The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.
I recommend you read "The Lucifer Principle," a book on evolutionary sociobiology. If you're coming from a non-religious background, then you'll probably have less of a morally queasy feeling when reading it than I did. One of the core arguments in the book is that humans innately wish to form groups, downplay the flaws of their own members, demonize the flaws of their rivals, and unite around a shared mythology of the inherent superiority of their chosen peer group. It's instinctual pack behavior inherited from our pre-human ancestors.
None of us are immune to it, and removing all religion will simply result in the use of other no less potent methods of justification -- nationalism, racism, class warfare, etc. The Communist Revolution in Russia is a good example of an atheist movement that demonized its enemies on non-religious grounds. Religion isn't the problem. It's operating on an instinctual xenophobia instead of rational tolerance that is, and you know very well that people can be rational and religious and can be irrational and irreligious at the same time.
I'm tired of trying to play legitimately, having bots always stealing my kills.:(
I was wondering why anyone cared before I read that line. It seems to me that a tool that gets you out of the grind so that you can focus on the fun parts of a game is just adding value, but if the bots are engaging in actively anti-social behavior, then that's another thing entirely.
The bill passed 91-5 in the Senate. The only people to vote against it were some of the strongest anti-corruption, anti-railroading Senators in the country -- McCain, Feingold, Leahy, Wellstone, and Simon. When it was taken over to the House, it was passed after only an hour and a half with minimal discussion 414-16.
Now, in case you aren't aware, that's a veto-proof majority. I doubt Clinton was willing to tilt at windmills over it.
A group of investors wanting to take private some of the largest media companies at high prices and willing to accept large debt for it? I kind of wonder what they expect to get out of it. This kind of a media consolidation at a loss smells of political and not financial motives to me, and I have to wonder if someone's not trying to be the next Rupert Murdoch.
As others have mentioned the author and title of the story you're looking for, I'd just like to chip in that, in a similar vein, "Blood Music" by Greg Bear is also quite good. It's about a guy who invents intelligent white blood cells and injects himself with them.
Ummm... I don't know if you're really unaware of the counter-argument here, but this has nothing to do with heating or not. The plain and simple fact is that DNA does not interact with light at microwave/radiowave frequencies. Therefore DNA can't get damaged by cell phone radiation.
It's definitely true that DNA cannot be directly damaged by microwave radiation, but can microwaves catalyze a reaction that can lead to increased rates of DNA damage through other mechanisms that normally exist in the cell?
For example, I'm aware of at least one study that shows how alternating magnetic fields can damage DNA. You may tell yourself -- quite reasonably -- that magnetism has no effect on DNA since DNA is non-magnetic and be right, but it does have an effect on iron ions in the cell, which can catalyze the creation of peroxide in the cell which can damage DNA. So, even though magnetism cannot directly damage DNA and cause cancer, it can affect other systems that can. Read more here.
Now the big question, which we haven't found and answer to, is whether or not low levels of microwave radiation can similarly affect a process that can damage DNA. Research into the safety of cell phones produces contradictory results, and no one has found a mechanism, like Dr. Lai's above, to explain the increase in DNA strand breakage found in some research results. Barring a mechanism, it's mostly a battle between independent and industry-funded researchers over whether actual DNA damage occurs or not and whether it's more than the body can naturally handle or not.
Considering what tofu products vegetarians have deluded themselves into thinking taste like bacon, cheese, hamburger, etc., I'm guessing that cannibals would probably find it offensive and just kill and eat you as a substitute if you offered it to them.
The supposed "linux lovers" were really Windows haters who didn't know how to make Linux usable.
Or, they were people who primarily surfed Slashdot when slacking off at work where they had no control over the OS of their machine and who did other things in the evening when they were on their home machines.
Most people in the US have no knowledge at all of what's going on in Venezuela, so a phrase like "Latin American dictator" plays into their prejudices, it's a serious smear that doesn't look like a smear.
Yeah, but from 1999-2002 Chavez WAS a dictator. Now he's a wannabe dictator who got backed down by his people once and is now boiling the frog a little slower.
