it better if the premise of the show did not revolve around him being something that he is so obviously not.
As for the amount of violence that I use to gain my objective in a given situation, you will more than likely never know, as it is unlikely that we will ever meet outside of this online debate.
-CrackElf
PS: please dont ac, if you have something to say, at least get a throw away nick to do it. AC'ing is rather annoying.
True. Although I would amend that. If the consequenses of not fighting are someone else getting hurt (ie: ignoring a rape) I will fight. I have never been in a fight where I could obtain my objective without violence. The times that I have gotten into a fight, it was either with drunken meat head frat boys who wanted to prove something by beating up a punk or when I was defending someone weaker than myself (also usualy from frat boys / meat heads).
The point was that being a geek/nerd does not preclude the ability to defend oneself or have a life. I believe that my point was made.
As for sci fi, farscape would be good if the killed off the main character, sg-sg1 is pretty cool. Dark Angle is good except for the acting by the main character. Strange World? never heard of it. Crusede, is that a bab 5 movie? Space above and beyond was good for a while, but they went stagnent and started rerunning plots.
Oh, yes, and i did forget to mention red dwarf in my original post.
-CrackElf
Slashdot Mirror
I heard a funny comment on the news last night by an economist with a huge string of credentials about bush's faith based policies. Such as his faith that the economy will recover and that the national debt will not increase (lowering taxes) ... and his faith that the environment will get better with out any commitments by governments (kyoto). Heh.
"But if "1" really describes your perception of religion
... and statements by a minister to the effect of 'aids is gods way of punishing the sodomites'. I have heard statements concerning the woman's place and/or role in society that was very non-progressive, and very 1800's-ish. I have heard non - Christian religious groups being referred to as sinners or heathens by Christians. Abortion clinic bombings that are religiously motivated are not unheard of ... and sometimes encouraged by ministers ... I have seen groups (religious) get laws passed to enforce their idea of morality on others. I have observed, read about, and heard of too much abuse of power within and by churches to be comfortable with them.
... admittedly 1, 6, 7, and 8 are generalizations, but they are valid for at least several dominant sects of Christianity. I try to see things other points of view, but what I inevitably conclude is that, even if my suppositions do not apply to them and they are perfectly benign, most religious groups already have a place to meet ... and they even have the means to 'reach' potential recruits if that is their desire.
...
"1) religions have agendas, (eg: anti-choice / anti-woman / anti-gay / anti-aids victims / anti-other religion)"
I am surprised that you have not been exposed (at least in the news) to religions that have propagated bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-other-religion-ism. I have heard an anti - gay sermons
"Your "givens" are so carefully selected/filtered"
I had not perceived any filtering
Well, you pretty much ignored the rest of my argument which is as follows:
... a tax free status, and that is off the top of my head.
what I take as givens:
-----
1) religions have agendas, (eg: anti-choice / anti-woman / anti-gay / anti-aids victims / anti-other religion)
2) religion has caused the middle east strife, contributed to the nazi pograms, and crusades/jihads. Did i forget to mention the inquisition?
3) they already have a place to meet , namely the church.
4) religions can and do pass out pamphlets, organize, lobby, organize and sponsor events, try to recruit powerful members of the government and communities, and preach on street corners.
5) they already receive many government benefits
6) many religions want to recruit more members
7) many religions try to indoctrinate their members, and their potential members
8) many religions use propaganda and indoctrination to archive 1) 6), and 7)
9) it is My community to. (even if you want to disregard the fact that I pay taxes)
10) I pay taxes, taxes are used to fund schools. Churches do not have to pay taxes.
Logic (note this is English logic, and not strictly mathematical logic):
-----
because of 3, I conclude that their is an ulterior motive for wanting to be in schools.
the most likely reasons (that I can think of) are 6, 7 and 8.
because of 1 and 2 (among other things) I am wary of religions and their (ab)use of power.
because of 9 and 10, I feel that it is my right to say that 3 and 5 are enough, and if they want to do 6, 7, and 8, then they can do it with 4, just as they have always done (even if I find some of it distasteful). I do not feel that they deserve (especially given 1 and 2) to have even more (than 5 and 4) special treatment, especially since it involves the recruiting and indoctrination of the youth at an impressionable and naive age (well, at least for some of them;).
