I enjoyed surprising you.:) I'm quite happy to advertise my values, but have zero interest in forcing them on people. Since Jesus Himself condemned His followers for trying to protect Him with the sword, I believe Jesus Himself taught a religion of non-coercion, as well. Christianity didn't spread by coercion until it had changed so much that it was no longer Christianity.
How many in your campus Christian group would have judged me first? Judged me harshly? Said I'm going to hell
I think you would have still been surprised. You would have met some that were like you expect, but I would think that would be less than half. I don't recall anyone in our group having an attitude of looking down on others or preaching judgment. We believe in it, but we don't see it as something to rejoice over.
I can remember many an unbeliever coming to our building, interacting with us, even participating in some of our activities (which were not all religious). I brought friends from my CSE classes many times, and I don't remember any ever leaving because they felt preached at. Our campus had a lot of foreign students, too, and believe it or not many Muslims spent a lot of time in our building and I never witnessed anyone saying anything harsh to them.
Children are everyone's concern. Children are our future.
Have your own kids, then. Children have been raised in Christian homes for centuries, and I hope I've adequately demonstrated I'm not going to make them into murderous zealots. I shouldn't need anybody's approval to raise them, and they'll be perfectly free to leave and select their own way of living when they're old enough.
It still seems to imply to me that you are a 25 y.o. abstaining virgin, not married.
I am, and engaged. I interpreted what you said two posts back as an insult to my fiance. She and I are quite happy with choosing each other. We view our virginity as a positive.
There's nothing going in your bedroom for you to get touchy about. I didn't think there was a nerve to hit there.
Not today, no. But I meant that your comments about my future sex life with my wife were inappropriate.
I was surprised to hear you have a fiance.
Surprised because I'm a virgin, or surprised because this is slashdot?:D People managed to get along finding mates without trying each other out beforehand for centuries; it seems to have worked well for us.
I'll end things with: Thank you for teaching me that there are "Westerners" who can be devout without being zealous. That's a happy thing to discover.
Enjoyed it.:) I'd regard myself as "zealous" because that word literally just refers to enthusiasm; unfortunately the connotation implies someone seeking to coerce others to behave according to his values. Not part of the denotation, though.
I'm glad I surprised you. I think far too many have failed to get a chance to even look at the Christian religion because they could only regard it as a coercive tool.
This is bar-room banter.
Understand. Would have been nice to know who you are, but even a username doesn't tell that much, anyway.:)
I set out to poke a Bible thumper and see what made him tick
Heh heh. Glad to show you the stereotype isn't the totality of the truth.:)
Instead you opened my mind some regarding the devoutly religious
I vote for government to get out of everybody else's business. I don't vote to make people do anything. Here's a link to a screensaver I recently installed on my computer at work which will explain a lot about how I think. I think your jaw will drop when you see it.
I think the government should be Constitutionally restricted from doing anything other than its basic function of protecting us from each other; that definitely does not include allowing the government to choose our values.
If you think the way you live makes you better
I can't see how you should care what I think about myself. Obviously you think the way you live makes you better than me. You're starting to sound awfully hypocritical.
If you make your children feel
I can't see how the way my children feel is any concern of yours, either.
Worse, if your children rebel
Having never rebelled against my father's morals, which I willingly choose as my own, I think I'm pretty well-versed in how to impart my morals without inciting rebellion.
If you marry
Okay, buddy, get out of my bedroom. If you'll do some reading you'll find that committed monogamous relationships actually have better sex and happier people, but that's still exceedingly none of your business.
My fiance and I willingly choose to live our lives this way, and that's nobody's concern but ours. I keep saying it, and I don't think you believe it, but we are happy this way. Both of us, not just me.
Your final comment about my wife's choices sounds like you wouldn't be happy with us choosing to live this way no matter what, as if you feel you know better than us and need to protect her from me. (And as if you think I'm coercing her into something.)
If any of those things, then yes I'd have a problem with the way you live.
I'll end things with a, "Tough; we're not going to stop you from living the way you live, so get over the way we live."
P.S. If this conversation really means that much to you, why don't you log in?
I think it's really weird you think I'm the one who's judgmental. Is there something about the way I live that bothers you?
I thought about giving you a comprehensive answer to everything you've said, but I'll just answer two: yes, people do describe me as intense, and no, I don't blush when I see myself naked.
Mozilla could use Free Software/Open Source dropin replacements for Java, Flash, and all that junk. I mostly don't like those things anyway, but sometimes I'd like to have them.