What do you think about people who go off ranting about how Bush is a Fasicist?
I think they're technically accurate. Bush's governing style is not Nazism. It's not Italian Fascism. It's not Spanish Facism. It's a new style of Fascism -- a uniquely American type. I'd call Bush "Facist Lite." The most glaring differences are a lack of racism and of internal purges and a doublethink embracing of reduction and strengthening of government power instead of the classic, straightforward statist worship.
However, a trust of strong authority and disregard for checks on executive power, an obsession with national security, a romanticism of traditional values and evocation of "shared values," nationalism, militarism, a desire to project power internationally and a disregard of diplomatic compromise, demonizing of pacifists, collusion with large business and disregard of labor, cronyism, appointment of people to positions based on ideological purity over qualifications, etc. all fit the Fascist ethos.
I think that Bush has philosophical kinship to Fascism, but he's not the same as the German, Italian, Spanish, etc. Fascists that have come before, and he certainly doesn't proudly declare himself to be one like they did. He hasn't rounded up enemies or instituted purges of Muslims, he hasn't declared martial law, and he will certainly step down in 2008 when his term is up. "Fascist" may have too many other connotations with genocide, abolishment of democracy, and cults of personality, and Bush doesn't really have those last three -- certainly not in quantities comparable to the leaders of the early half of the 20th century. However, "Fascist" is the closest term we have.
[T]here was a spate of commentators hammering away at the party line: "Hugo Chavez" = "South American dictator" (despite the fact that the guy is a popular, elected figure...)
Bush was elected and popular for most of his term. Does that mean he's immune to any criticism that his administration has taken a dictatorial path? Popularly elected doesn't mean jack to many of us if you don't treat all of the people fairly. Many of the world's worst dictators enjoyed support at home.
Chavez has a fanatical politcal base for doing honest good work for the poor people of Venezuela, but it's also undeniable that many of the steps he has taken in his administration have been of a very authoritarian bent and that he keeps company with some of the worst regimes in the world including states like Belarus. (Forget Castro, his praise for Lukashenko is more disturbing to me.)
Take a look at his history. Chavez rose to prominence after attemping a violent coup and spending a few years in jail before winning the popular vote years later on an anti-corruption and anti-poverty platform. However, in 1999 he had the constitution rewritten, declared states of emergency that let him kick out judges he didn't like, and barred the legislature from meeting -- effectively assuming dicatorial power. This rule by fiat only stopped in 2002 when the country fell into riots and the military refused to take action against the rioters.
Following the "coup", Chavez was reinstituted into power when his successor didn't get enough backing. After two petition drives to have him removed, he was reelected in an election that was reported to have several irregularities and expanded the legislature to pack it with supporters in an election that the opposition parties largely boycotted and that had only 25% turnout.
He's also clamped down on the free press by getting legislation passed that allows jail time for people that "insult" the government, engaged in court packing and removed judges that ruled against him, and he has an almost cult-like following of supporters that he rallies largely by focusing hate against the US and his opponents.
Married? Kids? I'm still running girlfriend 5.0 since I'd heard the upgrades to wife 1.0 came with so many problems I'd stick with what already works for me.:-P
Yeah... I miss the 90s too. They had the best jokes then, didn't they?
Funny you should mention that...
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Funny you should mention that when he's essentially soliciting anecdotal evidence in favor of his thesis by asking for people to tell their own stories.
He's not taking a representative sample group and testing whether or not his thesis is true but is instead trying to find data points that agree with his thesis and ignoring the context of how many others disagree with it. It's not exactly scientifically rigorous work so much as an attempt to find other people to reassure him that he's normal, and that's it's less his fault than if there was no correlation.
This is the sort of quality control and fact-checking that a real editor would be responsible for doing -- to make sure that a quote, taken out of context, doesn't give the exact opposite impression of its intention.
Usually, the only place you get away with that is partisan political hackery and other arenas where winning an argument is more important that presenting facts. Of course, here, I believe Hanlon's Razor applies.
