There really isn't much "we" can do. The minute we got up on a podium and rail against some other movement we would become exactly what we attacked.
The best response to this from a Christian standpoint would be to show grace and love to homosexuals, and ignore the rest of the crowds that want an excuse to attack Christianity because of their intolerance.
But you have demonstrated your own variety of intolerance, which I wish you could see, because there are so many more like you out there who cannot see themselves objectively.
Christians should not discriminate against homosexuals, but non-Christians should not pick apart their neighbors belief structures. Just because I think some activity is wrong doesn't mean I can't be around someone who engages in that activity. Hell, I'll be the first to admit I've also engaged in immoral sexual conduct. Did God damn me to hell? He could have, but He chose not to. The same offer is extended to everyone.
You can pay free software developers, too. And, when different users have conflicting desires, you can keep different patchsets against the main code so that distributions can target different users and patch accordingly.
You're being way too literal. When some company is granted a patent, it can start asking for money for its application. In a neo-con society, government services will start to charge for all services, even the basic ones. Do I need to mention the state of health services in the USA here? So, if the dark powers of hard corporatism get it their way, the given example might become a reality. No, not with a patent number, but an insurance number of some kind.
I'm no neo-con, but I'm pretty sure the public will end up paying for any of these 'government services.
I love how we can bash "the other group" just by inventing a scenario where they ruin everything.
I can beat many AIs on "hard" with only about 20 cities, each with either 2 or 3 tiles in between them (2 is preferable, as a unit can move in one turn from one city to another). My trick is to get the Great Library straight up (going for Republic anyway), let them research the "important" techs, and go straight for theology.
By the time I have theology, I usually have 20 cities each with a defensive unit and a workers. (more around "border" cities). I have the workers build roads to the cities, and set them all to build caravans. Then I pump out JS Bach's Cathedral and Michelangelo's chapel. Then I set my luxuries to 80% and use rapture growth to get all my cities to 8 (I use workers to ensure each city can get to enough food). At that point, I go for economics, get Adam Smiths, and build a granary, marketplace, temple, courthouse, city walls, aqueduct, etc. in every city. The aqueducts cost 2, but everything else is free! So I then rapture grow to 12 and keep luxuries at 10%, taxes at 10%, and science at 80%.
At that point I'll be about even in tech with the Great Library (electricity will be a ways off for the AI), and have the highest population and research techs the fastest. At that point I'm unstoppable.
I recommend you don't play on a huge map, since after a while the unchecked expansion of the computers will make turns take all day.
I've been talking with a friend of mine's dad who worked for a major chip manufacturer for a long time. Multi-core processors were being expiremented with back in the late 80's. Peecee users just wouldn't have bought it back then.
I've been studying latin via correspondence; really interesting stuff.
Makes my sub 120k user number heart feel young again.
Honestly, with uids in the high 800ks these days, I'm middle-aged:)
I can at least remember the Silver Age of Slashdot. Much like Roman art/literature, this was after the Golden Age. Good articles were still coming out, but the quality of the posts started seriously dropping.
I don't really care. I usually avoid being a grammar nazi (read my sig if you don't believe me), because in most cases people know the proper grammar they're just typing quickly and not double-checking their posts (which is fine).
In this case, though, most people are just ignorant on the matter.
The plural of 'virus' is not virii. I can't remember which declension virus is in, but the plural for virus is most likely 'viri' (if masculine), or 'vira' (if neuter). Some third declension nouns end in 'us' but I highly doubt virus is one of them (it would be 'vires' in that case, I believe). Knowing the the genetive singular would solve it all, but I don't know of any decent online latin dictionary.
I seem to recall the proper latin plural being 'viri,' but honestly in English I think we should all just say 'viruses.'
Amen. I used to get really frustrated with Gentoo zealots, but these days everyone is all ooey-gooey about Ubuntu. Granted, I've been using it on my desktop for a month and I like it, but I think I'm going back to Crux. The hand-holding gets annoying when it interferes with me doing things my way.
Yes, this would make him a real jerk. However, as I said, I'm merely trying to present a hypothetical scenario that is plausible in which God existed outside of time.
I see you appear to have done your best to misunderstand me.
Wrong. To say that God created the universe in ANY amount of time is to confine Him to a time-based existence.
Why? If God created time itself, then he can exist both in and outide of it as he well pleases. In fact, he could easily create many universes, each with its own time.
Something outside of time cannot interact in any meaningful fashion with things in time; it might just end up randomly throwing things together at different points in time, since they seem orderly to it. For God to understand time, God must be in time.
You're going to have to give me more than that. As it stands, simply calling him 'God' implies omniscience.
