I did not ask for a very specific answer on the issues. I know some of what you have said to some extent. Some people chuse to put it in slightly different words. But the problem is that most will brush you off or attack you.
Your answer in the second paragraph is what I was stressing. Not enough people do that. I wish they would.
well depends which evolution. Local evolution is not a theory, but a proven fact. We know it happens, it has been observed in organisms -- see butterflies of england, and mathematically shown. (See genetic algorithms).
Complete evolution, aka humans arising from the primitive life arising from primitive chemicals has not been shown. The second part being the most doubted and least supported.
Unfortunately, a lot of christian disagree with both theories, which puts me at odds with them.
Hmmm. I think you are right. The old new year is on Jan 14. This makes the 25 to be the new xmas.
Strage, but the people who I know (orthodox russians) mostly celebrate it on the 7th.
But then again, it is russia. Everyone looks for a reason to celebrate, as long as it involves alcohol.
Some adherents of Christian denominations have the tendency to take inflammatory stances that make all Christians seem like radicals.
They are lucky I am hard to offend. But why is that I keep bumping into these people so often. I will guess they are the ones bringing up the religion first I guess.
The main issue to hold individuals responsible is composite negligence.
Sometimes you can not have a single person responsible for a problem. It may be that the company does not have anyone specifically do something illegal/wrong, but the company ends up doing it anyway.
Look at the Bhopal disaster. What specific wrong did the CEO of UCC do? He probably did not even think about safety regulations at certain plants. As far as most people outside of the plant knew is that the plant was created accroding to rules and regulations.
But then the only person responsible for the Bhopal incident are the people who specifically disabled the safety equipment, and specifically caused the explosion.
So why did UCC give India so much money if they were not responsible for the incident at all. Why should the CEO be extradited to india. I believe he is a wanted man there.
I seriously doubt that he himself told the plan to turn of the safeties. I doubt that he himself caused the explosion. So why does India think that he is responsible.
The law was created to avoid scapegoats. It is a good thing.
As for individual people stirring up trouble without doing anything illegal...it is too rare. Why would anyone risk being fired to make money for the company such that they can not profit from it. Why would an accountant fudge taxes, if he can be arrested even for something as simple as a tiny salary increase. And if he really did not benefit at all, then he will simply be fired. Sorry I do not see the main issue. This case is almost inplausible.
Just to comment more on: Clearly any reasonable person would look at this and agree that the accountant did something illegal. The accountant did not do anything illegal. He fudged the documents that the company did not have to submit to IRS, but it did. If the accountant did it for his profit, then there is already a law for it. If he did not, the company will pay a fine, and the accountant is fired. Sounds fair.
Your point: Companies are abstract concepts, not physical beings. They cannot break laws, dump chemicals, engage in questionable accounting, or write buggy software, only people can do these things.
Just to reiterate. A single person can make the most correct decision, and in aggregate something illegal happens. Do you think that the tree that has fallen in your apartment block complex is a specific person's responsiblity? But if not whose is it?
If they didn't (say a disgruntled employee acting alone does something illegal) then they shouldn't be held accountable. If it can be shown that the employee was doing this not on the behalf of the company, then the laws can apply to him separately. If the action was done on behalf or via means of the company, then the company will be found responsible (possibly both). The company can in turn take civil means against the employee (sue or fire). Suppose the driver of hazmat materials dumps them in the river. He commited a crime, but it is the responsibility of the company to clean up. Why? It is their employee, and their stuff. I am trying to keep my laughter down as I imagine the next shareholders meeting out in the river cleaning up the stuff (since the blame would transfer to them, as it is their chemicals)
Why not hold the specific person responsible? Very simple, company would hire scapegoats. Need to get rid of 100 tons of nasty stuff. Hire a trucker to spill it in the river, give him a $10 mil swiss bank account for his troubles. Still cheaper than disposing it. And he will simply get criminal negligence, and the government will foot the clean up bill.
Speaking of I'll bet there would be a lot less corruption and a lot more whistleblowers if people knew their own asses were on the line if they break the law. After seeing what unchecked corporate shenanigans can do like with Enron, WorldCom, etc, I think we can all agree this would be a good thing.
They are on the line. Most people just think they can get away with it.
Sure. But will bet that even a lower skilled person such as I can outtype anyone trying to type on their cellphone. That stands even if my thumb is only good enough to be stuck up my ass, or to press a single key (spacebar) on the keyboard. The crappy keyboard on cell phones is required for portability. No such requirement on the xbox, but they did it anyway.
So if you feel that what you use is always superior to what I use, please, by all means, replace your keyboard with something the size of a dollar bill. Maybe then you will not be able to make a post in time for me to care to read it.
Some technology is just plain inferior. I do not encourage it.