I'm rather thankful you weren't my chaplain. You don't seem the type of person to encourage me to honor my father and mother, among other things.
I'm living proof that your view of young people is just plain wrong. 25 and raised not to drink, smoke, do drugs, or have sex outside of marriage, and have never done any of the above. And my worldview is such that I delight in making those choices. Got all the way through college and am almost done with a master's degree, and still haven't gone wild or whatever you think it is students do. I owe it all to parenting.
BTW, I was in a great campus Christian group that included many, many people with the same worldview as me. There was a great campus minister with the same worldview, too. I wish the students you're chaplaining had somebody like that. It helps to have somebody who believes in you rather than cynically assuming you can't wait to break free of your horrible parents.
I'm engaged to be married next year to a wonderful lady who was raised the same way as me. Apparently there's a whole world out here of young people you've missed.
I don't really know what mitochondrial DNA does. Cellular DNA is used to build proteins; the nucleus is more or less a protein factory (more complicated than that; I think it's a little machine shop that builds proteins and then builds little machines out of them; can't remember much, though). I'm not sure if mitochondria ever manufacture proteins or not.
The viruses basically take over the construction machinery of the cell and provide a new "template" (their DNA) for the protein making process, which results in building new viruses. I don't know if a similar process exists to hijack in mitochondria or not.
Theoretically, they should be able to do this with a mammal like a feline. Sequence the DNA, build a copy, and replace the DNA in a freshly fertilized egg, and it should grow up just fine. Though the complexity of the animal would add issues that I'm not educated enough to be aware of, certainly.
One interesting issue with this approach that was only recently brought to my attention is mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria in cells carry their own DNA inherited from the organism's mother (they are descended from the mitochondria in the egg). Currently, it's not known what if any dependencies there might be between the organism's genetic makeup and the mitochondrial DNA. It's conceivable an organism with mismatched mitochondrial DNA might have severe flaws. Or it might not have any effect at all.
Hey, I very much agree with you, but from a capitalist perspective. I view the patent, copyright, etc. laws as an artificial grant of monopoly by the state. Since I don't believe in the government granting monopolies for any reason, I don't believe they should do this. The stated purpose for these monopolies in the Constitution is to promote progress, but I believe progress occurs better when the government butts out and the market selects what progresses are worthwhile.
The way you said it was "force change," but the way I would say it is, "don't abuse laws to entrench the current state and preventing change." The number one reason I oppose laws like this is because I think we entrench the current system and prevent innovation. I think we need to "think outside the box," but propping up current systems with these laws provides an unfair advantage to those who just want the same-old-same-old. New ideas can't compete. (Well, they can in some planes; free software seems to be competing very well against proprietary software despite the competitive legal advantage the proprietary software companies have.) We have no idea what spectacular innovations in business models and technology could occur if we eliminated these special monopolies and let the market take its course.
Oh, no, I certainly do. Your state confiscating the money of its citizens in the form of taxes and using the funds to build a stadium prevents those citizens from spending their money elsewhere, which is exactly what I am arguing against, in general. If the state would refuse to overstep its bounds in this way*, then the decisions of those thousands of people to purchase sports tickets would determine whether a stadium could be supported or not.
*Well, other states ignoring those bounds might influence this, too.
Very insightful, especially your last sentence. I'm just saying cries of "overpaid" often seem to be followed by "there oughtta be a law." Sure these people are "overpaid," in the sense that I don't think they are worth that. Sure we have a right to engage in public campaigns of persuasion to change people's minds. And more power to those who do. (And as you said, this article is a part of that.)
In the case of the unions and the scarcity of the orthodontists, what you are discussing is an aspect of supply.
Calm down. Nobody (except you) has suggested that armed force be employed to correct the situation. You're equating a simple observation with attempts to "control other people's lives". That's just silly
Well, nobody in this thread, but it does happen. And some people might like to see the situation corrected with a law. If so, then ultimately they are calling for armed force, because if I decide I don't agree with the law and choose to disregard it, I'll find myself constrained to the law with armed force.
"Overpaid" is an opinion. This article acts as if "overpaid" can be objectively defined. You may not think sports stars are worth it (hey, I sure don't), but apparently everyone else does and is voting with their dollars. If you want these people's salaries to be "corrected," you're going to have to sway public opinion.
Honestly, I'm so tired of reading articles by people who never understood the intersection of a supply curve and a demand curve.
I don't think the sports stars should make that much money. Sometimes I even resent them. But for me to decree that they're "overpaid" means I think I have the right to prohibit thousands of people from purchasing sports tickets. I don't have the right to that kind of control over people's lives any more than I have the right to choose their religion.
