I do not consder American Pop Religion or American Folk Religion to be Christianity.
Then what do you consider to be "Christianity"? Seriously, I've asked this question of every Christian I know, and I've never received a consistent answer. What does one have to do to be a "Christian"?
I feel like fewerthan 5% of the population has the patience and intelligence to sit down and actuall think through what Christianity really teaches and perform appropriate reality checks. To flippantly deny all aspects of someone else's beliefs because you disagree with some of thier points is to deny yourself the opportunity of having your thought process challenged.
And what does Christianity "really" teach? It depends on if you read Jesus or Paul, doesn't it? What do Jesus and Paul respectively say about whether or not the Old Law is still in effect?
I think I am in the 5% that you mention. I know the Bible much better than most Christians do.
At this point, I think anyone has an ice cube's chance in hell of changing any of my main points of belief, but I still am willing, and even enjoy, talking to others abouttheir beliefs.
No one can change your main points or the minor points of your beliefs. You, and only you, decide what you believe and what you do not. Myself, I do not believe that the Bible is the word of a divine and perfect being, and I have exhaustive evidence to back up my belief. All of it comes from scripture itself.
Likewise, experimntal science can not answer "why" questions.
Such as "why does it rain?" Science does answer "why" questions. I think what you meant to write is, "Science does not answer questions such as 'why are we here?'" What if the only reason we are here is to procreate?
People from all kinds of religions (including Christianity and Atheism)
The only people which claim (read: lie) that atheism is a "religion" are religious people. Looks suspicious, doesn't it?
Even St. Augustene (one of the most respected Biblical Scolars of all time) wrote essays back before the middle ages arguing that the Bible could not be claiming the earth was created in a litteral 6 days.
Who cares what St. Augustene claimed? The Bible states that the earth was created in six days. Period. You have no biblical evidence to refute this claim. All you can do is try and play with the word "day."
Feel free to email me to have your beliefs challenged.
Barking commands at people is not going to get them to change their minds or their behavior. Perhaps it might have been lost on some, but my post was intended to be funny. That said, I hate the fact that people use the word "gay" to mean "stupid," "poor-quality," "unfair," or any other negative term. How should I combat this?
What I won't do is complain and whine about how "offended" I am. That never works. What I will do is dialog with people and ask them, "Is this really what you mean?" I think many people throw the word "gay" around like a cheap whore primarily because they have no gay friends or family (that they know of). Once people realize that their words have meaning and impact on other people, then they usually change their minds.
And if they don't, then they're just bigots and get added to the killfile.
It stands to be said again and again: You have no right to not be offended.
n a country with 260+ million people, you have to accept some regulation
How much regulation is acceptable?
and if a government is going to keep 50,000 (or more) John Smiths straight
What does it mean to "keep John Smiths straight"?
Re:The "Grandma Argument"
on
PVR For Linux
·
· Score: 1
Look pal, I'm sorry you hate your grandma.
It is not my grandma but your argument that I find odious!;)
The "Grandma Argument"
on
PVR For Linux
·
· Score: 2
Unless your grandma can build one of these, I wouldn't count on them replacing TiVos or Replays anytime soon.
Why does "your grandma" always get hauled out as the poster-child for technical dipshits in a effort to prove that the learning curve for some new technology is too high?
Why not just argue, "The learning curve for this new technology is too high" and give your reasons why? There's really no need to slander someone else's grandma.
Is anyone else besides me getting tired of this "grandma argument"?
Face it, with a few exceptions, the Open Source community is focused on creating a product, not on creating a secure product.
You speak as if "the Open Source community" is a cohesive and organized group. They are not. This "open Source Community" that you speak of is awfully hard to define, consisting of many different people in different countries and speaking different languages with many different opinions and different ideologies. Have you read the debates between the BSD proponents and the GPL proponents? Given how different they are, would you still group the two in this so-called "Open Source community"? Do you not realize that many of the people you may be putting in that camp take issue with the very term "open source"?
And what product is "the Open Source community" focused on creating? Fact is, these people are creating multiple different products, ranging from small applications to programming languages to full-featured office suites to entire operating systems. Some of them are highly focused on being secure. Some are not. You seem to be grouping all of them under an "unsecure" umbrella, and this is not only inaccurate, but insulting to those who do focus on security.
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but the open source community, as a whole, doesnt do much in the way of code audits.
This is a fairly arrogant statement for you to make. How would you know, anyway?
"Fraud" is a good word for the password analogy, but only if the password were used to fool someone. What if, instead, it were used to gain access to your system?
"Trespassing," perhaps?:) I think this should still fall under the category of fraud, since the intruder is representing him/herself as someone that they are not (namely, an authorized individual). Does that sound fair, if not legal?
"Conversion" is a good word for the larger topic of unauthorized use of your hardware.