If there were to be any kind of direct involvement of churches in public schools, it should be in the form of an open minded discussion forum for all religions (and atheism), where none are 'pushed' and where tolerance is taught. Although finding people open minded enough to present all angles without letting their personal bias guide their actions is quite a challenge.
Oh, yes, and sex education, evolution, and racial equality are not a faith based (by definition without any physical evidence) subject. Not to mention the agendas behind them (preventing std transmission and underage pregnancy, furthering science, promoting awareness of racial inequities and trying to prevent their reoccurrence) are all things that I pretty much agree with and condone.
I am not opposed to the expression. I am opposed to cults recruiting on my tax dollars. They have the right to build churches, pass out pamphlets, lobby, and petition, all tax free. The fact is that many, and I dear say most , religions have a political agenda. Now, why should I have my taxes go towards their cause if I do Not agree with their message?
I do not mind debate, I do not think that religion should be a condemned word in school. But I also do not think that I should be required to fund their recruiting, indoctrination, and political forays.
These are not some poor group that has nowhere to meet, most of these religous communities have churches already, and the only reason that they want to be in the school is so that they can 'spread their word'. I seriously doubt that these groups will equally represent all religions, or even the majority of religions in the world. And will they even consider atheists? I think not.
This is not about freedom of speech. People are free to say what they want. This is about groups trying to abuse the system even further to try and get funding and permission to use our schools as recruiting and training grounds.
Just how many crusades and jihads were waged in the name of football (except perhaps during the super bowl). And how many in the name of religion.
... namely to distract the population from the problems of the day and from thinking for themselves. And sports may be a significant factor in aggression and the 'group' mentality that is a more socially acceptable form of the 'mob' or 'gang' mentality. On the other hand, it cordons them off bullies and thugs, and keeps them busy beating each others heads in. And the participants get colorful jackets that warn the rest of society that these people are closer to the missing link than they.
Now, do not get me wrong, I believe very firmly that most sports are a throwback to the days of the caveman, and are used by the elite in much the same way as in the great roman empire
Seriously though, religions have directly advocated genocide, persecution, war, and oppression. This is fact. This is not a deduction, a debatable theorem, an obscure statistical probability, or an opinion. This is a fact. Men, women, and children were sent to kill and die in the crusades. The middle east sees more death than anywhere else right now. All in the name of religion. Religion is a powerful political and military tool. And I do not want them recruiting, preaching and indoctrinating on my tax dollars. Especially since many religions do not have to pay taxes, lobby for political gain, and use their power to try to push agendas that are contrary to my beliefs.
Did I mention that the nazi's oppression of the Jews was sanctioned by the catholic pope? A fact that many a catholic has tried to obfuscate and hide. There are several religions that are anti-choice, several that are anti-gay, several that are anti-woman. These are without a question a political agendas. I do not want my tax dollars supporting any (negative) -isms.
The point of this is that religions have done many things that I do not want my tax dollars to support. Even if it were not worse in my opinion, how do two wrongs (funding football and religion) make it right?
And you missed one of my essential points, which is that they have a place to gather. It is not the function of the school to provide this, it is the function of the church.
Religious organizations differ from your standard club in a few ways:
Significant amounts of people are not opposed to the chess club, and the sports clubs. Whereas religion is a hotbed of debate. I support the other clubs. I do not support using the school as a place for any political or religious group to preach, indoctrinate, or recruit.
Religious organizations have their own agenda's. While there have been few serious bids for world domination by the football club or the chess club, religions have tried (and at times succeeded) at controlling large amounts of power. And it has not always been used for good. I am not trying to cast judgment here, just trying to put forth a little perspective.
Also, many religious organizations (especially the Christian religions) put forth their morality and attempt to enforce their 'code' on others. I do not believe that this is something that I want my tax dollars going to, just as I am fairly certain that most Christian parents would not want their money going towards the Hare Krishna or the Scientologists(sp?) (or any other cults for that matter). I am fairly certain that most proponents are not talking about the Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Native American, Satanist, African (multiple), Wiccan, Chineese, Japaneese, Celtic, or any of the plethora of other religions beliefs that exist.
Why can religious groups not meet at their churches where they use (tax free) money that comes from within the religious communities that want the meeting? Seriously. Unless the idea is to recruit, or use the school as a place to indoctrinate, what reason is there to use the school?