Hmm, was it wrong? I believe that, according to your religious beliefs, it was right. I mean, Jesus himself could have stopped it, but didn't because it was God's plan for him to die. If it was wrong that Jesus died, then God would have been wrong. We can't have that now, can we?
Actually, that all depends on how you approach theodicy, the question of the problem of evil. Is it possible to be evil and follow God's will at the same time? If so, then the murder of Jesus was an evil act. If not, then it wasn't.
The question comes down to whether or not evil serves a purpose in creation and how much of that purpose is directed by God and how much is in spite of God. Personally, I believe that it is possible for events to be foretold by God and to happen at the urgings of evil without God approving of the evil itself. (e.g. Promoting suffering to attempt to fulfill prophecy and bring about the End Times is not a virtuous act.)
Of course, you and I both know that the original poster wasn't using "wrong" in the sense of "evil" so much as "incorrect," which is what he is hinting that modern day executions can sometimes be. Think of all the people executed and then exonerated after their deaths by DNA evidence.
Now why is this important? because you obviously are getting something backwards. In 1998 representative Fox from pennsylvania stated that a released murderer was five times more likley to be re-arested for murder then other prisoners in general poulation. That's five times more likley to recommit the crime they already served time for then someone who just robbed a bank or cheated on thier taxes. Sounds a little more significant then 5%.
I know I get all my facts from politicians instead of eggheads! Boy, howdy, that's where the truth is!
The fact that the Democrats are so eager for felons to vote, and so angry over ballots which are not at all difficult to understand, reveals something: apparently they believe that criminals and cretins vote disproportionately Democratic...
It's a bit of a chicken and the egg sort of problem. It's not that criminals are more likely to vote Democrat so much as its that segments of the population the produce more criminals (or that are disproportionately prosecuted) tend to vote Democratic -- that is, the minority poor.
It's poverty that link the two. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes. Poor people are also more likely to vote for politicians that will promote policies to elevate them out of poverty.
People who are not poor will vote against policies that ask them to sacrifice to better their worse off brothers. They often consider laws that prevent said worse off brothers from voting in their favor to be a good thing. After all, the poor are just "criminals and cretins," and their voting for policies that the dominant people oppose is just yet another sign of their moral and intellectual inferiority, right?
In essence laws to strip felons of the right to vote help ensure that the people trapped in poverty stay trapped because they do not have the proportional power to vote in their best interests, thus reinforcing the vicious cycle that keeps black America economically in the back seat of the bus.
One last note: If laws to strip felons of voting rights aren't meant for blacks, then why are they disproportionately still found on the books of former slave states?
Wide spread institutionalized racism in the South is long dead. Why must you continue to judge us by something that hasn't existed for over 20 years?
The key word in your statement being true is "institutionalized," though people here are arguing that laws stripping felons of voting rights continue on as an institutional legacy of racism. Heck, it's not even that unofficial, if you look back to the 2000 election in Florida. Note one eye-popping stat there -- 31% of black males cannot vote because of this law, and black voters voted 93% for Al Gore. Imagine what 31% more black male voters would've done in a state decided by a few hundred votes.
Also, living in Georgia and hearing the stirrings of continued discontent of white Southerners over the flag issue, the anger over immigration, and the current rhetoric over voter ID, I can tell you that racism is still widespread if not as up-front and brazen as it used to be. I've seen mass racism first hand in high school, and it's left its marks on me ever since then.
Look up the costs of office space per square foot per month sometime and tell me that they're not pushing off costs on you or the owners of whatever space you choose to occupy. Personally, I can't work from home well and wouldn't be happy if someone forced it on me to save a buck.
Slashdot Mirror
The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.
I recommend you read "The Lucifer Principle," a book on evolutionary sociobiology. If you're coming from a non-religious background, then you'll probably have less of a morally queasy feeling when reading it than I did. One of the core arguments in the book is that humans innately wish to form groups, downplay the flaws of their own members, demonize the flaws of their rivals, and unite around a shared mythology of the inherent superiority of their chosen peer group. It's instinctual pack behavior inherited from our pre-human ancestors.