Interesting! "Conversion" seems to be kind of a vague word. It's used, for instance, in marketing companies to show how many "eyeballs" get turned into sales. Is it used here to refer to someone else "converting" your hardware for an unauthorized use?
Your computer system and your CPU are your property. They are physical, tangible objects that you paid money for. Companies using your property for reasons that you didn't authorize, through subterfuge, are clearly in violation of your property rights.
I agree with you, and it raises more questions.
<devil's advocate>Suppose I don't like pop-up ads when I view web pages. They distract me from the task at hand and waste my cpu cycles. Is this a violation of my property rights, since another company is using my property for a reason that I did not authorize?</devil's advocate>
if information is not property - you probably wouldn't mind telling my your passwords, pin codes and bank account information? after all, that information doesn't belong to you, right?
Good point! I certainly would not want you to have that information.
At the same time, if you did manage to acquire that information, I cannot rightly call it "stolen" since no property is missing. I cannot see how something can be called "property" if it cannot be stolen.
Perhaps the true crime is fraud, since your use of that information would constitute what is incorrectly called "identity theft" (which is truly fraud). Is it truly a crime for someone to have your password if they never use it? Not that I endorse or condone having others' passwords without explicit permission, I just want to raise the question.
I've long maintained that I do not think that information is property, and I therefore can't agree with things like Intellectual Property laws.
This post raises some interesting thoughts: are my computer's CPU cycles and my system's stability my "property"? Do companies have a right to infringe on those things? Do I have a right to sue if other companies infringe on those things without my explicit permission?
Don't mod me up; I just want to see the discussion that ensues.:)
Let me first say that I love Linux and hate Windows. I use Linux at home and I program in Linux at work.
That said, I fully understand why someone would prefer Microsoft OSes to Linux:
Any computer hardware you buy will have drivers and (usually mediocre) GUI configuration tools written for Microsoft OSes the moment that the hardware is released. The same can not be said for Linux and probably never will be.
How do you install software in Linux? If it involves more than double-clicking setup.exe, then it's inferior in many people's eyes.
Why do fonts in Linux look so ugly? Why can't they look good out-of-the-box?
"Why can't I run my (name your favorite windoze application here) on Linux?" Why should people be forced to learn completely new programs when they're already familiar with their existing programs?
I'm not saying that I agree with any of these points. Obviously they don't bother me too much, or else I wouldn't be such a die-hard Linux fan. At the same time, there are many parts of Linux that appeal to me that *don't* appeal to other people (such as being able to be intimately familiar with many parts of how your computer runs). So such benefits are lost.
I know that there are groups of people who are working to address the problems I've listed above. But it probably won't happen fast enough for many if not most people. And even then, apathy and technical inferiority (many people still think their monitor is the "computer" and the case with their motherboard and other internal computer components is the "hard drive") will still prevent many people from switching.
I'm not trying to make excuses. I think this is just the way it is.
Whatever. Do you know how fookin' stupid you sound?
Certainly less than you do. Your use of slang such as "cuz" and "fookin'" and your dismissal of arguments with the churlish "whatever" stands testament to that. Improving your vocabulary and grammar would do wonders for your argument. As is, you come off like a young, immature, arrogant punk.
Do you even know anything about Jello Biafra?
Yes, I used to be a big DK fan back in the days when I was young and used to know everything. And I know of his spoken word albums as well. I decided it would be a waste of my time to listen to them since everything that seems to come out of his mouth is decidedly leftist.
May I turn the tables and ask if you know anything about Harry Browne or Barry Goldwater?
The Libertarian approach is to let capitalists use law (and therefore "the deadly force of government") as a crutch to prop up their exploitation of the land and workers,
No, it isn't. Perhaps you should read about the Libertarian party before you spout off about it. Furthermore, define "exploit." I guarantee you can't define it without some kind moralism slipping in there.
I don't know why I even bother to vote
Because lawmakers routinely make laws that govern your freedoms. You are an idiot if you don't vote.
all business executives now considered royalty, workers are of course "free" to work their ass to the bone in factories that poison their neighborhoods for 80 hours a week.
More inaccurate garbage. Perhaps reading up on the Libertarians' position on environmental issues would be helpful to you.
I don't understand where you get the idea that the government is the savior of the "working man." Do you ignore the fact that 180 million people have been killed by their own governments in the past 100 years?
did you Libertarians have anyone that cool? Well? Cuz unless you can see the Greens one Jello and maybe raise them a Larry Flynt forget it!
It's not the job of a person running for positions of power to be "cool." The fact that you yearn for someone with celebrity status rather than someone who is intelligent and principled to head your political party and also use this as some kind of basis for judging the merits of political parties makes you look stupid and immature.
I'll keep voting for people who care about the social good but have enough brains to respect freedom of speech and private decisions.
Define "social good." How is it any different from "that which is moral"? In this regard, Greens and other leftists are very much like the Right-wing fundamentalists: both want to use the deadly force of government to enact that which is moral.