"the same school taxes that you do"
And I feel that the use of any communal money should be agreed upon by all involved. Those that want to create special groups outside of the goverment (such as churches) are welcome to do so. Is it not enough that churches get a tax free status? Do you really think that everyone 'wants' to be involved in your religion? Do you feel that your religion is so special that others must be subjected to it and pay for it? I am sorry, but that is just on fair.
The fact is that there are many different religions and, in fact, some of us are pretty a-religious, non-religious, or even anti-religious. Thus putting one ahead of the others is discrimination and favoritism. That is why there is such a back lash against it. I am suprised that you can actually claim that there is a valid reason for it to be otherwise.
-CrackElf
This is not a mom and pop grocery store. These is the telocos and time warrner. Do not try to tell me that they are tight on making ends meet. Bummer for all of the dsl providers that dropped out. But the real reason for the failure is that the telecos were stealing from them (overcharging for the last mile, and putting roadblocks in to connecting to the customer etc.)
The only time I ever used them was to create joins between a hierarchical and a relational database (using cobal rpc's). Of course the old hierarchical db should have been trashed years ago.
The biggest advantage (that I see) is that it allows you to shift some of the work to the db engine / hardware. For instance, if you have a mainframe with a lot of extra cycles, you might want to shift some of the business logic to it instead of the transaction manager, or the client.
The speed depends on the speed of the connection, the speed of the languages being used at the various tiers of the application, and the speed of the hardware at the various tiers, as well as the load. Are they easier to use? Depends on what language they are in, and which language you know better.
-CrackElf
I want to play with the source files.
-CrackElf
So, let me get this straight, ms is blaming sun for not letting ms distribute its own proprietary, non standard version of java and trying to control the future of java (and change it to ms-java)? That is not an argument. That is a pr spin.
-CrackElf
"I mean is there a Slahdot article when Microsoft gives out a new Windows 2000 SP? Including the changes and fixes (mirrored in the comments)?"
They might, except knowledge of the SP (let alone the changes) implies a knowledge of proprietary intellectual knowledge, and you must have code ultra-violet m$ clearance to even think about pondering its existence.
-CrackElf
I have observed the same strange phenomena.
The only theorem that I can postulate is that most of the (language) evangelists only know one language, and to rationalize it they try to put down other languages. Instead of "I do not use [language x] because I do not know the syntax" they say "I do not use [language x] because it is not as good as [lnaguage y] language". Ok, yes I am generalizing, but I am trying to figure out why there are so many people claiming that their language will be able to complete any and all tasks better. Maybe they are afraid that the other programmers thing is bigger.
-CrackElf
Did we slashdot the new slashdot?
-CrackElf
That isn't a failure of the free market; that's just the result of customers being stupid. A free market (as well as a democratic government) is only as good as the people who participate in it. Garbage in, garbage out...
/me looks suspiciously in your direction
Well, we (the US) are not a democracy (oh my god!). We are a representative republic or some such. Which means that instead of bribing every man, woman and child, a corp just needs to bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby a few politicians.
The people can only make descisions based on what they know. And corporations more than happy to supply people with 'facts'.
The toleration of corporate abuse of power is only valid if you assume that the duty of the government is to protect the corporations. I seem to recall something about protecting its citizens.
The point is that the free market does not do what it is touted to do. To shift the blame to the population for succumbing to the corporations very effective manipulations is not valid. People have been manipulated for centuries. There are entire departments devoted to discovering new ways of tricking, scamming, hoodwinking, lying to, cheating fast talking, and screwing every last penny out of clients and potential clients. (I call them marketing and sales). Dismissing the failings of the free market by claiming that this was in some way an unknown factor is incorrect and a sly misdirection.
...
Are you in marketing or sales?
Of course cost is part of it. That was my point. That costs (not to mention time to install, and other things) are artificially raised (cost of production (line leasing) is the example in this case) for companies that are not the telephone company by that telephone company. The end result being that the teleco does not have to produce a better product, they can just raise the cost for other companies to do business in their territory. Even though we are simplifing the issue and making generalizations, I believe that this argument is still valid.
As for what I addressed, I addressed the question that he/she posed. I went on the premise that Broadband and dsl are not equivalent. I should have explicitly stated that.