There are a lot of christians who believe that evolution is not plausible under the bible. I challenge that fact. The fact that they take the other point does not make me think that they know less of their religion.
What makes me think the second statement is not all that false, is that I keep bringing up various contradictions, many of which have perfectly good answers. And people either yell on me for making them consider such unholy thoughts, or just not be able to answer that.
The ones that get annoyed, I have disrespect for. What is the point of believeing in something, if you do not know what you believe in. Note that this is different than asking WHY you believe in something.
The questions that I ask are 'simple' things. Why are they eating crab, when bible says do not eat crab. If the old testament was overpowered by the new one, then how does one pick which laws survived. (a quick jab at the gay issue). Why do some of the biblical characters took multiple wives. Why is not ok to kill, but ok to go to war.
Now granted I am displaying the fact that I have no clue about christianity, outside of a few things I have seen before. But the believers are supposed to be to some extent the experts on the matter.
The answer I respect the most, when a person is stumped by the question: 1. Pull out a bible, check the facts, become confused by the conflicting information. 2. Tell me that they will check with someone who can explain. 3. Get back to me.
This goes for all religions.
The best answer I have had yet. I was discussing some kosher laws with a jewish guy, and he got confused by something poorly specified there (chicken and milk, since chicken does not produce milk). He asked a rabbi, who gave him a poor, and unsatisfactory answer. The guy was unhappy with the answer, told me he is going to ask someone else. A few days later I had a call inviting me to some other rabbi for lunch and research. That rabbi has opened up a bunch of books (Talmud, I think was one of them), and was seeing why the rule is the case. Turns out that kosher laws have a tradition of avoiding a slippery slope, and if an interpretation is chosen, then things that are not even covered by interpretation, but very similar may be disallowed. I think that he quoted some rabbis in the 15th century, who have observed something about people using (I think) rice on passover, which is not strictly forbidden by the laws, and then these people ended up mixing grain in, if the rice was not plentiful enough to feed the people, etc. It was a better answer than I wished for, and more than I can remember. Yet I think that this is how one should believe in religion. Know what it says, and if it does not say it, know why.
Most people only think they know what they believe in. Those that try to know more, have my respect.
I brought it up as a side discussion. Not to fight the original comments. Actually the great grandparent switched the discussion as an answer to my side question. I am aware of the fact that xmas is not in the bible, and that the interpretation of the bible has nothing to do with it.
I do not want to lump these people together. I know a lot of strict old testament interpretationalists do not believe in xmas on Dec 25. But a lot of these people are the same people, usually the ones that do not give a thought to actually reading the bible, but only listen to pastors and repeat exactly as the they have heard it, I guess.
I am not being sneaky, but it seems that my attention span is shorter than this thread's.
You are correct. I did not think that Jehova's do not celebrate xmas. Obviously I will not take your word for it, but I will look it up.
Halo is great for multiplayer, because you sit there and game and no ammonut of practice with the game makes you wholly incapable of being beaten by you friend on the counch next to you.
This is not true. While the perfect precision is not given to anyone, those with practice can actually get it within a decent amount. When my ex-roommate convinced me to play perfect dark with him, he could aim just fine, it took me 3 hours just to figure out how to point in the general direction.
With the mouse, most people can point it in the general direction. I guess you could chuck it up to everyone has a decent amount of practice with the mouse.
So as far as I can tell, it does not level the field at all, it just makes it equally frustrating for everyone.
Worse, it is less ergonomic, at least for me. My fingers and wrists hurt after only half an hour of (joystick based) gamepad use. I have to quit just as I am getting started.
Probably not. However, you will have to convince me that the specific ancient hebrew word for rib has a very specific colloquial use, and not a more general meaning.
Think of this problem. Stomach in a specific definition refers to the organ. However, the colloquial use, it is a synonym for the lower torso.
When I say, my stomach hurts, in fact the pain is more likely in my intestines or the bladder.
So he could say, he broke a left rib, but the same words colloquially could mean he was hurt in the left side. Which one he meant, we would not know.
Unfortunately it gets worse. I have been called a heathen for saying that Dec. 25 is not the day JC was born. When I asked for their source (not proof!), I got called a heathen again.
This is from at least 3 separate people. Maybe they all feel offended by all the people who point out Saturnalia(?) and its 'coincidence'. (Personally, I actually have no information on whether or not it is a coincidence, so I treat is as such)
Sadly, I taunted one of these people with the request for explanation of the eastern orthodox christmas on Jan 7, and the response was basically something along the lines of the entire eastern orthodox christians being dumb and delusioned.
I wish people would at least know what they believe in.