Hm... and if you don't need a license to operate a fork, why should you be required to have a license to operate a car?
In the USA, you do not need a license to operate a car. It is perfectly legal to drive a car without a driver's license provided you are on private property. The license is required only when you venture out on to public roads in your automobile.
The most significant software company
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft is, for better or worse, the most significant software company in the world.
I disagree. I think the most significant software company in the world is IBM. Certaintly they don't have the marketing flash and the notoriety that Microsoft has, but their mainframes are used in many more mission-critical applications than any of Microsoft's software is, and probably ever will be. Banks, financial institutions, airlines, multimillion-dollar corporations, almost all of them rely on the mainframe to stay in business. In most if not all cases, the permanent crashing of every Microsoft PC in a IBM mainframe shop would be a minor annoyance compared to the mainframe failing. Whether or not you can check your email on Microsoft Outlook or complete your presentation on Microsoft Powerpoint is insigificant compared to whether or not you can sell things, for instance.
You assume that one kings reign began immediately upon his father's death.
If there was another ruler who ruled between then please show me the evidence with scripture to support your argument. Or, if there was a period between the two where there was no ruler, then please show me that evidence with scripture to support your argument.
or it's not translated right
Are you suggesting that the scores and teams of hebrew scholars who translated the KJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, and NKJV were wrong? By what authority do you do this?
or the record is just wrong as you suggest
Perhaps you should see more evidence before you jump to that conclusion. Are you interested? I can show you more.
Interested in another perspective? Why I believe the Bible. [geocities.com] Not really built on the science/evolution issues; more on history.
First of all, please change the background color of your web page!
Second, if you want a historical perspective on the Bible, examine these verses (a few of *many* such examples):
"Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem 8 years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings" (2 Chron. 21:20)
and "the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead.... So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign...." (1 Chron. 22:1-2).
If Jehoram began to reign at age 32 and ruled 8 years, then he died at age 40. Yet, his son took over at age 42. The son was two years older than the father!
Care to see more?
I guess I'll prepare to get modded into oblivion for my beliefs, now.:)
I won't mod you down, but I'm happy to debate you on the issue of whether or not scripture is inerrant. The fact that all of the creationists' arguments are total crap if scripture is not inerrant is certainly not lost on me.
I've seen situations where the non-creationists passed off some lies, too, so people and human nature are pretty much the same wherever you go.
Yet you give no such examples of the lies that non-creationists have passed off. Remember, the creationists are saying of evolutionists, "All of your theories, observations, deductions, and calculations are completely wrong! Furthermore, the dead rises from the grave, sticks turn into snakes, and donkeys can talk!" I believe that the terms "honorable" and "honest" can much more frequently be attributed to the evolutionists than to the creationists.
Heh...been out of town awhile. Caught up on the thread, and decided to catch up on a few issues. First off, I will apologize for the excessive flamage - I was posting in Having A Bad Day mode, and after reading n arguments where posters took the lack of evidence for CO2 warming as evidence of a lack of warming, I was somewhat fussy. Therefore, I apologize for treating you like a moron.
Apology accepted. Remember, we all have bad days. It's no excuse to lose your patience and be deliberately insulting.
I felt you would be web-savvy enough to click on the "climate data" link and look at the "archived data" link contained therein. But you didn't look, so here's the full URL:
I am web-savvy enough, and my time is valuable to me. What I am looking for is a web page that says, "Here is the data that shows how individual behavior is responsible for global warming." How would I have known to find that by clicking on the links you mentioned? "Climate data" does not equal "Individual actions are causing global warming," nor does it imply as much. In fact, next you write:
Notice that this page does not provide hints as to what causes warming, it only shows there exists warming.
In other words, it would have been a waste of my time.
As of yet, I have not been shown any data that suggests that individual behaviors are responsible for global warming.
That being said, I personally am not convinced either way - there's too much natural climate change to look at as well -
It sounds like you agree with me more than you were originally willing to admit. Did my use of the word "leftist" strike a nerve in you?
but I am not willing to let my political beliefs make my arguments for me, as you are so willing to do
You have it backwards. I am arguing for data and for evidence and for science. It is the leftists who are making this a political issue, while I am merely saying, "Show me the data." I notice you still can't stop making this personal, despite your apology. I'm willing to talk about data and science. You seem interested in talking about me.
See above quote. That's the statement that set me off (and BTW, got me into "post flame" mode:)
It is you, not I, who was responsible for your "post flame" mode. And what I was demanding was data, something which you have yet to give to me. And I am specifically asking for data that shows that individual behaviors are responsible for global warming.
What really pissed me off the most, I'll say, is the willingness of people to either blindly condemn (or blindly agree) with political and economic positions (or skepticism, however you define it) on what is fundamentally a scientific issue.
I totally agree!
When the Rush-Dittos and the Greenies start defining what the whole of humanity gets to research, and what is verboten, then we're heading for trouble.