In my area I have two (residential) broadband choices. A cable modem (Time Werner) With the bandwidth shared, I have heard reports that it is equivilent to a 56k modem. That is not equivalent (at least in this area) to dsl. The other option is DSL from one of many providers, either bellsouth or going through bellsouth. In this case I have chosen to address the specific situation pertaining to the teleco and the question that he/she poised.
-CrackElf
Sir, your caps key is stuck. Err. If I recall correctly, the Government had to break up ma bell. Then they forced 'competition' by requiring that other services (be started ... allow to be started ? IANAL, and I do not recall the exact language anyway). If that had not happened, it would still be one big bell with no competition. And, not only would they still have a distinct advantage in the dsl market, but they would be able to present a united front.
Currently I can only get dsl through either bellsouth or someone who rents from bellsouth. Those that rent from bellsouth are at a disadvantage, and thus are more likely to go under, and thus fewer people subscribe to it, and thus bellsouth has the advantage (that does not even get into the whole marketing to everyone that get gets a phone thing, again using their monopoly in one area to bolster another, thereby bypassing the whole competition thing that is supposed to make service better for the consumer.) Bellsouth also puts an artificial wait time to allow other dsl providers to install on their lines.
How can you claim that the situation will get better by itself? The only people that I have met in person who seriously propose that are employees of Bellsouth.
-CrackElf
"What do you want or expect? Are they supposed to disallow phone companies from the DSL market?"
Yes. They have a monopoly on the phone lines, and thus can give themselves a 'better deal' on renting/ using them. That gives them an advantage that is not tied to the better quality that is the heart of the touted free market. And yes, when it comes down to it, it is hurting me, the consumer. And no, I do not want that. That should seem self evident to me.
-CrackElf
"The best way to foster this type of innovation is to get the government out and let the free market work its magic."
... the free market and its magic. Now we have an OS that costs more than a new hard drive. I happen to get my dsl here in the states from a baby bell (bellsouth), because they make it 'easy' for you to get it from them, and hard to get it from their competitors. The result - cheap service, horrible support (i refuse to legitimize it by using the word technical, because they are about as technical as my grandmother, who is afraid of email), lots of gratuitous outages, no static ip, and lots of technical errors (I am going to change over, which, again, bs makes overly complex and difficult). My point is that when a single powerful entity that is funded from another source (in this case telephone revenue) where they have a stranglehold on the transportation medium, the free market fails. The service does not get better through competition.
Well look at what happened in the OS market with microsoft
-CrackElf
Wow. The propaganda show really got to you. Well, I have been creating e-commerce / dynamically driven web sites for a while now, and I have to say that there are different tools for different applications. For most jobs apache is great. If you have to run a transaction manager (with cashing / pooling), both fall short (unless you are going to write one yourself). And java, while very good at server-side html / dynamic web page generation is not the only language out there. I have seen some pretty bloated, over engineered java programs. Mostly because java is easy to learn, while good programming/engineering is not. J2EE is not really a robust web server. It is designed to support java applications. Just my 2c.
-CrackElf
Heh ... I did word that rather poorly.
I meant alive in that killing it would be morally reprehensible. Rather than the literal meaning of alive.
-CrackElf
You overlook the fact that there is no essential moral distinction that can be made between this research and the research conducted by the Nazis on the Jews. It is an utter defeat for Bush to say, "Well, those babies are dead anyway." It is not fundamentally different from saying this to Mengele:
"You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
Bush revealed himself as a political opportunist with respect to this issue. This was not a decision made on the basis of any firm moral principles he allegedly holds. If he's pro-life, he sold the store; if he's not, then why any restrictions at all?
Ahh, but you can. You have pigeonholed everything into a neat little extremist view. There are different views on morality. I personally believe that a being is alive (and to some degree sentient, despite the idiocy of certain animals and humans that I have observed) if it has a functioning central nervous system (and no, you wakko's, broccoli does not count). There are many who define 'alive' with an even more extreme definition. And looser. And just different.
To state that all people have the same moral code, and that all pro-lifer's have the same moral code, and are pro-life for the same reasons is beyond unreasonable, it is insane. Try not to apply your personal beliefs to entire movements.
-CrackElf
Oh, yes, if you care about life so much, try paying attention to the abandoned and starving children that are out here now, with plenty pain and suffering instead of worrying about those that are not even born yet. How many have you taken in? Put your passion where it belongs. Help the children. Worry about the embryos once all of the ones that have already popped out are taken care of.