Also, I am probably not too familiar with western christianity in general, but should I be offended when a christians tells me that I will burn in hell. I do not get offended, but what is interesting, by not getting offended, they get offended. This confuses me.
I do not care about hell, but I would not mind keeping the other person happy as well. I mean, belittling hell is not the right solution. Ignoring it seems just as bad. Saying, yes I will become a better christian is not the right answer, since it is an outright lie. Is there a right answer for these people that does not involve converting to their religion.
My guess is they feel like a public speaker, who feels bad because no one clapped at their speech. But then if you have so many speakers delivering the same speech, most of them are bound to suck.
The main issue is whether it will be a completely separate concept of a precise body organ.
Or would it more more like this fake, but plausible defintion:
Liver. n. 1. a large brown organ in the abdomen. 2. a internal body component that gives life.
The main issue is when they say rib, it may have meant referred to something else as well, even if they perfectly understood it, the colloquial meaning may be different.
It takes a certain amount of precision in the language to force stupid ideas out of the definition. We are a modern culture, yet we still conceive the heart as a love organ.
I now I am being as trollish and redundant about this as much as I am about the stupid 1-button touchpad on apple laptops.....
But how can anyone play a first person shooter on a gamepad? Absolute motion axis suck for aiming. Anyone who says otherwise is a console system apologist, and in denial.
More on-topic: is it out for PC yet. Because I might want to try to wine it. People keep telling me it is good.
Flame on! And do not forget to mod this -1 for the blatant stab at one of only 2 reasons why I do not want a Powerbook.
Would not surprise me. However, fairly old texts are available, and there are people who study the origin of words in ancient hebrew. Those guys can comment wither rib can also stand for part. Personally it would not surprise me, since I do not think that ancient languages would have advanced anatomy words.
First of all, companies can break laws. Companies break pollution laws all the time, and they are fined for it. If you slip on a banana peel in walmart and break a bone, you do not sue the guy who left it there, you sue the company for failing to take care of it.
So lets see what the meaning of the company is. First of all a company is a contractual entity. What this means is that all the company is is a contract signed by the owner with the government to form some entity that obeys certain laws. These laws dictate how the company and the owner must behave.
A lot of these laws are designed to define liability. Before there were LLC and corporations, businesses were cooperatives or privately owned. Everything the business did, the owner is liable for.
Let's take a simple example of you owning a block of apartments, that has a tree that falls and kills somebody. Since you are the sole owner, you are responsible for that tree. In fact you might be held crimanally negligable even if you have never seen the tree. (You have a stupid manager, and you do not set foot on the property). It is your stuff and you did not take care of it. In the least case a civil suit can be passed on to you.
But you were wiser than that. You formed an LLC. Suddenly you are partially off the hook, but the organization can be held responsible. The manager, who is responsible may even be jailed as he should have seen it. You may end up losing a business, as it can become shut down (not likely), and all the money invested in it, you have some liability but it is likely not criminal since you personally are not the owner and responsibility has been delegated.
Corporation is the same thing, except now you do not even have monetary connection, save for the money directly invested by you personally.
In a typical public corporation, investors are owners. Any share that you own makes you a part owner, and if the law does not separate the owner from the company, each shareholder is responsible for every move of the company. The idea of the corporation is to protect investors from the responsibility they were not aware of. Without this, idea of shareholders and venture capitalists would not be possible. Too much personal risk.
Now, let's analyze the example of who is responsible for companies tax evasion. The entity that does it of course. The company. The government will not spend time figuring out which accountant in the company fudged the tax sheet. It will not arrest all the accountants. Likely the initial solution is to freeze the company. Since freezing the company is typically bad for the economy, and usually only a couple of people are responsible, the govt orders the company to do an internal investigation, and figure out the cause. Then if the laws allow it, the govt can prosecute the individuals responsible, and release the company.
The problem is how to hold the individuals responsible. If I were a junior accountant who had access to the documentation, but did not find the fudging, I would be changing my pants every time my name gets mentioned, even though I did not do it, since I am partly negligent.
The problem is how to pass the blame, and typically the law has been very conservative, unless it is obvious. Do not blame individual employees whenever possible, and use huge fines, since one can not jail a company, and freezing it is typically worse than not freezing it.
Only now has the government been trying to force the blame to be more personal. And even then, they have a hard time doing it. I do not understand all the reasons how it is done or not done, but I suspect that they follow the money. Here is my understanding of the Enron prosecution. The people who are being prosecuted are not even being prosecuted for their actions in the company, but rather for using their positions of power in the company to steal from the company. An example is it may not be illegal for a CEO to raise the salary of the CFO. However, it is illegal for the CFO to give CEO a kickback fro
Either that or somebody is certainly trying to make the time span managed in the book.