I totally agree! But I am most certainly not a "Rush-Ditto." I am a person who expects reason and evidence to be convinced.
*sigh* No, I don't. But neither will treating you like an intelligent, informed citizen, I think.
I don't ask that you treat me as an intelligent, informed citizen. I ask that you treat me with kindness and respect.
Furthermore, I don't care if you believe in my "point of view" or not
Then why waste time debating with me? Don't you have better things to do, particularly considering that you asked me to "get a life" earlier?
Fortunately, you seem to care about facts. I look for that in people, and if it appears that they want to believe in hard evidence, but occasionally take a detour in political errantry, I flame 'em. Sometimes too hard.:)
Flaming people is a waste of your time. Nothing good comes of it.
I just wanted to point out that using endless "ad whatever" statements and political rhetoric are as unconvincing as the "leftist" hot air you so evidently despise.
Making "ad whatever" statments is not done in an effort to be convincing. It's an effort to show how another's argument is invalid, and thus unconvincing. The burden of proof lies on she/he who alleges. If you want to try and convince me that individual behavior causes global warming, then you better do it with reason and evidence, not ad hominem, ad numeram, or ad whatever arguments.
I will, BTW, check out the site you mentioned - and from one who professes the same desire for Truth, I expect nothing less.
I hope that you would.:)
Warning: I deliberately ignored some of your points (like the "ad vericundum" argument) because frankly, they're offtopic.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that it was a point that you could not refute, so you decided to ignore it. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. I promise that I will always try and respond to your points, even if I feel they are offtopic.
But I will reply to intelligent debate sans political windage. Call me a "leftist" and you'll be ignored.
I have never called you a leftist. I don't think I've called you anything. I'm interested in how you think, not what you are or claim to be.
And thus, I am interested in continuing the conversation. Perhaps email?
I'm going to respond to both of your posts in one post.
I don't agree with you there. That would mean that laws and public policy don't change with changing public perception.
And this is precisely the case in the United States. Laws and public policy do not change with changing public perception. They change when congress decides to vote on a bill. This is because the US is NOT a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. If the US were really a Democracy, as the popular Leftist lie goes, then you and I and every citizen in the US would be voting on every bill. I maintain that Democracy is "All citizens vote, and the majority wins."
Well, it was obviously made in the context of democratic procedure. Ad numeram in this case is the majority of voters.
And this is precisely why I think Democracy is a lousy form of government. It bases laws on ad numeram arguments, which are, by definition, invalid.
Well, I did make two examples of two extreme ends of opinion. You can pick either one to respond to if you like. It was an attempt at discussing the issue in abstract terms.
I'd much rather you define "negative impact" so that you can explain to me what your argument means. The problem with your argument is that you are, admittedly, arguing in "abstract terms" to try and influence a concrete reality. In other words, you're using glittering generalities rather than any relevent data as reasons for wanting to limit others' freedoms.
The santa anecdote wasn't related to you really, it was just something funny I was reminded of when I saw the frequent mentions of "leftist".
If your anecdote was not related to me, then what was it that reminded you of the story? I'm guessing it was, well, me that reminded you of the story. How else can I take this except as a way for you to link me to some moron somewhere? Furthermore, what does it have to do with global warming and individual behavior?
It seemed from previous comments that you would rather run the risk of a failing biosphere than a failing world economy.
Since you haven't yet defined what a "failing biosphere" is, I don't know what you're talking about. And I'm not trying to protect the world economy. I'm trying to protect individual freedom.
You are obviously a reasonable person, and I didn't think there were any reasonable people on the other side of this argument. That's why I did the comparison with Creationism.
Thank you for the compliment, I try very hard to be reasonable. I am human, and it isn't always easy. To be frank, I have the same prejudices as you regarding the "global warming" camp: that there are no reasonable people on that side.
I'm more of a social libertarian/economic progressive mix.
Sounds pretty leftist to me. What exactly does "progressive" mean in this sense? I'm guessing it means that you think government should take property from high-income earners and give it to low-income earners.
I found it humorous that you were critizing someone else for politicizing the issue in light of what you yourself was basing your argument on.
I admit that it looks hypocritical, but it is not.
I don't agree that freedom is something objective that we can all agree on. Religious conservatives might argue that they aren't free until they can have prayers out loud in public school, while a civil libertarian might find that prayer in public school would infringe on their freedom not to practice any religion.
Freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Do you agree or disagree with that definition? It comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I believe that the only things that the government should make illegal are those activities that deprive another of life, liberty, or property. Do you agree with that, or are there other individual activities that you'd like to see made illegal?
And yes, I know that Christians have an invalid view of "freedom." The facts that there are a lot of them who believe in their invalid version of freedom or that they do so for religious reasons are irrelevent. If they had their way, then they would gleefully use the deadly force of the state to enforce their religious views (a whole bunch of "thou shalt nots") on the general public. I.e., less freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
...and everything just *works*.
