[blink] Oh, I see... no, I was actually pointing at the same conclusion as you, but in much more abridged language:)
To wander down a tangent... I don't think we have any way to know if ANY religion (or purported religion) actually offers salvation, so whether they're "socially acceptable" (which I'd further qualify as whether they reasonably balance what good and harm they do, as *perceived* by average people of other religious persuasions) is really the only useful criterion.
A lot of fringe and minority religions may be socially acceptable since they don't truly do any harm, and may occasionally do good, or cause their adherents to become better people, as perceived by society at large. Conversely, the only good thing I can attribute to Co$, and that only very indirectly (in fact it's kept as separate as possible, only linked through Bridge Publications), are the Writers/Artists of the Future competitions, which have brought a number of excellent new authors and artists into published SF. Otherwise, I can't think of a single way in which they've improved society or the lives of their members. (Unless you consider enabling schizophrenia a benefit.) So... net fail for the "appearance of being socially acceptable" criterion.
Good point about al Qaeda. If they don't behave like proper military (which is to say, follow the accepted conventions of warfare) then I agree they are behaving as common criminals and should be treated as such, not as legitimate soldiers.
Likewise... if Co$ doesn't behave as a proper religion (which is to say, at least attempting to be a net benefit to their adherents and to society at large) then I see no reason why we should accord it any appearance of legitimacy by lumping it in with or comparing it to socially-acceptable religions. However, comparing it to other pyramid schemes is probably a valid approach.;)
So... new discussion! How does Co$ compare to Amway, or whatever other major pyramid schemes are out there that fail to come to mind at the moment..??
Our cracked four-pounders made an awful din, but with one fat ball... ooops.
Which made me wonder why some other enterprising types aren't offering an armed escort service in the affected shipping lanes?? (Given that as others have pointed out, there *are* reasons why most nonmilitary vessels are unarmed.) You'd think paying an escort would be a LOT cheaper than paying ransom!
Hell, we could all have our own countries if we'd been born a few centuries earlier, and had the resources to carve 'em out. Doesn't make any of us the New Messiah either!
Anyway, I think my point was that it's a non-point re whether Co$ is legit or not, let alone whether the Vatican is.
Might be this one has nothing left to lose. That's probably the ideal situation for fighting a cult -- if they can't hurt you (other than killing you).
My understanding is that they claim membership for anyone who ever takes a class, and I'd guess they probably extend that to anyone whose name they can acquire by any means whatever.
I'd generalize it even further: every cent that isn't directly spent on "good works" should be taxed. This would get rid of tax cheating conspiracies like Co$ and H$U$.
Actually, I've thought about resurrecting my old 286 (built in 1988, I think) for writing, because I was a lot more productive on it than anything before or since.
I've noticed that handwriting and typing seem to use different pathways in the brain. Handwriting seems to use the same pathways as speech, while typing bypasses that entirely. If someone has a tendency to stutter, typing seems to make it worse (probably increases the existing short circuit).
Hence each method doubtless produces a different type of creativity, and one or the other may be easier for certain people.
There was one romance author (I forget her name) who dictated all her books to an assistant. She'd lie on her couch and the words just flowed from her mouth.
It is a different experience, and I think produces a different type of writing. One thing I'e noticed is that since the computer era, many people edit only in 25 line chunks, never thinking in terms of whole pages. You can really see this when a typing author first switches to the computer.
From the writing end, I find it's a different experience. You tend to be slower and more careful when you have no quick way to correct stuff; OTOH things that really need rewriting are more likely to get it when it's easier to do. So there are plus and minus points for both methods.
I found that I was most productive with my old 286, which had all the editing capability of any modern computer, but hardly more smarts than a typewriter, thus no distractions. Best of both worlds.
I own an HP Pen Plotter that was formerly owned by Larry Niven. Fuzzy used it to print buttons.
The reason I have it is because otherwise it was going into the trash, and I just couldn't see letting perfectly good working hardware go to the landfill. (And it does wide pages, which I might need someday.)
But as a sentimental artifact... I'd much rather have Larry's lovely mink jacket.:D
While I'd agree with the mods that your post was flamebait (tho I myself *never* mod down), firstly it is no worse than the average snide post on this site, and second I wholly support your right to say whatever the hell you want -- what you say only represents YOU, not anyone else. (To paraphrase Booker T. Washington, your words cannot lower me.) If I don't like what you say, no one forces me to read or reply (and downmods normally take care of things adequately); and if it disrupts the discussion, what does that say about the other posters??
And sometimes flamebait makes a good point, either in itself or by pointing out the intolerance of others.
So... I consider flamebait to be rather like WikiLeaks: it may piss someone off, but IMO it has the same right to be here as anyone else.