I mean a couple of billion years has fit in about 5 days. Speaking of which,, the whole idea of T-Rex/ evolution that a lot of cristians find contradictory to the bible does not have to contradict at all. The bible said that animals were created in one day. It does not say how. And it could have been a long day. The only direct reference is sculping adam out of clay (IIRC) and making eve out of a rib...that does not make much sense, but even christians agree that bible is full of metaphors. Taking it as the exact literal truth is not correct.
Speaking of god's increased precision, as the time passes... Is it just me or is god exponentially decreasing in time and scope.
fake legal entities called "corporations" to let people hide behind to avoid taking responsibility for their actions
There is a problem with reasoning in this idea.
Corporations are specifically designed to be separate entities as to abstract away from the owners of the company. Do you really want to hold the shareholders responsible for their company's tax evasion?
Note that the laws should not protect individuals working for the company for their involvement. Right now the difference between employees and their company is a bit blurry, but more and more liability is assigned.
The owners of corporation should continue to have no liability.
That said, I still do not think that corporations are equivalent to citizens. They should have contract making abilities, but they should not have much of a voice in politics, especially with money.
That said, my political alignment is a 'cautious' libertarian. I do not believe in complete economic freedom. It can easily be worse than what we have now.
True libertarians do not believe in things like 'monopolies are bad'. They believe that free market will eventually take care of them, but they forget that certain things do not apply to the free market, like lock-in or natural monopolies (which should be govt managed).
Your post is a stream of drivel. Please think before you post.
Government owned and operated business (including government-granted monopoly) is supposed to be a rational decision by the government to remove competition from the market to bring a resource to the people. This is typically done for essential services.
Example: most states have a government granted monopoly for a power company. No one can start another power company for that state. In return, these companies are supposed to obey by the rules. Things like quality of service and maximum prices can be set by the government. Frequently the government requires that such companies be non-profit entities. Other examples of these are DMV offices and lotteries. Roads are frequently maintained by the government (and paid by taxes or tolls).
However, not all states subscribe to that policy. Some have competing power companies, others have major roads that are private, that live by their own tolls, etc.
There are benefits and downsides to both ways.
If the government controls a resource, and enforces a monopoly, there is typically a rule on the quality of service. Rates are determined by the people. (otherwise why would people who use more electricity pay more? Would not more consumption imply more product sold to them, therefore a lower price?). The downside -- no competition or innovation. No company can improve the market. All improvements must go through the company, which is typically slow. No innovator can become rich off his innovation.
If the business controls a resource, then competition is back. Features, addons, and what not will be added, tackled on, etc. Deals, sales, innovationg startups. All of these things are good for the economy. The downside: the service will be as crappy as companies can get away with. Fraud, confusion, and disinformation will be rampant. Just look at advertisements.
Lets take a look at the libraries -- your example. Suppose the government decided to privatise libraries. Suddenly the library companies develop. They begin charging money -- Say 10c a book for 2 weeks. Immediately you will see new releases, advertisements for new releases, older books that no one reads will be moved to basements or destroyed. Basically, you will get the video rental store concept in the book world.
Good? I do not know. On one side, I will suddenly be able to read the book that is actually sold in the bookstore today by renting it. The bad -- suddenly shakespeare or pretty much anything obscure will disappear.
Police -- your other example. Remove government police, and form private security companies. Suddenly you have compentition. You will have police forces competing on response times. The bad -- these forces may not have lethal power at their disposal. Also they may not have arrest authority, which means that they can not stop cars on the interstate and search them for drugs even with a warrant. Basically, the fact is that the arrest responsibility is on the government is why privatizing police just will not work.
As I have said before -- please think before you post.
Actually the reason that companies produce and market these drugs is that they sell. If there is anyone to blame -- blame the people who buy them.
Strange, but the drug companies are in fact searching for cures. But they market their designer drugs, because that is what people have the desire to buy. (Remember that viagra started out as heart medicine)
Also, I used to be one of the people that thought that drug companies are out there to make treatments -- and not cures, but I stopped believing that. The patent time is short enough that the drug becomes not very profitable very quickly as generics are manufactured.
I have seen this troll on multiple occasions. I am glad that you decided to respond to it.
You will be my hero if you will get some sources to back up your facts, and polish up some others (the "standing up for what is right" is a bit weak and not very precise. Granted that is the most truthful claim of the troll).
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. Makes me wonder if I should try to use a Wacom tablet for UT2004.
*thinking*
Eraser for secondary fire, tap for shoot.
*shudder*
Maybe not.
I did not ask for a very specific answer on the issues. I know some of what you have said to some extent. Some people chuse to put it in slightly different words. But the problem is that most will brush you off or attack you.
Your answer in the second paragraph is what I was stressing. Not enough people do that. I wish they would.