None of us are immune to it, and removing all religion will simply result in the use of other no less potent methods of justification -- nationalism, racism, class warfare, etc. The Communist Revolution in Russia is a good example of an atheist movement that demonized its enemies on non-religious grounds. Religion isn't the problem. It's operating on an instinctual xenophobia instead of rational tolerance that is, and you know very well that people can be rational and religious and can be irrational and irreligious at the same time.
I'm tired of trying to play legitimately, having bots always stealing my kills. :(
I was wondering why anyone cared before I read that line. It seems to me that a tool that gets you out of the grind so that you can focus on the fun parts of a game is just adding value, but if the bots are engaging in actively anti-social behavior, then that's another thing entirely.
The bill passed 91-5 in the Senate. The only people to vote against it were some of the strongest anti-corruption, anti-railroading Senators in the country -- McCain, Feingold, Leahy, Wellstone, and Simon. When it was taken over to the House, it was passed after only an hour and a half with minimal discussion 414-16.
Now, in case you aren't aware, that's a veto-proof majority. I doubt Clinton was willing to tilt at windmills over it.
Note: Anti-trust enforcement is entirely the province of the executive branch.
A group of investors wanting to take private some of the largest media companies at high prices and willing to accept large debt for it? I kind of wonder what they expect to get out of it. This kind of a media consolidation at a loss smells of political and not financial motives to me, and I have to wonder if someone's not trying to be the next Rupert Murdoch.
Considering the only female protagonist in Taxi Driver, I'm guessing that this wedding was in Canada?
As others have mentioned the author and title of the story you're looking for, I'd just like to chip in that, in a similar vein, "Blood Music" by Greg Bear is also quite good. It's about a guy who invents intelligent white blood cells and injects himself with them.
Ummm ... I don't know if you're really unaware of the counter-argument here, but this has nothing to do with heating or not. The plain and simple fact is that DNA does not interact with light at microwave/radiowave frequencies. Therefore DNA can't get damaged by cell phone radiation.
It's definitely true that DNA cannot be directly damaged by microwave radiation, but can microwaves catalyze a reaction that can lead to increased rates of DNA damage through other mechanisms that normally exist in the cell?
For example, I'm aware of at least one study that shows how alternating magnetic fields can damage DNA. You may tell yourself -- quite reasonably -- that magnetism has no effect on DNA since DNA is non-magnetic and be right, but it does have an effect on iron ions in the cell, which can catalyze the creation of peroxide in the cell which can damage DNA. So, even though magnetism cannot directly damage DNA and cause cancer, it can affect other systems that can. Read more here.
Now the big question, which we haven't found and answer to, is whether or not low levels of microwave radiation can similarly affect a process that can damage DNA. Research into the safety of cell phones produces contradictory results, and no one has found a mechanism, like Dr. Lai's above, to explain the increase in DNA strand breakage found in some research results. Barring a mechanism, it's mostly a battle between independent and industry-funded researchers over whether actual DNA damage occurs or not and whether it's more than the body can naturally handle or not.
Considering what tofu products vegetarians have deluded themselves into thinking taste like bacon, cheese, hamburger, etc., I'm guessing that cannibals would probably find it offensive and just kill and eat you as a substitute if you offered it to them.
Because you're a misanthrope?
The supposed "linux lovers" were really Windows haters who didn't know how to make Linux usable.
Or, they were people who primarily surfed Slashdot when slacking off at work where they had no control over the OS of their machine and who did other things in the evening when they were on their home machines.
You mean we have -- in our very genes -- the code for crystalline creatures that can directly convert matter to energy?
Cool!
(Man, I loved Andromeda Strain right up until the last 10% of the book, and then I grew to hate it intensely.)
- The GPU
- The Cell processor
- The highly clocked Rambus XDR DRAM
IO devices like the hard drive and the Blu Ray drive are peanuts compared to those.Most people in the US have no knowledge at all of what's going on in Venezuela, so a phrase like "Latin American dictator" plays into their prejudices, it's a serious smear that doesn't look like a smear.