This is one of the most oft-repeated lies in modern computing.
I do not consder American Pop Religion or American Folk Religion to be Christianity.
Then what do you consider to be "Christianity"? Seriously, I've asked this question of every Christian I know, and I've never received a consistent answer. What does one have to do to be a "Christian"?
I feel like fewerthan 5% of the population has the patience and intelligence to sit down and actuall think through what Christianity really teaches and perform appropriate reality checks. To flippantly deny all aspects of someone else's beliefs because you disagree with some of thier points is to deny yourself the opportunity of having your thought process challenged.
And what does Christianity "really" teach? It depends on if you read Jesus or Paul, doesn't it? What do Jesus and Paul respectively say about whether or not the Old Law is still in effect?
I think I am in the 5% that you mention. I know the Bible much better than most Christians do.
At this point, I think anyone has an ice cube's chance in hell of changing any of my main points of belief, but I still am willing, and even enjoy, talking to others abouttheir beliefs.
No one can change your main points or the minor points of your beliefs. You, and only you, decide what you believe and what you do not. Myself, I do not believe that the Bible is the word of a divine and perfect being, and I have exhaustive evidence to back up my belief. All of it comes from scripture itself.
Likewise, experimntal science can not answer "why" questions.
Such as "why does it rain?" Science does answer "why" questions. I think what you meant to write is, "Science does not answer questions such as 'why are we here?'" What if the only reason we are here is to procreate?
People from all kinds of religions (including Christianity and Atheism)
The only people which claim (read: lie) that atheism is a "religion" are religious people. Looks suspicious, doesn't it?
Even St. Augustene (one of the most respected Biblical Scolars of all time) wrote essays back before the middle ages arguing that the Bible could not be claiming the earth was created in a litteral 6 days.
Who cares what St. Augustene claimed? The Bible states that the earth was created in six days. Period. You have no biblical evidence to refute this claim. All you can do is try and play with the word "day."
Feel free to email me to have your beliefs challenged.
If it's offensive, stop it.
Barking commands at people is not going to get them to change their minds or their behavior. Perhaps it might have been lost on some, but my post was intended to be funny. That said, I hate the fact that people use the word "gay" to mean "stupid," "poor-quality," "unfair," or any other negative term. How should I combat this?
What I won't do is complain and whine about how "offended" I am. That never works. What I will do is dialog with people and ask them, "Is this really what you mean?" I think many people throw the word "gay" around like a cheap whore primarily because they have no gay friends or family (that they know of). Once people realize that their words have meaning and impact on other people, then they usually change their minds.
And if they don't, then they're just bigots and get added to the killfile.
It stands to be said again and again: You have no right to not be offended.
Instead of posting stories about Microsoft and its gayness
Pardon me, sir, but I am gay, and I certainly take offense to being likened to anything Microsoft-ish.
n a country with 260+ million people, you have to accept some regulation
How much regulation is acceptable?
and if a government is going to keep 50,000 (or more) John Smiths straight
What does it mean to "keep John Smiths straight"?
Look pal, I'm sorry you hate your grandma.
;)
It is not my grandma but your argument that I find odious!
Unless your grandma can build one of these, I wouldn't count on them replacing TiVos or Replays anytime soon.
Why does "your grandma" always get hauled out as the poster-child for technical dipshits in a effort to prove that the learning curve for some new technology is too high?
Why not just argue, "The learning curve for this new technology is too high" and give your reasons why? There's really no need to slander someone else's grandma.
Is anyone else besides me getting tired of this "grandma argument"?
Face it, with a few exceptions, the Open Source community is focused on creating a product, not on creating a secure product.
You speak as if "the Open Source community" is a cohesive and organized group. They are not. This "open Source Community" that you speak of is awfully hard to define, consisting of many different people in different countries and speaking different languages with many different opinions and different ideologies. Have you read the debates between the BSD proponents and the GPL proponents? Given how different they are, would you still group the two in this so-called "Open Source community"? Do you not realize that many of the people you may be putting in that camp take issue with the very term "open source"?
And what product is "the Open Source community" focused on creating? Fact is, these people are creating multiple different products, ranging from small applications to programming languages to full-featured office suites to entire operating systems. Some of them are highly focused on being secure. Some are not. You seem to be grouping all of them under an "unsecure" umbrella, and this is not only inaccurate, but insulting to those who do focus on security.
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but the open source community, as a whole, doesnt do much in the way of code audits.
This is a fairly arrogant statement for you to make. How would you know, anyway?
If you don't trust your government, then fine. Why do you trust the corporations then?
Because corporations, unlike government, do not have the legal right to use deadly force to achieve their goals.
"Fraud" is a good word for the password analogy, but only if the password were used to fool someone. What if, instead, it were used to gain access to your system?
:) I think this should still fall under the category of fraud, since the intruder is representing him/herself as someone that they are not (namely, an authorized individual). Does that sound fair, if not legal?