Also wrong. It is NOT possible that the universe has always existed. Scientists have conclusively proven that the universe is expanding. If the universe had always existed, there would be no way to tell if it was expanding; the change in size of an infinitely large universe would be so negligible as to be unmeasureable.
Current scientific theory holds that time in fact "expands" with the universe, so if you went 'back in time' you'd never stop, because your change-in-time approaches 0 as time slows.
As for the whole "15-year-old world" argument, that's just silly. We wouldn't have a "history spanning forever"; we'd have a history spanning 15 minutes, and LEGENDS of everything before that.
You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.
I'm not suggesting this is true; I merely want you to visualize this as a way of picturing how God could create time and exist outside it.
By the way, despite all of the smarminess and arrogance on both sides, I've found this thread quite interesting.
Well, I may be way off here, but I think the difference is that the Bible isn't a textbook. If it were being used as a textbook, you'd have an point. But it isn't, so you don't.
Creation implies that there is a time "before" the universe
Not at all, the creator need not be bound by the time that he creates within the universe at all.
It's perfectly possible that our universe has a creator and the universe always existed, in the sense that if we could travel back in time, we would never reach a "beginning." In fact, the universe could have been created 15 years ago, with a history spanning forever.
Creationism does imply that we cannot understand the creator as he exists outside of the universe while we exist within this one, which is where I think you've tripped up:
Because I am not only changing who my god is, I am changing the amount of complexity I throw unto this creature "god" which obviously represents the never-to-be-known. Thus I have more that I may know and less that I will never know.
Unless, of course, that creator entered the universe himself and starded interacting with it's inhabitants.
While I regret that a new slashdot mad-lib joke has just been created, I think it would be funnier if it read, "In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere could be used by terrorists!" It fits more with the paranoia.
I've pondered this many times. There's no reason mail, address books, and calendar servers couldn't stay separate, and have the clients integrate them together. The servers would need to all use a common client directory, but there's no reason an mta like exim or postfix couldn't be easily made to handle mail going to and from addresses that exist in some remote directory, not locally. I bet they already can, actually, but my only experience with mtas is within UNIX only environments.
But please, tell that to the original grandparent:
I have long given up my hopes that google will be a "nice" corporation. They have prooven over the last few months that profit is #1, like any other corporation. Like any other corporation: they should not be trusted.
If companies can follow moral principles whilst being profit driven (as you say), then this extreme position is also incorrect.
How about the states? Who says the federal government needs to flagrantly violate the constitution to keep America alive and healthy?
People have no sense of efficacy in the federal government. They are powerless. At the local and state level, however, they have a say. They can hold leaders more accountable. They can feel better about surrendering a portion of their income.
In my opinion, even if there were no government agency providing such services, as long as there were sincere liberals like yourself, there would be people willing to form non profits and evangelize their cause and raise a decent amount of money. Then, the people that donated could have a say in how things are run. For instance, lets say you live in my town (to make things simple), and you convince me to give 3% of my income to your non-profit that helps provide health care to citizens without policies. I realize that 60% of the money is going to cure type 2 diabetes which can be prevented with proper diet. I attend the next meeting and take the floor, propose that some of the funds be diverted to an education program, and have a floor vote on the matter.
Yes, America today could not support such a system. We're far too greedy, naive, and ignorant. But frankly I find the Big Mother liberal solution to be far too distasteful.
I know, letting go of Iron-age theology, bronze-age philosophy, and stone-age prejudices is painful, but you'll be much better off in the end.
What an arrogant thing to say.
At any rate, your belief that any model for evolution (or abiogenesis, for that matter) disproves the existence of God is absurd. Well before there were amino acids there was matter, and consistent laws of physics. Can you, in your God-like wisdom, explain that?
I know what the canned answer here is. It might be tempting to tell me that we should approach such questions objectively, and that creating our own hypothesis that we accept dogmatically without evidence runs contrary to reason. And you would be correct, but I have all the evidence I need.
The truth is, despite your best efforts to convince yourself that your views are scientific, have made a glaring leap of logic.
I have no inclination to try and reason my beliefs because if reason could bring you to accept the truth, reason could also lead you away. I'm just trying to establish that the belief in God (theism) is not hanging on whether or not evolution by natural selection is true.
Your other assumption is that Christianity is the product cultural diffusion is incorrect; if you study how it was formed, it introduced radically new thology* and philosophy in a very short period of time, in a place where there was really no competing ideas that resembled it.
* If you study this further, you'll see that I'm actually lying here, and both the context and the ideas based in Christianity had their root in pre-Christian Judaism. However, the extent to which the old concepts were fulfilled and expounded upon was simply much more than a small group of men could come up with. The Jews in power around the time of Christ for many reasons would not have come up with the ideas that formed Christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
The best response to this from a Christian standpoint would be to show grace and love to homosexuals, and ignore the rest of the crowds that want an excuse to attack Christianity because of their intolerance.