Yeah, but from 1999-2002 Chavez WAS a dictator. Now he's a wannabe dictator who got backed down by his people once and is now boiling the frog a little slower.
What do you think about people who go off ranting about how Bush is a Fasicist?
I think they're technically accurate. Bush's governing style is not Nazism. It's not Italian Fascism. It's not Spanish Facism. It's a new style of Fascism -- a uniquely American type. I'd call Bush "Facist Lite." The most glaring differences are a lack of racism and of internal purges and a doublethink embracing of reduction and strengthening of government power instead of the classic, straightforward statist worship.
However, a trust of strong authority and disregard for checks on executive power, an obsession with national security, a romanticism of traditional values and evocation of "shared values," nationalism, militarism, a desire to project power internationally and a disregard of diplomatic compromise, demonizing of pacifists, collusion with large business and disregard of labor, cronyism, appointment of people to positions based on ideological purity over qualifications, etc. all fit the Fascist ethos.
I think that Bush has philosophical kinship to Fascism, but he's not the same as the German, Italian, Spanish, etc. Fascists that have come before, and he certainly doesn't proudly declare himself to be one like they did. He hasn't rounded up enemies or instituted purges of Muslims, he hasn't declared martial law, and he will certainly step down in 2008 when his term is up. "Fascist" may have too many other connotations with genocide, abolishment of democracy, and cults of personality, and Bush doesn't really have those last three -- certainly not in quantities comparable to the leaders of the early half of the 20th century. However, "Fascist" is the closest term we have.
[T]here was a spate of commentators hammering away at the party line: "Hugo Chavez" = "South American dictator" (despite the fact that the guy is a popular, elected figure...)
Bush was elected and popular for most of his term. Does that mean he's immune to any criticism that his administration has taken a dictatorial path? Popularly elected doesn't mean jack to many of us if you don't treat all of the people fairly. Many of the world's worst dictators enjoyed support at home.
Chavez has a fanatical politcal base for doing honest good work for the poor people of Venezuela, but it's also undeniable that many of the steps he has taken in his administration have been of a very authoritarian bent and that he keeps company with some of the worst regimes in the world including states like Belarus. (Forget Castro, his praise for Lukashenko is more disturbing to me.)
Take a look at his history. Chavez rose to prominence after attemping a violent coup and spending a few years in jail before winning the popular vote years later on an anti-corruption and anti-poverty platform. However, in 1999 he had the constitution rewritten, declared states of emergency that let him kick out judges he didn't like, and barred the legislature from meeting -- effectively assuming dicatorial power. This rule by fiat only stopped in 2002 when the country fell into riots and the military refused to take action against the rioters.
Following the "coup", Chavez was reinstituted into power when his successor didn't get enough backing. After two petition drives to have him removed, he was reelected in an election that was reported to have several irregularities and expanded the legislature to pack it with supporters in an election that the opposition parties largely boycotted and that had only 25% turnout.
He's also clamped down on the free press by getting legislation passed that allows jail time for people that "insult" the government, engaged in court packing and removed judges that ruled against him, and he has an almost cult-like following of supporters that he rallies largely by focusing hate against the US and his opponents.
If that isn't a dictator, then what is?
This may seem like a stupid question, but how else did we go from HTML 1.0 to 4.01 without the standard being 'incrementally evolved'?
Well, it sure as heck wasn't through intelligent design!
Married? Kids? I'm still running girlfriend 5.0 since I'd heard the upgrades to wife 1.0 came with so many problems I'd stick with what already works for me. :-P
Yeah... I miss the 90s too. They had the best jokes then, didn't they?
Funny you should mention that when he's essentially soliciting anecdotal evidence in favor of his thesis by asking for people to tell their own stories.
He's not taking a representative sample group and testing whether or not his thesis is true but is instead trying to find data points that agree with his thesis and ignoring the context of how many others disagree with it. It's not exactly scientifically rigorous work so much as an attempt to find other people to reassure him that he's normal, and that's it's less his fault than if there was no correlation.