Thanks for your reply.
well depends which evolution. Local evolution is not a theory, but a proven fact. We know it happens, it has been observed in organisms -- see butterflies of england, and mathematically shown. (See genetic algorithms).
Complete evolution, aka humans arising from the primitive life arising from primitive chemicals has not been shown. The second part being the most doubted and least supported.
Unfortunately, a lot of christian disagree with both theories, which puts me at odds with them.
Well put. Thanks.
Hmmm. I think you are right. The old new year is on Jan 14. This makes the 25 to be the new xmas.
Strage, but the people who I know (orthodox russians) mostly celebrate it on the 7th.
But then again, it is russia. Everyone looks for a reason to celebrate, as long as it involves alcohol.
Some adherents of Christian denominations have the tendency to take inflammatory stances that make all Christians seem like radicals.
They are lucky I am hard to offend. But why is that I keep bumping into these people so often. I will guess they are the ones bringing up the religion first I guess.
Bah. No hard feelings.
The main issue to hold individuals responsible is composite negligence.
Sometimes you can not have a single person responsible for a problem. It may be that the company does not have anyone specifically do something illegal/wrong, but the company ends up doing it anyway.
Look at the Bhopal disaster. What specific wrong did the CEO of UCC do? He probably did not even think about safety regulations at certain plants. As far as most people outside of the plant knew is that the plant was created accroding to rules and regulations.
But then the only person responsible for the Bhopal incident are the people who specifically disabled the safety equipment, and specifically caused the explosion.
So why did UCC give India so much money if they were not responsible for the incident at all. Why should the CEO be extradited to india. I believe he is a wanted man there.
I seriously doubt that he himself told the plan to turn of the safeties. I doubt that he himself caused the explosion. So why does India think that he is responsible.
The law was created to avoid scapegoats. It is a good thing.
As for individual people stirring up trouble without doing anything illegal...it is too rare. Why would anyone risk being fired to make money for the company such that they can not profit from it. Why would an accountant fudge taxes, if he can be arrested even for something as simple as a tiny salary increase. And if he really did not benefit at all, then he will simply be fired. Sorry I do not see the main issue. This case is almost inplausible.
Just to comment more on:
Clearly any reasonable person would look at this and agree that the accountant did something illegal.
The accountant did not do anything illegal. He fudged the documents that the company did not have to submit to IRS, but it did. If the accountant did it for his profit, then there is already a law for it. If he did not, the company will pay a fine, and the accountant is fired. Sounds fair.
Your point:
Companies are abstract concepts, not physical beings. They cannot break laws, dump chemicals, engage in questionable accounting, or write buggy software, only people can do these things.
Just to reiterate. A single person can make the most correct decision, and in aggregate something illegal happens. Do you think that the tree that has fallen in your apartment block complex is a specific person's responsiblity? But if not whose is it?
If they didn't (say a disgruntled employee acting alone does something illegal) then they shouldn't be held accountable.
If it can be shown that the employee was doing this not on the behalf of the company, then the laws can apply to him separately. If the action was done on behalf or via means of the company, then the company will be found responsible (possibly both). The company can in turn take civil means against the employee (sue or fire).
Suppose the driver of hazmat materials dumps them in the river. He commited a crime, but it is the responsibility of the company to clean up. Why? It is their employee, and their stuff. I am trying to keep my laughter down as I imagine the next shareholders meeting out in the river cleaning up the stuff (since the blame would transfer to them, as it is their chemicals)
Why not hold the specific person responsible? Very simple, company would hire scapegoats. Need to get rid of 100 tons of nasty stuff. Hire a trucker to spill it in the river, give him a $10 mil swiss bank account for his troubles. Still cheaper than disposing it. And he will simply get criminal negligence, and the government will foot the clean up bill.
Speaking of
I'll bet there would be a lot less corruption and a lot more whistleblowers if people knew their own asses were on the line if they break the law. After seeing what unchecked corporate shenanigans can do like with Enron, WorldCom, etc, I think we can all agree this would be a good thing.
They are on the line. Most people just think they can get away with it.
Sure. But will bet that even a lower skilled person such as I can outtype anyone trying to type on their cellphone. That stands even if my thumb is only good enough to be stuck up my ass, or to press a single key (spacebar) on the keyboard. The crappy keyboard on cell phones is required for portability. No such requirement on the xbox, but they did it anyway.
So if you feel that what you use is always superior to what I use, please, by all means, replace your keyboard with something the size of a dollar bill. Maybe then you will not be able to make a post in time for me to care to read it.
Some technology is just plain inferior. I do not encourage it.
You grouped two unrelated statements.
There are a lot of christians who believe that evolution is not plausible under the bible. I challenge that fact. The fact that they take the other point does not make me think that they know less of their religion.