"Trespassing," perhaps?
"Conversion" is a good word for the larger topic of unauthorized use of your hardware.
Interesting! "Conversion" seems to be kind of a vague word. It's used, for instance, in marketing companies to show how many "eyeballs" get turned into sales. Is it used here to refer to someone else "converting" your hardware for an unauthorized use?
He made no attempt to gain the information through fraudulent means. He merely asked for it. Looks like you parent poster's point stands.
But what if he tries to use that information posing as me? Is that not fraud also? IANAL, of course...
Your computer system and your CPU are your property. They are physical, tangible objects that you paid money for. Companies using your property for reasons that you didn't authorize, through subterfuge, are clearly in violation of your property rights.
I agree with you, and it raises more questions.
<devil's advocate>Suppose I don't like pop-up ads when I view web pages. They distract me from the task at hand and waste my cpu cycles. Is this a violation of my property rights, since another company is using my property for a reason that I did not authorize?</devil's advocate>
if information is not property - you probably wouldn't mind telling my your passwords, pin codes and bank account information? after all, that information doesn't belong to you, right?
Good point! I certainly would not want you to have that information.
At the same time, if you did manage to acquire that information, I cannot rightly call it "stolen" since no property is missing. I cannot see how something can be called "property" if it cannot be stolen.
Perhaps the true crime is fraud, since your use of that information would constitute what is incorrectly called "identity theft" (which is truly fraud). Is it truly a crime for someone to have your password if they never use it? Not that I endorse or condone having others' passwords without explicit permission, I just want to raise the question.
I've long maintained that I do not think that information is property, and I therefore can't agree with things like Intellectual Property laws.
:)
This post raises some interesting thoughts: are my computer's CPU cycles and my system's stability my "property"? Do companies have a right to infringe on those things? Do I have a right to sue if other companies infringe on those things without my explicit permission?
Don't mod me up; I just want to see the discussion that ensues.
That said, I fully understand why someone would prefer Microsoft OSes to Linux:
I'm not saying that I agree with any of these points. Obviously they don't bother me too much, or else I wouldn't be such a die-hard Linux fan. At the same time, there are many parts of Linux that appeal to me that *don't* appeal to other people (such as being able to be intimately familiar with many parts of how your computer runs). So such benefits are lost.
I know that there are groups of people who are working to address the problems I've listed above. But it probably won't happen fast enough for many if not most people. And even then, apathy and technical inferiority (many people still think their monitor is the "computer" and the case with their motherboard and other internal computer components is the "hard drive") will still prevent many people from switching.
I'm not trying to make excuses. I think this is just the way it is.
Whatever. Do you know how fookin' stupid you sound?
Certainly less than you do. Your use of slang such as "cuz" and "fookin'" and your dismissal of arguments with the churlish "whatever" stands testament to that. Improving your vocabulary and grammar would do wonders for your argument. As is, you come off like a young, immature, arrogant punk.
Do you even know anything about Jello Biafra?
Yes, I used to be a big DK fan back in the days when I was young and used to know everything. And I know of his spoken word albums as well. I decided it would be a waste of my time to listen to them since everything that seems to come out of his mouth is decidedly leftist.
May I turn the tables and ask if you know anything about Harry Browne or Barry Goldwater?
The Libertarian approach is to let capitalists use law (and therefore "the deadly force of government") as a crutch to prop up their exploitation of the land and workers,
No, it isn't. Perhaps you should read about the Libertarian party before you spout off about it. Furthermore, define "exploit." I guarantee you can't define it without some kind moralism slipping in there.
I don't know why I even bother to vote
Because lawmakers routinely make laws that govern your freedoms. You are an idiot if you don't vote.
all business executives now considered royalty, workers are of course "free" to work their ass to the bone in factories that poison their neighborhoods for 80 hours a week.
More inaccurate garbage. Perhaps reading up on the Libertarians' position on environmental issues would be helpful to you.
I don't understand where you get the idea that the government is the savior of the "working man." Do you ignore the fact that 180 million people have been killed by their own governments in the past 100 years?
did you Libertarians have anyone that cool? Well? Cuz unless you can see the Greens one Jello and maybe raise them a Larry Flynt forget it!
It's not the job of a person running for positions of power to be "cool." The fact that you yearn for someone with celebrity status rather than someone who is intelligent and principled to head your political party and also use this as some kind of basis for judging the merits of political parties makes you look stupid and immature.
I'll keep voting for people who care about the social good but have enough brains to respect freedom of speech and private decisions.
Define "social good." How is it any different from "that which is moral"? In this regard, Greens and other leftists are very much like the Right-wing fundamentalists: both want to use the deadly force of government to enact that which is moral.
Hm... and if you don't need a license to operate a fork, why should you be required to have a license to operate a car?