Allowing a patent on "a service for allowing users to post product reviews for viewing by others" would mean that there could only be one such service allowed. This is a clear abridgment of the freedom of the press.
That's analogous to saying you have freedom of the press as long as you use the right one.
No doubt this is a 'bad thing' since medical record confidentiality is a widely accepted thing in our society. But having known several people who have worked for large hospitals, medical offices, and such, this is simply payback for thos ehospitals who clear millions of dollars in profits AFTER they've already payed everyone in the building.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. (Or maybe there's a typo in there, or you meant someone else.) If they do pay everyone in the building, what's the problem with them clearing a profit? One guy making more than me (okay, a whole lot more) doesn't mean I make any less. This is just envy.
How about the dangers of not paying your employees?
Well, that's what I wanted to write, at first, but then I actually read the article and realized that contrary to the submitter's disingenuous suggestion, the woman was not unpaid, but wanted more money.
Her husband claims she made that clear to him. There was no legal paperwork filed to express that wish, and since he is clearly acting in his own interest and not hers as well as suspected by some of putting her into this state, his claim is a little bit suspect.
And for someone who's supposedly a vegetable, she sure does interact with her family a lot.
Interesting thing about being mentally handicapped. If you're born mentally handicapped, then your rights and life are protected, but if you have a severe accident and become mentally handicapped, in the state of Florida you can be legally starved to death.
Note that Terri is not in a coma and is not a vegetable. She's been denied treatment to help her learn to swallow and eat on her own again. She has less than two weeks to live unless somebody does something.
I've got the American Standard Version at my site. However, I recently learned that the majority of online Bible sites have a humongous number of errors in their ASV (we are all using the same etext). I recently found the SWORD project, which appears to have a good ASV etext; I intend to extract it and put it on my site, soon.
Slashdot Mirror
We agree, and I admit I'm surprised.
I enjoyed surprising you. :) I'm quite happy to advertise my values, but have zero interest in forcing them on people. Since Jesus Himself condemned His followers for trying to protect Him with the sword, I believe Jesus Himself taught a religion of non-coercion, as well. Christianity didn't spread by coercion until it had changed so much that it was no longer Christianity.
How many in your campus Christian group would have judged me first? Judged me harshly? Said I'm going to hell
I think you would have still been surprised. You would have met some that were like you expect, but I would think that would be less than half. I don't recall anyone in our group having an attitude of looking down on others or preaching judgment. We believe in it, but we don't see it as something to rejoice over.
I can remember many an unbeliever coming to our building, interacting with us, even participating in some of our activities (which were not all religious). I brought friends from my CSE classes many times, and I don't remember any ever leaving because they felt preached at. Our campus had a lot of foreign students, too, and believe it or not many Muslims spent a lot of time in our building and I never witnessed anyone saying anything harsh to them.
Children are everyone's concern. Children are our future.
Have your own kids, then. Children have been raised in Christian homes for centuries, and I hope I've adequately demonstrated I'm not going to make them into murderous zealots. I shouldn't need anybody's approval to raise them, and they'll be perfectly free to leave and select their own way of living when they're old enough.
It still seems to imply to me that you are a 25 y.o. abstaining virgin, not married.
I am, and engaged. I interpreted what you said two posts back as an insult to my fiance. She and I are quite happy with choosing each other. We view our virginity as a positive.
There's nothing going in your bedroom for you to get touchy about. I didn't think there was a nerve to hit there.
Not today, no. But I meant that your comments about my future sex life with my wife were inappropriate.
I was surprised to hear you have a fiance.
Surprised because I'm a virgin, or surprised because this is slashdot? :D People managed to get along finding mates without trying each other out beforehand for centuries; it seems to have worked well for us.
I'll end things with: Thank you for teaching me that there are "Westerners" who can be devout without being zealous. That's a happy thing to discover.
Enjoyed it. :) I'd regard myself as "zealous" because that word literally just refers to enthusiasm; unfortunately the connotation implies someone seeking to coerce others to behave according to his values. Not part of the denotation, though.
I'm glad I surprised you. I think far too many have failed to get a chance to even look at the Christian religion because they could only regard it as a coercive tool.
This is bar-room banter.
Understand. Would have been nice to know who you are, but even a username doesn't tell that much, anyway. :)
I set out to poke a Bible thumper and see what made him tick
Heh heh. Glad to show you the stereotype isn't the totality of the truth. :)
Instead you opened my mind some regarding the devoutly religious
I'm honored.