What makes me think the second statement is not all that false, is that I keep bringing up various contradictions, many of which have perfectly good answers. And people either yell on me for making them consider such unholy thoughts, or just not be able to answer that.
The ones that get annoyed, I have disrespect for. What is the point of believeing in something, if you do not know what you believe in. Note that this is different than asking WHY you believe in something.
The questions that I ask are 'simple' things. Why are they eating crab, when bible says do not eat crab. If the old testament was overpowered by the new one, then how does one pick which laws survived. (a quick jab at the gay issue). Why do some of the biblical characters took multiple wives. Why is not ok to kill, but ok to go to war.
Now granted I am displaying the fact that I have no clue about christianity, outside of a few things I have seen before. But the believers are supposed to be to some extent the experts on the matter.
The answer I respect the most, when a person is stumped by the question:
1. Pull out a bible, check the facts, become confused by the conflicting information.
2. Tell me that they will check with someone who can explain.
3. Get back to me.
This goes for all religions.
The best answer I have had yet.
I was discussing some kosher laws with a jewish guy, and he got confused by something poorly specified there (chicken and milk, since chicken does not produce milk). He asked a rabbi, who gave him a poor, and unsatisfactory answer. The guy was unhappy with the answer, told me he is going to ask someone else. A few days later I had a call inviting me to some other rabbi for lunch and research. That rabbi has opened up a bunch of books (Talmud, I think was one of them), and was seeing why the rule is the case. Turns out that kosher laws have a tradition of avoiding a slippery slope, and if an interpretation is chosen, then things that are not even covered by interpretation, but very similar may be disallowed. I think that he quoted some rabbis in the 15th century, who have observed something about people using (I think) rice on passover, which is not strictly forbidden by the laws, and then these people ended up mixing grain in, if the rice was not plentiful enough to feed the people, etc. It was a better answer than I wished for, and more than I can remember. Yet I think that this is how one should believe in religion. Know what it says, and if it does not say it, know why.
Most people only think they know what they believe in. Those that try to know more, have my respect.
I brought it up as a side discussion. Not to fight the original comments. Actually the great grandparent switched the discussion as an answer to my side question. I am aware of the fact that xmas is not in the bible, and that the interpretation of the bible has nothing to do with it.
I do not want to lump these people together. I know a lot of strict old testament interpretationalists do not believe in xmas on Dec 25. But a lot of these people are the same people, usually the ones that do not give a thought to actually reading the bible, but only listen to pastors and repeat exactly as the they have heard it, I guess.
I am not being sneaky, but it seems that my attention span is shorter than this thread's.
You are correct. I did not think that Jehova's do not celebrate xmas. Obviously I will not take your word for it, but I will look it up.
That means there would be 5 million people a whole lot happier if the mouse were to become available.
These people play because this is the only way they can play the game.
To me it is a killer. I do not have dexterity to hold the controller, and be very precise with a thumb.
Controller -- good for certain things. Sucks for most. The day it is not the primary input on the console is the day I will consider buying one.
Halo is great for multiplayer, because you sit there and game and no ammonut of practice with the game makes you wholly incapable of being beaten by you friend on the counch next to you.
This is not true. While the perfect precision is not given to anyone, those with practice can actually get it within a decent amount. When my ex-roommate convinced me to play perfect dark with him, he could aim just fine, it took me 3 hours just to figure out how to point in the general direction.
With the mouse, most people can point it in the general direction. I guess you could chuck it up to everyone has a decent amount of practice with the mouse.
So as far as I can tell, it does not level the field at all, it just makes it equally frustrating for everyone.
Worse, it is less ergonomic, at least for me. My fingers and wrists hurt after only half an hour of (joystick based) gamepad use. I have to quit just as I am getting started.
Probably not. However, you will have to convince me that the specific ancient hebrew word for rib has a very specific colloquial use, and not a more general meaning.
Think of this problem. Stomach in a specific definition refers to the organ. However, the colloquial use, it is a synonym for the lower torso.
When I say, my stomach hurts, in fact the pain is more likely in my intestines or the bladder.
So he could say, he broke a left rib, but the same words colloquially could mean he was hurt in the left side. Which one he meant, we would not know.
Unfortunately it gets worse. I have been called a heathen for saying that Dec. 25 is not the day JC was born. When I asked for their source (not proof!), I got called a heathen again.
This is from at least 3 separate people. Maybe they all feel offended by all the people who point out Saturnalia(?) and its 'coincidence'. (Personally, I actually have no information on whether or not it is a coincidence, so I treat is as such)
Sadly, I taunted one of these people with the request for explanation of the eastern orthodox christmas on Jan 7, and the response was basically something along the lines of the entire eastern orthodox christians being dumb and delusioned.