In the USA, you do not need a license to operate a car. It is perfectly legal to drive a car without a driver's license provided you are on private property. The license is required only when you venture out on to public roads in your automobile.
Microsoft is, for better or worse, the most significant software company in the world.
I disagree. I think the most significant software company in the world is IBM. Certaintly they don't have the marketing flash and the notoriety that Microsoft has, but their mainframes are used in many more mission-critical applications than any of Microsoft's software is, and probably ever will be. Banks, financial institutions, airlines, multimillion-dollar corporations, almost all of them rely on the mainframe to stay in business. In most if not all cases, the permanent crashing of every Microsoft PC in a IBM mainframe shop would be a minor annoyance compared to the mainframe failing. Whether or not you can check your email on Microsoft Outlook or complete your presentation on Microsoft Powerpoint is insigificant compared to whether or not you can sell things, for instance.
You assume that one kings reign began immediately upon his father's death.
If there was another ruler who ruled between then please show me the evidence with scripture to support your argument. Or, if there was a period between the two where there was no ruler, then please show me that evidence with scripture to support your argument.
or it's not translated right
Are you suggesting that the scores and teams of hebrew scholars who translated the KJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, and NKJV were wrong? By what authority do you do this?
or the record is just wrong as you suggest
Perhaps you should see more evidence before you jump to that conclusion. Are you interested? I can show you more.
Interested in another perspective? Why I believe the Bible. [geocities.com] Not really built on the science/evolution issues; more on history.
:)
First of all, please change the background color of your web page!
Second, if you want a historical perspective on the Bible, examine these verses (a few of *many* such examples):
"Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem 8 years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings" (2 Chron. 21:20)
and "the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead.... So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign...." (1 Chron. 22:1-2).
If Jehoram began to reign at age 32 and ruled 8 years, then he died at age 40. Yet, his son took over at age 42. The son was two years older than the father!
Care to see more?
I guess I'll prepare to get modded into oblivion for my beliefs, now.
I won't mod you down, but I'm happy to debate you on the issue of whether or not scripture is inerrant. The fact that all of the creationists' arguments are total crap if scripture is not inerrant is certainly not lost on me.
I've seen situations where the non-creationists passed off some lies, too, so people and human nature are pretty much the same wherever you go.
Yet you give no such examples of the lies that non-creationists have passed off. Remember, the creationists are saying of evolutionists, "All of your theories, observations, deductions, and calculations are completely wrong! Furthermore, the dead rises from the grave, sticks turn into snakes, and donkeys can talk!" I believe that the terms "honorable" and "honest" can much more frequently be attributed to the evolutionists than to the creationists.
loundry
2000
at
yahoo
dot
com
it's just a matter of scale.
But remember: evil increases exponentially, not linearally, with the size of the corporation.
Heh...been out of town awhile. Caught up on the thread, and decided to catch up on a few issues. First off, I will apologize for the excessive flamage - I was posting in Having A Bad Day mode, and after reading n arguments where posters took the lack of evidence for CO2 warming as evidence of a lack of warming, I was somewhat fussy. Therefore, I apologize for treating you like a moron.
:)
:)
:)
Apology accepted. Remember, we all have bad days. It's no excuse to lose your patience and be deliberately insulting.
I felt you would be web-savvy enough to click on the "climate data" link and look at the "archived data" link contained therein. But you didn't look, so here's the full URL:
I am web-savvy enough, and my time is valuable to me. What I am looking for is a web page that says, "Here is the data that shows how individual behavior is responsible for global warming." How would I have known to find that by clicking on the links you mentioned? "Climate data" does not equal "Individual actions are causing global warming," nor does it imply as much. In fact, next you write:
Notice that this page does not provide hints as to what causes warming, it only shows there exists warming.
In other words, it would have been a waste of my time.
As of yet, I have not been shown any data that suggests that individual behaviors are responsible for global warming.
That being said, I personally am not convinced either way - there's too much natural climate change to look at as well -
It sounds like you agree with me more than you were originally willing to admit. Did my use of the word "leftist" strike a nerve in you?
but I am not willing to let my political beliefs make my arguments for me, as you are so willing to do
You have it backwards. I am arguing for data and for evidence and for science. It is the leftists who are making this a political issue, while I am merely saying, "Show me the data." I notice you still can't stop making this personal, despite your apology. I'm willing to talk about data and science. You seem interested in talking about me.
See above quote. That's the statement that set me off (and BTW, got me into "post flame" mode
It is you, not I, who was responsible for your "post flame" mode. And what I was demanding was data, something which you have yet to give to me. And I am specifically asking for data that shows that individual behaviors are responsible for global warming.
What really pissed me off the most, I'll say, is the willingness of people to either blindly condemn (or blindly agree) with political and economic positions (or skepticism, however you define it) on what is fundamentally a scientific issue.
I totally agree!
When the Rush-Dittos and the Greenies start defining what the whole of humanity gets to research, and what is verboten, then we're heading for trouble.