[BTW I can't see your screencap; I only get a transparent spacer GIF]
Noticed that, didja?? [insert obligatory "You must be new here!"] Speaking as an 11 year/. veteran, you gotta be thick-skinned around here, cuz sooner or later someone IS going to slur you and yours, and it's not worth arguing over with idiotsm, or stressing over moronic mods.
As to the groupthink problem, that's why I'll sometimes mod up posts I disagree with -- because they may still illustrate a good point, or add something to the discussion.
Good point. And someone up above says they contacted his office and they don't know a thing about it; the poster concluded that the story was false.
So now who do we believe?? Does this story have a glimmer of truth, or is it a preemptive smear??
Regardless, stopping leaks is the responsibility of those whose system leaks, NOT of those who intercept and/or publicize said leaks. Unless, of course, your hero is Stalin.
Investigating WikiLeaks is the wrong approach. If you have a security leak, you don't fix it by throttling those who intercept or report it -- there will ALWAYS be another to take their place, and all you wind up doing is publicizing the leak. (Ooops, too late!)
Rather, you fix it by stopping the leak at its source -- within your own organization and the tech it uses.
True enough... but they do sometimes manage to get their experiments into effect -- witness some of the 'new education' methods that have been such a debacle. And the Fed dicking around with interest rates probably qualifies too.
Hmm... maybe the diff is that all their experiments happen in realtime in the realworld, rather than in a laboratory. Funny, I don't LOOK like a lab rat...??!
And does China have to follow the same quality control, inspections, and testing that U.S.-produced foodstuffs do?? I'm guessing not, considering that they're allowed to slide on electronics (and I'm not sure what all else).
Country of origin labeling is one of the few GOOD new regulations, if only it was uniformly applied...
Not to mention all the special interests that can't make any money in the open market, but can make a killing if their competition is throttled by "climate control" legislation.
Allowing all you say is true -- then why do the squishy sciences so often get things so utterly wrong? (If they got 'em right, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.)
Maybe it's that they cling to the mathematical model rather than noticing it doesn't work, due to missing variables or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
[blink] Oh, I see ... no, I was actually pointing at the same conclusion as you, but in much more abridged language :)
To wander down a tangent... I don't think we have any way to know if ANY religion (or purported religion) actually offers salvation, so whether they're "socially acceptable" (which I'd further qualify as whether they reasonably balance what good and harm they do, as *perceived* by average people of other religious persuasions) is really the only useful criterion.
A lot of fringe and minority religions may be socially acceptable since they don't truly do any harm, and may occasionally do good, or cause their adherents to become better people, as perceived by society at large. Conversely, the only good thing I can attribute to Co$, and that only very indirectly (in fact it's kept as separate as possible, only linked through Bridge Publications), are the Writers/Artists of the Future competitions, which have brought a number of excellent new authors and artists into published SF. Otherwise, I can't think of a single way in which they've improved society or the lives of their members. (Unless you consider enabling schizophrenia a benefit.) So... net fail for the "appearance of being socially acceptable" criterion.
Good point about al Qaeda. If they don't behave like proper military (which is to say, follow the accepted conventions of warfare) then I agree they are behaving as common criminals and should be treated as such, not as legitimate soldiers.
Likewise... if Co$ doesn't behave as a proper religion (which is to say, at least attempting to be a net benefit to their adherents and to society at large) then I see no reason why we should accord it any appearance of legitimacy by lumping it in with or comparing it to socially-acceptable religions. However, comparing it to other pyramid schemes is probably a valid approach. ;)
So... new discussion! How does Co$ compare to Amway, or whatever other major pyramid schemes are out there that fail to come to mind at the moment..??
Our cracked four-pounders made an awful din,
but with one fat ball... ooops.
Which made me wonder why some other enterprising types aren't offering an armed escort service in the affected shipping lanes?? (Given that as others have pointed out, there *are* reasons why most nonmilitary vessels are unarmed.) You'd think paying an escort would be a LOT cheaper than paying ransom!
Hell, we could all have our own countries if we'd been born a few centuries earlier, and had the resources to carve 'em out. Doesn't make any of us the New Messiah either!
Anyway, I think my point was that it's a non-point re whether Co$ is legit or not, let alone whether the Vatican is.
Now, where did I park that time machine? :)
God, to Messiah, just prior to deployment:
"Remember, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy!"
And the only reason the Co$ doesn't have its own country is because by its founding era, there weren't any available.
But I agree, conflating Co$'s evils with the Catholic church's own failings really does nothing but feed the notion that Co$ is a "religion".
Might be this one has nothing left to lose. That's probably the ideal situation for fighting a cult -- if they can't hurt you (other than killing you).
My understanding is that they claim membership for anyone who ever takes a class, and I'd guess they probably extend that to anyone whose name they can acquire by any means whatever.
I'd generalize it even further: every cent that isn't directly spent on "good works" should be taxed. This would get rid of tax cheating conspiracies like Co$ and H$U$.