If you vote according to your lifestyle.
I vote for government to get out of everybody else's business. I don't vote to make people do anything. Here's a link to a screensaver I recently installed on my computer at work which will explain a lot about how I think. I think your jaw will drop when you see it.
I think the government should be Constitutionally restricted from doing anything other than its basic function of protecting us from each other; that definitely does not include allowing the government to choose our values.
If you think the way you live makes you better
I can't see how you should care what I think about myself. Obviously you think the way you live makes you better than me. You're starting to sound awfully hypocritical.
If you make your children feel
I can't see how the way my children feel is any concern of yours, either.
Worse, if your children rebel
Having never rebelled against my father's morals, which I willingly choose as my own, I think I'm pretty well-versed in how to impart my morals without inciting rebellion.
If you marry
Okay, buddy, get out of my bedroom. If you'll do some reading you'll find that committed monogamous relationships actually have better sex and happier people, but that's still exceedingly none of your business.
My fiance and I willingly choose to live our lives this way, and that's nobody's concern but ours. I keep saying it, and I don't think you believe it, but we are happy this way. Both of us, not just me.
Your final comment about my wife's choices sounds like you wouldn't be happy with us choosing to live this way no matter what, as if you feel you know better than us and need to protect her from me. (And as if you think I'm coercing her into something.)
If any of those things, then yes I'd have a problem with the way you live.
I'll end things with a, "Tough; we're not going to stop you from living the way you live, so get over the way we live."
P.S. If this conversation really means that much to you, why don't you log in?
Is that supposed to make me jealous, or did you not notice that I don't view having sex outside of marriage as a desirable thing?
I think it's really weird you think I'm the one who's judgmental. Is there something about the way I live that bothers you?
I thought about giving you a comprehensive answer to everything you've said, but I'll just answer two: yes, people do describe me as intense, and no, I don't blush when I see myself naked.
Mozilla could use Free Software/Open Source dropin replacements for Java, Flash, and all that junk. I mostly don't like those things anyway, but sometimes I'd like to have them.
I'm rather thankful you weren't my chaplain. You don't seem the type of person to encourage me to honor my father and mother, among other things.
I'm living proof that your view of young people is just plain wrong. 25 and raised not to drink, smoke, do drugs, or have sex outside of marriage, and have never done any of the above. And my worldview is such that I delight in making those choices. Got all the way through college and am almost done with a master's degree, and still haven't gone wild or whatever you think it is students do. I owe it all to parenting.
BTW, I was in a great campus Christian group that included many, many people with the same worldview as me. There was a great campus minister with the same worldview, too. I wish the students you're chaplaining had somebody like that. It helps to have somebody who believes in you rather than cynically assuming you can't wait to break free of your horrible parents.
I'm engaged to be married next year to a wonderful lady who was raised the same way as me. Apparently there's a whole world out here of young people you've missed.
Fascinating questions.
I don't really know what mitochondrial DNA does. Cellular DNA is used to build proteins; the nucleus is more or less a protein factory (more complicated than that; I think it's a little machine shop that builds proteins and then builds little machines out of them; can't remember much, though). I'm not sure if mitochondria ever manufacture proteins or not.
The viruses basically take over the construction machinery of the cell and provide a new "template" (their DNA) for the protein making process, which results in building new viruses. I don't know if a similar process exists to hijack in mitochondria or not.
IIRC, some high school biology textbooks actually add "6) and are made up of cells" to the five other criteria for life in order to rule out viruses.
Theoretically, they should be able to do this with a mammal like a feline. Sequence the DNA, build a copy, and replace the DNA in a freshly fertilized egg, and it should grow up just fine. Though the complexity of the animal would add issues that I'm not educated enough to be aware of, certainly.
One interesting issue with this approach that was only recently brought to my attention is mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria in cells carry their own DNA inherited from the organism's mother (they are descended from the mitochondria in the egg). Currently, it's not known what if any dependencies there might be between the organism's genetic makeup and the mitochondrial DNA. It's conceivable an organism with mismatched mitochondrial DNA might have severe flaws. Or it might not have any effect at all.
But you can't tinker forever, and you can't go back and work material into movies that have already been released.
Unless, of course, you're George Lucas.
Hey, I very much agree with you, but from a capitalist perspective. I view the patent, copyright, etc. laws as an artificial grant of monopoly by the state. Since I don't believe in the government granting monopolies for any reason, I don't believe they should do this. The stated purpose for these monopolies in the Constitution is to promote progress, but I believe progress occurs better when the government butts out and the market selects what progresses are worthwhile.