This is the sort of quality control and fact-checking that a real editor would be responsible for doing -- to make sure that a quote, taken out of context, doesn't give the exact opposite impression of its intention.
Usually, the only place you get away with that is partisan political hackery and other arenas where winning an argument is more important that presenting facts. Of course, here, I believe Hanlon's Razor applies.
Hmm, was it wrong? I believe that, according to your religious beliefs, it was right. I mean, Jesus himself could have stopped it, but didn't because it was God's plan for him to die. If it was wrong that Jesus died, then God would have been wrong. We can't have that now, can we?
Actually, that all depends on how you approach theodicy, the question of the problem of evil. Is it possible to be evil and follow God's will at the same time? If so, then the murder of Jesus was an evil act. If not, then it wasn't.
The question comes down to whether or not evil serves a purpose in creation and how much of that purpose is directed by God and how much is in spite of God. Personally, I believe that it is possible for events to be foretold by God and to happen at the urgings of evil without God approving of the evil itself. (e.g. Promoting suffering to attempt to fulfill prophecy and bring about the End Times is not a virtuous act.)
Of course, you and I both know that the original poster wasn't using "wrong" in the sense of "evil" so much as "incorrect," which is what he is hinting that modern day executions can sometimes be. Think of all the people executed and then exonerated after their deaths by DNA evidence.
Now why is this important? because you obviously are getting something backwards. In 1998 representative Fox from pennsylvania stated that a released murderer was five times more likley to be re-arested for murder then other prisoners in general poulation. That's five times more likley to recommit the crime they already served time for then someone who just robbed a bank or cheated on thier taxes. Sounds a little more significant then 5%.
I know I get all my facts from politicians instead of eggheads! Boy, howdy, that's where the truth is!
The fact that the Democrats are so eager for felons to vote, and so angry over ballots which are not at all difficult to understand, reveals something: apparently they believe that criminals and cretins vote disproportionately Democratic...
It's a bit of a chicken and the egg sort of problem. It's not that criminals are more likely to vote Democrat so much as its that segments of the population the produce more criminals (or that are disproportionately prosecuted) tend to vote Democratic -- that is, the minority poor.
It's poverty that link the two. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes. Poor people are also more likely to vote for politicians that will promote policies to elevate them out of poverty.
People who are not poor will vote against policies that ask them to sacrifice to better their worse off brothers. They often consider laws that prevent said worse off brothers from voting in their favor to be a good thing. After all, the poor are just "criminals and cretins," and their voting for policies that the dominant people oppose is just yet another sign of their moral and intellectual inferiority, right?
In essence laws to strip felons of the right to vote help ensure that the people trapped in poverty stay trapped because they do not have the proportional power to vote in their best interests, thus reinforcing the vicious cycle that keeps black America economically in the back seat of the bus.
One last note: If laws to strip felons of voting rights aren't meant for blacks, then why are they disproportionately still found on the books of former slave states?
Wide spread institutionalized racism in the South is long dead. Why must you continue to judge us by something that hasn't existed for over 20 years?
The key word in your statement being true is "institutionalized," though people here are arguing that laws stripping felons of voting rights continue on as an institutional legacy of racism. Heck, it's not even that unofficial, if you look back to the 2000 election in Florida. Note one eye-popping stat there -- 31% of black males cannot vote because of this law, and black voters voted 93% for Al Gore. Imagine what 31% more black male voters would've done in a state decided by a few hundred votes.
Also, living in Georgia and hearing the stirrings of continued discontent of white Southerners over the flag issue, the anger over immigration, and the current rhetoric over voter ID, I can tell you that racism is still widespread if not as up-front and brazen as it used to be. I've seen mass racism first hand in high school, and it's left its marks on me ever since then.
"Natural Gas" is usually interpreted to mean something other that just any gas that occurs in nature, like hydrogen sulfide.
Look up the costs of office space per square foot per month sometime and tell me that they're not pushing off costs on you or the owners of whatever space you choose to occupy. Personally, I can't work from home well and wouldn't be happy if someone forced it on me to save a buck.