I do not have a viable, equitable solution to the new world views of old world rights, and I doubt that many people do. However, I personally do not think that corps should be allowed to run rampant. And niether should the basest element rule.
/thought about. Sure, this at times seems like a great big ineffective bitch fest, but if the ideas are never thought about nothing will ever change. The electronic world will default to either the most profitable (for the corps, not the consumers, and thus be unfair), or, if there is no profit to be made, the option that takes the least effort. Personally, I think that there is far more potential in the internet's (and technology's) future than that.
I think that the statement that 'When computers interfaces with our regular lives, things get messy' is not only grammatically incorrect, it is also misleading. The truth is that the 'real life' things like 'copyright' and 'intellectual property' are most often either being applied to situations that are outside of the original scope of the concept, or are corporate spins to try and reap the benefits of that which they have no inherent right to reap. It is not that computers are interfacing, it is that conventional laws and ideas are being applied, and adapted as an afterthought, to the internet. That is what is messy.
For example, what is the difference between a library buying a book and lending it out, and a website getting a document and lending it out? When what one sells can be copied, and become every bit as viable as the original, what becomes of 'property'? Does thinking of something give exclusive rights to it, and everything associated with it? What things should be considered ridiculous when 'intellectual property' rights are claimed? What rights should be policed by governing agencies, and what rights should be enforced by challange? These issues are very real, and some have as real an impact on (some of) our lives as any thing from our 'regular lives'.
Conventional ways of dealing with these issues are no longer applicable, and new ways need to be found
-CrackElf
Get a nick. they are free. I am quite willing to debate anything that I put forth on this board, but I would appreciate at least the continuity of a nick. If you dont want to debate and just want to flame, then this is kind of a pointless thread anyway. And, your over use of dramatic extremist statements without factual (even anecdotal) evidence errodes rather then supports your arguments.
... dojo is not arcane. It is the name for it. I did not say that I "beat up anyone who you might think is a "muscle head"." The implication was that I used my physical abilities to defend myself, and that those that attacked were usually 'muscle heads' out looking to either a) prove themselves, or b) beat up someone who they thought was weaker than themselves. The use of chains and bottles and hands were not by my choice. It was always out of self defense. I did not learn these things in a dojo. I am in a dojo now because I find it to keep me in better mental and physical shape.
... at least the ones that succeed at building their body). However the generalization of 'meat head' is a grouping of ppl that share the common characteristic of the 'might makes right' mindset. I have always been of the view that right is right, and it is the duty of those that have might to protect those that do not.
Gee. You sound really tough.
I mean. You're Dad is all special forces. He must be able to beat up my dad. And you ride a motorcycle, which means you must be extremely masculine. I feel so weak now.
(if you are the same poster) the point was that I am not the 'ugly, weak, undernourished geek/nerd' that was portrayed by the first (same?) ac. The idea is to try to broaden the first ac's (your?) obviously limited experience with the world. And actually my dad did beat on a number of things and was a prime example of the kind of mentality that I despise. The very reason that I moved out in middle school.
And you use really arcane words like dojo . Obviously you spend a lot of time working on your mental training. It really shows in your post. You must spend a lot of time meditating on how you can use "my hands, chains, a broken bottle, and just about anything else that I can get my hands on" to beat up anyone who you might think is a "muscle head".
Err
You seem to like to stereotype.
As do you if you are the original ac.
There are two groups: Like-Me and Not-Like-Me. You'd be hard pressed to fit me into either. But when in doubt, you'd best just hate me, call me stupid and lump me with the frat boys you so adamantly hate.
I ridicule fraternities as much as the next geek, but I am mature enough to realize that not all guys in fraternities are frat-guys. And that not all atheletes are steroid popping idiots, and that many people in the military are actually intelligent.
Now that sad. You generalize about me generalizing. Do you see the irony? do you? Yes, i generalize. And that is inherently incorrect, as not all people of a given group will fit into a stereotype excepting the situation that they are grouped by the attribute that you are stereotyping (eg: bodybuilders are muscular
As for frat boys, i have known a half dozen or maybe a dozen out of the hundreds that I have met that I consider all right. However, those are few and far between, and are most definitely the exception and not the rule. What I usually observe, to a greater or lesser degree, is that those that join a frat tend to be of the gang mentality, with out even the meager excuse of having a hard life. In fact I have noticed that people that are otherwise all right will act in ways that they profess to dislike when with their 'brothers'.