Actually, I've thought about resurrecting my old 286 (built in 1988, I think) for writing, because I was a lot more productive on it than anything before or since.
Bones!! I! have! finally! learned! punctuation!!
Having come from when a school paper was done in pen-and-paper, I agree with your points, even if made with a few extra pause buttons ;)
I've noticed that handwriting and typing seem to use different pathways in the brain. Handwriting seems to use the same pathways as speech, while typing bypasses that entirely. If someone has a tendency to stutter, typing seems to make it worse (probably increases the existing short circuit).
Hence each method doubtless produces a different type of creativity, and one or the other may be easier for certain people.
There was one romance author (I forget her name) who dictated all her books to an assistant. She'd lie on her couch and the words just flowed from her mouth.
It is a different experience, and I think produces a different type of writing. One thing I'e noticed is that since the computer era, many people edit only in 25 line chunks, never thinking in terms of whole pages. You can really see this when a typing author first switches to the computer.
From the writing end, I find it's a different experience. You tend to be slower and more careful when you have no quick way to correct stuff; OTOH things that really need rewriting are more likely to get it when it's easier to do. So there are plus and minus points for both methods.
I found that I was most productive with my old 286, which had all the editing capability of any modern computer, but hardly more smarts than a typewriter, thus no distractions. Best of both worlds.
I own an HP Pen Plotter that was formerly owned by Larry Niven. Fuzzy used it to print buttons.
The reason I have it is because otherwise it was going into the trash, and I just couldn't see letting perfectly good working hardware go to the landfill. (And it does wide pages, which I might need someday.)
But as a sentimental artifact... I'd much rather have Larry's lovely mink jacket. :D
With a list to the port and her sails in rags... methinks the Somali pirates are doing a tad bit better than Elcid Barrett.
While I'd agree with the mods that your post was flamebait (tho I myself *never* mod down), firstly it is no worse than the average snide post on this site, and second I wholly support your right to say whatever the hell you want -- what you say only represents YOU, not anyone else. (To paraphrase Booker T. Washington, your words cannot lower me.) If I don't like what you say, no one forces me to read or reply (and downmods normally take care of things adequately); and if it disrupts the discussion, what does that say about the other posters??
And sometimes flamebait makes a good point, either in itself or by pointing out the intolerance of others.
So ... I consider flamebait to be rather like WikiLeaks: it may piss someone off, but IMO it has the same right to be here as anyone else.
[BTW I can't see your screencap; I only get a transparent spacer GIF]
My point exactly :D
Noticed that, didja?? [insert obligatory "You must be new here!"] Speaking as an 11 year /. veteran, you gotta be thick-skinned around here, cuz sooner or later someone IS going to slur you and yours, and it's not worth arguing over with idiotsm, or stressing over moronic mods.
As to the groupthink problem, that's why I'll sometimes mod up posts I disagree with -- because they may still illustrate a good point, or add something to the discussion.
BTW I'm part Irish myself :)
Good point. And someone up above says they contacted his office and they don't know a thing about it; the poster concluded that the story was false.
So now who do we believe?? Does this story have a glimmer of truth, or is it a preemptive smear??
Regardless, stopping leaks is the responsibility of those whose system leaks, NOT of those who intercept and/or publicize said leaks. Unless, of course, your hero is Stalin.
"If you choose not to defend yourself, you have no right to complain if someone robs or assaults you."
There, that'll give the lefty liberals something to scream about. ;)
Investigating WikiLeaks is the wrong approach. If you have a security leak, you don't fix it by throttling those who intercept or report it -- there will ALWAYS be another to take their place, and all you wind up doing is publicizing the leak. (Ooops, too late!)
Rather, you fix it by stopping the leak at its source -- within your own organization and the tech it uses.
True enough... but they do sometimes manage to get their experiments into effect -- witness some of the 'new education' methods that have been such a debacle. And the Fed dicking around with interest rates probably qualifies too.
Hmm... maybe the diff is that all their experiments happen in realtime in the realworld, rather than in a laboratory. Funny, I don't LOOK like a lab rat...??!
And does China have to follow the same quality control, inspections, and testing that U.S.-produced foodstuffs do?? I'm guessing not, considering that they're allowed to slide on electronics (and I'm not sure what all else).
Country of origin labeling is one of the few GOOD new regulations, if only it was uniformly applied...
And remember, those retail goods (including food) imported from China were produced under those same polluted conditions.
It would be interesting to do an analysis of, say, cotton grown in China, with an eye to toxins included during growth.
Not to mention all the special interests that can't make any money in the open market, but can make a killing if their competition is throttled by "climate control" legislation.
Allowing all you say is true -- then why do the squishy sciences so often get things so utterly wrong? (If they got 'em right, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.)
Maybe it's that they cling to the mathematical model rather than noticing it doesn't work, due to missing variables or whatever.