I wish people would at least know what they believe in.
Also, I am probably not too familiar with western christianity in general, but should I be offended when a christians tells me that I will burn in hell. I do not get offended, but what is interesting, by not getting offended, they get offended. This confuses me.
I do not care about hell, but I would not mind keeping the other person happy as well. I mean, belittling hell is not the right solution. Ignoring it seems just as bad. Saying, yes I will become a better christian is not the right answer, since it is an outright lie. Is there a right answer for these people that does not involve converting to their religion.
My guess is they feel like a public speaker, who feels bad because no one clapped at their speech. But then if you have so many speakers delivering the same speech, most of them are bound to suck.
Or would it more more like this fake, but plausible defintion:The main issue is when they say rib, it may have meant referred to something else as well, even if they perfectly understood it, the colloquial meaning may be different.
It takes a certain amount of precision in the language to force stupid ideas out of the definition. We are a modern culture, yet we still conceive the heart as a love organ.
I now I am being as trollish and redundant about this as much as I am about the stupid 1-button touchpad on apple laptops.....
But how can anyone play a first person shooter on a gamepad? Absolute motion axis suck for aiming. Anyone who says otherwise is a console system apologist, and in denial.
More on-topic: is it out for PC yet. Because I might want to try to wine it. People keep telling me it is good.
Flame on! And do not forget to mod this -1 for the blatant stab at one of only 2 reasons why I do not want a Powerbook.
Thanks for agreeing, with more perspective and detail.
Given that, why do so many christians believe that evolution contradicts the bible?
But then again... I am not specifically looking for the answer.
Would not surprise me. However, fairly old texts are available, and there are people who study the origin of words in ancient hebrew. Those guys can comment wither rib can also stand for part. Personally it would not surprise me, since I do not think that ancient languages would have advanced anatomy words.
First of all, companies can break laws. Companies break pollution laws all the time, and they are fined for it. If you slip on a banana peel in walmart and break a bone, you do not sue the guy who left it there, you sue the company for failing to take care of it.
So lets see what the meaning of the company is. First of all a company is a contractual entity. What this means is that all the company is is a contract signed by the owner with the government to form some entity that obeys certain laws. These laws dictate how the company and the owner must behave.
A lot of these laws are designed to define liability. Before there were LLC and corporations, businesses were cooperatives or privately owned. Everything the business did, the owner is liable for.
Let's take a simple example of you owning a block of apartments, that has a tree that falls and kills somebody. Since you are the sole owner, you are responsible for that tree. In fact you might be held crimanally negligable even if you have never seen the tree. (You have a stupid manager, and you do not set foot on the property). It is your stuff and you did not take care of it. In the least case a civil suit can be passed on to you.
But you were wiser than that. You formed an LLC. Suddenly you are partially off the hook, but the organization can be held responsible. The manager, who is responsible may even be jailed as he should have seen it. You may end up losing a business, as it can become shut down (not likely), and all the money invested in it, you have some liability but it is likely not criminal since you personally are not the owner and responsibility has been delegated.
Corporation is the same thing, except now you do not even have monetary connection, save for the money directly invested by you personally.
In a typical public corporation, investors are owners. Any share that you own makes you a part owner, and if the law does not separate the owner from the company, each shareholder is responsible for every move of the company. The idea of the corporation is to protect investors from the responsibility they were not aware of. Without this, idea of shareholders and venture capitalists would not be possible. Too much personal risk.
Now, let's analyze the example of who is responsible for companies tax evasion. The entity that does it of course. The company. The government will not spend time figuring out which accountant in the company fudged the tax sheet. It will not arrest all the accountants. Likely the initial solution is to freeze the company. Since freezing the company is typically bad for the economy, and usually only a couple of people are responsible, the govt orders the company to do an internal investigation, and figure out the cause. Then if the laws allow it, the govt can prosecute the individuals responsible, and release the company.
The problem is how to hold the individuals responsible. If I were a junior accountant who had access to the documentation, but did not find the fudging, I would be changing my pants every time my name gets mentioned, even though I did not do it, since I am partly negligent.
The problem is how to pass the blame, and typically the law has been very conservative, unless it is obvious. Do not blame individual employees whenever possible, and use huge fines, since one can not jail a company, and freezing it is typically worse than not freezing it.
Only now has the government been trying to force the blame to be more personal. And even then, they have a hard time doing it. I do not understand all the reasons how it is done or not done, but I suspect that they follow the money. Here is my understanding of the Enron prosecution. The people who are being prosecuted are not even being prosecuted for their actions in the company, but rather for using their positions of power in the company to steal from the company. An example is it may not be illegal for a CEO to raise the salary of the CFO. However, it is illegal for the CFO to give CEO a kickback fro
Either that or somebody is certainly trying to make the time span managed in the book.