The way you said it was "force change," but the way I would say it is, "don't abuse laws to entrench the current state and preventing change." The number one reason I oppose laws like this is because I think we entrench the current system and prevent innovation. I think we need to "think outside the box," but propping up current systems with these laws provides an unfair advantage to those who just want the same-old-same-old. New ideas can't compete. (Well, they can in some planes; free software seems to be competing very well against proprietary software despite the competitive legal advantage the proprietary software companies have.) We have no idea what spectacular innovations in business models and technology could occur if we eliminated these special monopolies and let the market take its course.
Oh, no, I certainly do. Your state confiscating the money of its citizens in the form of taxes and using the funds to build a stadium prevents those citizens from spending their money elsewhere, which is exactly what I am arguing against, in general. If the state would refuse to overstep its bounds in this way*, then the decisions of those thousands of people to purchase sports tickets would determine whether a stadium could be supported or not.
*Well, other states ignoring those bounds might influence this, too.
Very insightful, especially your last sentence. I'm just saying cries of "overpaid" often seem to be followed by "there oughtta be a law." Sure these people are "overpaid," in the sense that I don't think they are worth that. Sure we have a right to engage in public campaigns of persuasion to change people's minds. And more power to those who do. (And as you said, this article is a part of that.)
In the case of the unions and the scarcity of the orthodontists, what you are discussing is an aspect of supply.
Calm down. Nobody (except you) has suggested that armed force be employed to correct the situation. You're equating a simple observation with attempts to "control other people's lives". That's just silly
Well, nobody in this thread, but it does happen. And some people might like to see the situation corrected with a law. If so, then ultimately they are calling for armed force, because if I decide I don't agree with the law and choose to disregard it, I'll find myself constrained to the law with armed force.
"Overpaid" is an opinion. This article acts as if "overpaid" can be objectively defined. You may not think sports stars are worth it (hey, I sure don't), but apparently everyone else does and is voting with their dollars. If you want these people's salaries to be "corrected," you're going to have to sway public opinion.
Honestly, I'm so tired of reading articles by people who never understood the intersection of a supply curve and a demand curve.
Great reading on the subject from Walter Williams.
I don't think the sports stars should make that much money. Sometimes I even resent them. But for me to decree that they're "overpaid" means I think I have the right to prohibit thousands of people from purchasing sports tickets. I don't have the right to that kind of control over people's lives any more than I have the right to choose their religion.
Allowing a patent on "a service for allowing users to post product reviews for viewing by others" would mean that there could only be one such service allowed. This is a clear abridgment of the freedom of the press.
That's analogous to saying you have freedom of the press as long as you use the right one.
No doubt this is a 'bad thing' since medical record confidentiality is a widely accepted thing in our society. But having known several people who have worked for large hospitals, medical offices, and such, this is simply payback for thos ehospitals who clear millions of dollars in profits AFTER they've already payed everyone in the building.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. (Or maybe there's a typo in there, or you meant someone else.) If they do pay everyone in the building, what's the problem with them clearing a profit? One guy making more than me (okay, a whole lot more) doesn't mean I make any less. This is just envy.
How about the dangers of not paying your employees?
Well, that's what I wanted to write, at first, but then I actually read the article and realized that contrary to the submitter's disingenuous suggestion, the woman was not unpaid, but wanted more money.
Her husband claims she made that clear to him. There was no legal paperwork filed to express that wish, and since he is clearly acting in his own interest and not hers as well as suspected by some of putting her into this state, his claim is a little bit suspect.
And for someone who's supposedly a vegetable, she sure does interact with her family a lot.
Interesting thing about being mentally handicapped. If you're born mentally handicapped, then your rights and life are protected, but if you have a severe accident and become mentally handicapped, in the state of Florida you can be legally starved to death.
Note that Terri is not in a coma and is not a vegetable. She's been denied treatment to help her learn to swallow and eat on her own again. She has less than two weeks to live unless somebody does something.
I've got the American Standard Version at my site. However, I recently learned that the majority of online Bible sites have a humongous number of errors in their ASV (we are all using the same etext). I recently found the SWORD project, which appears to have a good ASV etext; I intend to extract it and put it on my site, soon.
As the parent poster noted
[Slaps forehead]! Thanks.I don't understand ... is the U.S. flag not there any more?
I am excited to see a space program bent on taking people back to the moon. Today we are all Chinese.
No, I didn't! Thanks!