But you have demonstrated your own variety of intolerance, which I wish you could see, because there are so many more like you out there who cannot see themselves objectively.
Christians should not discriminate against homosexuals, but non-Christians should not pick apart their neighbors belief structures. Just because I think some activity is wrong doesn't mean I can't be around someone who engages in that activity. Hell, I'll be the first to admit I've also engaged in immoral sexual conduct. Did God damn me to hell? He could have, but He chose not to. The same offer is extended to everyone.
You can pay free software developers, too. And, when different users have conflicting desires, you can keep different patchsets against the main code so that distributions can target different users and patch accordingly.
1) 64-bit binaries are usually between 20% and 50% larger than their 32-bit counterparts. Windows XP doesn't use 64-bit binaries.
2) Don't use -O3, use -Os.
3) Memory reporting isn't always accurate (as others have stated).
You're being way too literal. When some company is granted a patent, it can start asking for money for its application. In a neo-con society, government services will start to charge for all services, even the basic ones. Do I need to mention the state of health services in the USA here? So, if the dark powers of hard corporatism get it their way, the given example might become a reality. No, not with a patent number, but an insurance number of some kind.
I'm no neo-con, but I'm pretty sure the public will end up paying for any of these 'government services.
I love how we can bash "the other group" just by inventing a scenario where they ruin everything.
The only word I can think of to describe it is 'ACK!'
SYN!
By the time I have theology, I usually have 20 cities each with a defensive unit and a workers. (more around "border" cities). I have the workers build roads to the cities, and set them all to build caravans. Then I pump out JS Bach's Cathedral and Michelangelo's chapel. Then I set my luxuries to 80% and use rapture growth to get all my cities to 8 (I use workers to ensure each city can get to enough food). At that point, I go for economics, get Adam Smiths, and build a granary, marketplace, temple, courthouse, city walls, aqueduct, etc. in every city. The aqueducts cost 2, but everything else is free! So I then rapture grow to 12 and keep luxuries at 10%, taxes at 10%, and science at 80%.
At that point I'll be about even in tech with the Great Library (electricity will be a ways off for the AI), and have the highest population and research techs the fastest. At that point I'm unstoppable.
I recommend you don't play on a huge map, since after a while the unchecked expansion of the computers will make turns take all day.
I've been talking with a friend of mine's dad who worked for a major chip manufacturer for a long time. Multi-core processors were being expiremented with back in the late 80's. Peecee users just wouldn't have bought it back then.
The real danger would be if default FireFox came with AdBlock + a blacklist. Then there would be a problem.
OT: The drafthouse would be the coolest thing ever if it weren't so dirty all the time.
Makes my sub 120k user number heart feel young again.
Honestly, with uids in the high 800ks these days, I'm middle-aged :)
I can at least remember the Silver Age of Slashdot. Much like Roman art/literature, this was after the Golden Age. Good articles were still coming out, but the quality of the posts started seriously dropping.
as for a latin word to end in double i it has to end in -ivs.
I knew that much :P
Also, when the word is used in english, as a loanword, it is pluralised as viruses,
Yeah I said that in my original post.
Thanks for the info, though :)
Anyway, since you seem to know better than me, could you tell me what the Latin plural should be?
What faq are you talking about?
Anyways, I'm glad you could use my post to experience a moment of trimumph and self worth. I hope it lasts...
In this case, though, most people are just ignorant on the matter.
I seem to recall the proper latin plural being 'viri,' but honestly in English I think we should all just say 'viruses.'
Amen. I used to get really frustrated with Gentoo zealots, but these days everyone is all ooey-gooey about Ubuntu. Granted, I've been using it on my desktop for a month and I like it, but I think I'm going back to Crux. The hand-holding gets annoying when it interferes with me doing things my way.
After knowing that you "lose respect" for others so easily (i.e. self-important posturing), I must admit I'm really having a hard time respecting you.
Yes, this would make him a real jerk. However, as I said, I'm merely trying to present a hypothetical scenario that is plausible in which God existed outside of time.
Wrong. To say that God created the universe in ANY amount of time is to confine Him to a time-based existence.
Why? If God created time itself, then he can exist both in and outide of it as he well pleases. In fact, he could easily create many universes, each with its own time.
Something outside of time cannot interact in any meaningful fashion with things in time; it might just end up randomly throwing things together at different points in time, since they seem orderly to it. For God to understand time, God must be in time.
You're going to have to give me more than that. As it stands, simply calling him 'God' implies omniscience.