I totally agree! But I am most certainly not a "Rush-Ditto." I am a person who expects reason and evidence to be convinced.
*sigh* No, I don't. But neither will treating you like an intelligent, informed citizen, I think.
I don't ask that you treat me as an intelligent, informed citizen. I ask that you treat me with kindness and respect.
Furthermore, I don't care if you believe in my "point of view" or not
Then why waste time debating with me? Don't you have better things to do, particularly considering that you asked me to "get a life" earlier?
Fortunately, you seem to care about facts. I look for that in people, and if it appears that they want to believe in hard evidence, but occasionally take a detour in political errantry, I flame 'em. Sometimes too hard.
Flaming people is a waste of your time. Nothing good comes of it.
I just wanted to point out that using endless "ad whatever" statements and political rhetoric are as unconvincing as the "leftist" hot air you so evidently despise.
Making "ad whatever" statments is not done in an effort to be convincing. It's an effort to show how another's argument is invalid, and thus unconvincing. The burden of proof lies on she/he who alleges. If you want to try and convince me that individual behavior causes global warming, then you better do it with reason and evidence, not ad hominem, ad numeram, or ad whatever arguments.
I will, BTW, check out the site you mentioned - and from one who professes the same desire for Truth, I expect nothing less.
I hope that you would.
Warning: I deliberately ignored some of your points (like the "ad vericundum" argument) because frankly, they're offtopic.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that it was a point that you could not refute, so you decided to ignore it. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. I promise that I will always try and respond to your points, even if I feel they are offtopic.
But I will reply to intelligent debate sans political windage. Call me a "leftist" and you'll be ignored.
I have never called you a leftist. I don't think I've called you anything. I'm interested in how you think, not what you are or claim to be.
And thus, I am interested in continuing the conversation. Perhaps email?
I'm going to respond to both of your posts in one post.
I don't agree with you there. That would mean that laws and public policy don't change with changing public perception.
And this is precisely the case in the United States. Laws and public policy do not change with changing public perception. They change when congress decides to vote on a bill. This is because the US is NOT a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. If the US were really a Democracy, as the popular Leftist lie goes, then you and I and every citizen in the US would be voting on every bill. I maintain that Democracy is "All citizens vote, and the majority wins."
Well, it was obviously made in the context of democratic procedure. Ad numeram in this case is the majority of voters.
And this is precisely why I think Democracy is a lousy form of government. It bases laws on ad numeram arguments, which are, by definition, invalid.
Well, I did make two examples of two extreme ends of opinion. You can pick either one to respond to if you like. It was an attempt at discussing the issue in abstract terms.
I'd much rather you define "negative impact" so that you can explain to me what your argument means. The problem with your argument is that you are, admittedly, arguing in "abstract terms" to try and influence a concrete reality. In other words, you're using glittering generalities rather than any relevent data as reasons for wanting to limit others' freedoms.
The santa anecdote wasn't related to you really, it was just something funny I was reminded of when I saw the frequent mentions of "leftist".
If your anecdote was not related to me, then what was it that reminded you of the story? I'm guessing it was, well, me that reminded you of the story. How else can I take this except as a way for you to link me to some moron somewhere? Furthermore, what does it have to do with global warming and individual behavior?
It seemed from previous comments that you would rather run the risk of a failing biosphere than a failing world economy.
Since you haven't yet defined what a "failing biosphere" is, I don't know what you're talking about. And I'm not trying to protect the world economy. I'm trying to protect individual freedom.
You are obviously a reasonable person, and I didn't think there were any reasonable people on the other side of this argument. That's why I did the comparison with Creationism.
Thank you for the compliment, I try very hard to be reasonable. I am human, and it isn't always easy. To be frank, I have the same prejudices as you regarding the "global warming" camp: that there are no reasonable people on that side.
I'm more of a social libertarian/economic progressive mix.
Sounds pretty leftist to me. What exactly does "progressive" mean in this sense? I'm guessing it means that you think government should take property from high-income earners and give it to low-income earners.
I found it humorous that you were critizing someone else for politicizing the issue in light of what you yourself was basing your argument on.
I admit that it looks hypocritical, but it is not.
I don't agree that freedom is something objective that we can all agree on. Religious conservatives might argue that they aren't free until they can have prayers out loud in public school, while a civil libertarian might find that prayer in public school would infringe on their freedom not to practice any religion.
Freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Do you agree or disagree with that definition? It comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I believe that the only things that the government should make illegal are those activities that deprive another of life, liberty, or property. Do you agree with that, or are there other individual activities that you'd like to see made illegal?
And yes, I know that Christians have an invalid view of "freedom." The facts that there are a lot of them who believe in their invalid version of freedom or that they do so for religious reasons are irrelevent. If they had their way, then they would gleefully use the deadly force of the state to enforce their religious views (a whole bunch of "thou shalt nots") on the general public. I.e., less freedom.