Athletes and steroids? I do not recall saying that all athletes were steroid abusers. And correct me if I am wrong, but steroids tend to alter the emotional state of a person taking them, and those most likely to take them are people with that mental state in the first place.
There are intelligent people in the military. However, it is a known fact (and the intelligent ppl in the military often draw the same conclusion) that the military indoctrinates and brainwashes its members to be able to kill and live with it. That is what they are for. If they could not do these things it would be a pretty ineffective military, would it not? (and i do not recall generalizing about the military, although I might have)
I wish I could tell you the world is as simple as you want it to be. Its easier for you to think about that way. Less complicated. You dont have to actually talk to anyone. In high school, I could have been mistaken for a jock. Now that is a long time ago, but I still don't look like a stereotypical coder.
You know nothing about what I want. You assume that I am attacking you. I am attacking a mindset that i consider negative. If you have that mindset, than yes, I am attacking you. To paraphrase dune, I put forth a general garment, and you proclaim that it was unjustly tailored to you? If you are a frat boy who does not fit the stereotype and does not want to be associated with it, then get out there and change what (most) frat boys do. Take care of your own.
Well, wake up, you childish idiot. You hate stupidity? Well, there is always going to be someone smarter than both you and I. Intelligence isn't linear, like you simple mind comprehends it. Just like the world can't be split into frat-boys and geeks, you cannot seperate smart from dumb.
Childish? ye who ac's me? There is a mentality that is common to most frat boys, that I despise. It is very similar to the mentality of gangs. It is one that glorifies going with the crowd, excluding and harming those that are different, one that looks down upon individuality, that includes living selfishly without care for the harm that it inflicts on others, and that has caused harm to many that I have personally known that never chose partake of that lifestyle.
As you most diligently pointed out, the world is not black and white, not even gray, as even morality and spirituality are varied on the individual level. I would go farther and say that the world of people is even deeper than the complexity of the full spectrum of light. However there are some things that I do not approve of that harm those that I like, that are propagated (most often) by people of a particular mindset, and from a particular background. The mindset is that of the machismo alfa male trying to prove themselves. The most common background is that of the fraternal society. I have seen evidence of this society (frat boys) condoning and even encouraging such behavior. From the very simple observation that the high occurrences of such behavior would likely not occur if it not condoned and encouraged to personal observations of contradictory behavior of individuals varying with the presence of other frat boys.
If you would have watched the show more than one episode, you would realize that Crichton often seeks to do things with as little force as necessary. Something you might think of next time you have to save a girl from a drooling frat boy.
Again with the assumptions. Actually, I liked the premise, and watched two seasons of it or so. And he has advocated unnecessary revenge and violence on more than one occasion, which, being unnecessary, is not 'as little force as necessary'. You missed the point that I am trying to make, which is that he acts like an immature person who has a serious alfa male complex and does not approach even scientific issues with a scientific mindset. His actions most often remind me of a immature frat boy who is out to prove to the world that he is bad ass shit, and has not learned that he is not, in fact, the center of the universe. I do not find him to be a believable scientist. I would take it better if the premise of the show did not revolve around him being something that he is so obviously not.
As for the amount of violence that I use to gain my objective in a given situation, you will more than likely never know, as it is unlikely that we will ever meet outside of this online debate.
-CrackElf
PS: please dont ac, if you have something to say, at least get a throw away nick to do it. AC'ing is rather annoying.
True. Although I would amend that. If the consequenses of not fighting are someone else getting hurt (ie: ignoring a rape) I will fight. I have never been in a fight where I could obtain my objective without violence. The times that I have gotten into a fight, it was either with drunken meat head frat boys who wanted to prove something by beating up a punk or when I was defending someone weaker than myself (also usualy from frat boys / meat heads).
The point was that being a geek/nerd does not preclude the ability to defend oneself or have a life. I believe that my point was made.
As for sci fi, farscape would be good if the killed off the main character, sg-sg1 is pretty cool. Dark Angle is good except for the acting by the main character. Strange World? never heard of it. Crusede, is that a bab 5 movie? Space above and beyond was good for a while, but they went stagnent and started rerunning plots.
Oh, yes, and i did forget to mention red dwarf in my original post.
-CrackElf