I mean a couple of billion years has fit in about 5 days. Speaking of which,, the whole idea of T-Rex/ evolution that a lot of cristians find contradictory to the bible does not have to contradict at all. The bible said that animals were created in one day. It does not say how. And it could have been a long day. The only direct reference is sculping adam out of clay (IIRC) and making eve out of a rib...that does not make much sense, but even christians agree that bible is full of metaphors. Taking it as the exact literal truth is not correct.
Speaking of god's increased precision, as the time passes... Is it just me or is god exponentially decreasing in time and scope.
fake legal entities called "corporations" to let people hide behind to avoid taking responsibility for their actions
There is a problem with reasoning in this idea.
Corporations are specifically designed to be separate entities as to abstract away from the owners of the company. Do you really want to hold the shareholders responsible for their company's tax evasion?
Note that the laws should not protect individuals working for the company for their involvement. Right now the difference between employees and their company is a bit blurry, but more and more liability is assigned.
The owners of corporation should continue to have no liability.
That said, I still do not think that corporations are equivalent to citizens. They should have contract making abilities, but they should not have much of a voice in politics, especially with money.
That said, my political alignment is a 'cautious' libertarian. I do not believe in complete economic freedom. It can easily be worse than what we have now.
True libertarians do not believe in things like 'monopolies are bad'. They believe that free market will eventually take care of them, but they forget that certain things do not apply to the free market, like lock-in or natural monopolies (which should be govt managed).
Sure Diebold machines aren't windows machines
Ummm. Diebold machines are windows machines. They run MS Access as the database too.
Scary, I know.
There was no option for -1, too informative. This was the closest.
Your post is a stream of drivel. Please think before you post.
Government owned and operated business (including government-granted monopoly) is supposed to be a rational decision by the government to remove competition from the market to bring a resource to the people. This is typically done for essential services.
Example: most states have a government granted monopoly for a power company. No one can start another power company for that state. In return, these companies are supposed to obey by the rules. Things like quality of service and maximum prices can be set by the government. Frequently the government requires that such companies be non-profit entities. Other examples of these are DMV offices and lotteries. Roads are frequently maintained by the government (and paid by taxes or tolls).
However, not all states subscribe to that policy. Some have competing power companies, others have major roads that are private, that live by their own tolls, etc.
There are benefits and downsides to both ways.
If the government controls a resource, and enforces a monopoly, there is typically a rule on the quality of service. Rates are determined by the people. (otherwise why would people who use more electricity pay more? Would not more consumption imply more product sold to them, therefore a lower price?). The downside -- no competition or innovation. No company can improve the market. All improvements must go through the company, which is typically slow. No innovator can become rich off his innovation.
If the business controls a resource, then competition is back. Features, addons, and what not will be added, tackled on, etc. Deals, sales, innovationg startups. All of these things are good for the economy. The downside: the service will be as crappy as companies can get away with. Fraud, confusion, and disinformation will be rampant. Just look at advertisements.
Lets take a look at the libraries -- your example. Suppose the government decided to privatise libraries. Suddenly the library companies develop. They begin charging money -- Say 10c a book for 2 weeks. Immediately you will see new releases, advertisements for new releases, older books that no one reads will be moved to basements or destroyed. Basically, you will get the video rental store concept in the book world.
Good? I do not know. On one side, I will suddenly be able to read the book that is actually sold in the bookstore today by renting it. The bad -- suddenly shakespeare or pretty much anything obscure will disappear.
Police -- your other example. Remove government police, and form private security companies. Suddenly you have compentition. You will have police forces competing on response times. The bad -- these forces may not have lethal power at their disposal. Also they may not have arrest authority, which means that they can not stop cars on the interstate and search them for drugs even with a warrant. Basically, the fact is that the arrest responsibility is on the government is why privatizing police just will not work.
As I have said before -- please think before you post.
Actually the reason that companies produce and market these drugs is that they sell. If there is anyone to blame -- blame the people who buy them.
Strange, but the drug companies are in fact searching for cures. But they market their designer drugs, because that is what people have the desire to buy. (Remember that viagra started out as heart medicine)
Also, I used to be one of the people that thought that drug companies are out there to make treatments -- and not cures, but I stopped believing that. The patent time is short enough that the drug becomes not very profitable very quickly as generics are manufactured.
I have seen this troll on multiple occasions. I am glad that you decided to respond to it.
You will be my hero if you will get some sources to back up your facts, and polish up some others (the "standing up for what is right" is a bit weak and not very precise. Granted that is the most truthful claim of the troll).
Thanks again.