Also wrong. It is NOT possible that the universe has always existed. Scientists have conclusively proven that the universe is expanding. If the universe had always existed, there would be no way to tell if it was expanding; the change in size of an infinitely large universe would be so negligible as to be unmeasureable.
Current scientific theory holds that time in fact "expands" with the universe, so if you went 'back in time' you'd never stop, because your change-in-time approaches 0 as time slows.
As for the whole "15-year-old world" argument, that's just silly. We wouldn't have a "history spanning forever"; we'd have a history spanning 15 minutes, and LEGENDS of everything before that.
You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.
I'm not suggesting this is true; I merely want you to visualize this as a way of picturing how God could create time and exist outside it.
By the way, despite all of the smarminess and arrogance on both sides, I've found this thread quite interesting.
Well, I may be way off here, but I think the difference is that the Bible isn't a textbook. If it were being used as a textbook, you'd have an point. But it isn't, so you don't.
Creation implies that there is a time "before" the universe
Not at all, the creator need not be bound by the time that he creates within the universe at all.
It's perfectly possible that our universe has a creator and the universe always existed, in the sense that if we could travel back in time, we would never reach a "beginning." In fact, the universe could have been created 15 years ago, with a history spanning forever.
Creationism does imply that we cannot understand the creator as he exists outside of the universe while we exist within this one, which is where I think you've tripped up:
Because I am not only changing who my god is, I am changing the amount of complexity I throw unto this creature "god" which obviously represents the never-to-be-known. Thus I have more that I may know and less that I will never know.
Unless, of course, that creator entered the universe himself and starded interacting with it's inhabitants.
While I regret that a new slashdot mad-lib joke has just been created, I think it would be funnier if it read, "In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere could be used by terrorists!" It fits more with the paranoia.
I've pondered this many times. There's no reason mail, address books, and calendar servers couldn't stay separate, and have the clients integrate them together. The servers would need to all use a common client directory, but there's no reason an mta like exim or postfix couldn't be easily made to handle mail going to and from addresses that exist in some remote directory, not locally. I bet they already can, actually, but my only experience with mtas is within UNIX only environments.
But please, tell that to the original grandparent:
I have long given up my hopes that google will be a "nice" corporation. They have prooven over the last few months that profit is #1, like any other corporation. Like any other corporation: they should not be trusted.
If companies can follow moral principles whilst being profit driven (as you say), then this extreme position is also incorrect.
People have no sense of efficacy in the federal government. They are powerless. At the local and state level, however, they have a say. They can hold leaders more accountable. They can feel better about surrendering a portion of their income.
In my opinion, even if there were no government agency providing such services, as long as there were sincere liberals like yourself, there would be people willing to form non profits and evangelize their cause and raise a decent amount of money. Then, the people that donated could have a say in how things are run. For instance, lets say you live in my town (to make things simple), and you convince me to give 3% of my income to your non-profit that helps provide health care to citizens without policies. I realize that 60% of the money is going to cure type 2 diabetes which can be prevented with proper diet. I attend the next meeting and take the floor, propose that some of the funds be diverted to an education program, and have a floor vote on the matter.
Yes, America today could not support such a system. We're far too greedy, naive, and ignorant. But frankly I find the Big Mother liberal solution to be far too distasteful.
I know, letting go of Iron-age theology, bronze-age philosophy, and stone-age prejudices is painful, but you'll be much better off in the end.
What an arrogant thing to say.
At any rate, your belief that any model for evolution (or abiogenesis, for that matter) disproves the existence of God is absurd. Well before there were amino acids there was matter, and consistent laws of physics. Can you, in your God-like wisdom, explain that?
I know what the canned answer here is. It might be tempting to tell me that we should approach such questions objectively, and that creating our own hypothesis that we accept dogmatically without evidence runs contrary to reason. And you would be correct, but I have all the evidence I need.
The truth is, despite your best efforts to convince yourself that your views are scientific, have made a glaring leap of logic.
I have no inclination to try and reason my beliefs because if reason could bring you to accept the truth, reason could also lead you away. I'm just trying to establish that the belief in God (theism) is not hanging on whether or not evolution by natural selection is true.
Your other assumption is that Christianity is the product cultural diffusion is incorrect; if you study how it was formed, it introduced radically new thology* and philosophy in a very short period of time, in a place where there was really no competing ideas that resembled it.
* If you study this further, you'll see that I'm actually lying here, and both the context and the ideas based in Christianity had their root in pre-Christian Judaism. However, the extent to which the old concepts were fulfilled and expounded upon was simply much more than a small group of men could come up with. The Jews in power around the time of Christ for many reasons would not have come up with the ideas that formed Christianity.