I've examined Flying Spaghetti Monster creation theory quite extensively. But to be honest, whenever I try to stick a fork in it, I find FSM to be full of holes -- the theory just doesn't stick. After analyzing the FSM diagrams myself, I've come to the conclusion that FSM theory was cleverly fabricated and covertly proposed by tobaco companies in an effort to corrupt our morals. A couple meat balls and some noodles? Who do they think they are fooling!?!
Good post, but one correction; the Catholic Church isn't anti-evolution (follow the linked article). The Church is anti-Darwinian evolution. I don't see why this should be a surprise to anyone either. Twenty years ago when I was in school, we were also taught the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwin himself came to question his own theory based upon observance of the development of traits in species that were not necessary for survival or procreation.
I didn't see it on the main page, but I did find it on several mirrors sites. stentz-binary-i386 (includes checksum for DVD iso) or FC4-arch-DVD.iso is what your looking for.
IMHO the proverb you quoted doesn't support the idea that God works through randomness in an absolute sence. Rather that randomness to which it refers exists only in the prespective of man who is unable to comprehend the ways and works of God. It's not that there isn't randomness in the universe, nor that God does not work through it, but...
With respect to creation, Einstien was able to comprehend enough about the complexity of the universe in his observation to conclude that at least there was some form of intelligence involved in it's design. When I read the first couple in Genesis, I can't help but come up with the idea that that which God created was 'ordered' which necessarily implies intelligent design. The catch as I see it, is in ones ability to observe what is and truely recognize where it came from and how and why it came to be.
Jesus came to us 2000 years ago and did miraculous things things that people witnessed first hand; many people still didn't believe in him. Man has an amazing ability to rationalize anything that can't be immeadiately explained.
Reality is sometimes a matter of perspectives. This leaves me wondering exactly how much secular science could even hope accomplish towards either proving or disproving that God created the universe. Probably many people would never believe God even existed unless they personally experienced heavenly intervention in thier own lives. I think that's why people often say God finds you before you find him.
Those who are "converted", such as myself, often say they found him in the realization of his creations. But really, the process of coming to believe (which can be more powerfull than the actual realization) is only as powerful as it is unique to the individual believer.
They press did him a favor by changing it to "invented" (which calls to mind people like Franklin and Edison) instead of using his whole quote?
What difference does it make wether I say "I invented the phonograph", or "I created the phonograph"? Could I not say the latter makes him into someone with a God complex? In any case, the words are in fact synonymous. What Gore actually said was a further qualification to "I created the internet"; it was "I took the initiative in creating the internet". I said that the further qualification might actually be harder to justify than what the press turned it into. It might have been easier for someone unfamiliar with the context of the quote to derive some truth from "I invented the internet" than "I took the initiative in creating the internet". I don't know, I suppose it's a matter of perspectives. In any case, another point that I made was that I believe the arguement over terminology in this case misses the greater point.
The greater point was that people were tired of being treated like small children with parents who only give them blanket statements. At that time a good reasonable person would have had valid cause for concern because of the climate created by Gore's boss. It didn't really matter how the press spun it, People were reading between, and even past the lines to determine the truth. They didn't have much of a choice really.
Tell me, just how many people believe that Congress has a technology research lab downstairs for their members to use on their downtime to invent important new things for the public's interest?
Is there such a thing as downtime for an important public servant? The fact is it's the leader's job to envision and direct activities ie. "The New Deal". While there may not be a specific congressional office devoted to research and development for congressional members, they do regularly interact with government agencies in various disciplines charged with the responsibility of coming up with new things to benefit the public interest. NASA for example, does much more than research space flight.
Do you honestly think that Gore was trying to set forth that he created the underlying technological backbone that was the Internet, ARPANet, et al?
Nope. However, I was involved in the work of DoD systems modernization and integration at the time. I was an electrical engineer who's father (an air force communications officer) got him interested in computers and modems and BBS's not long after the technologies started to become public domain. Even so, the internet was still relatively new and a significant portion of the general population didn't even have internet access yet, let alone know what exactly it was or how it came to be. All that really matters is what JQP would have known at the time, not what your typical slashdot geek knows now.
So was Gore out of line in saying it was through his effort that Congress pushed forth policies to bring "what we now know as the Internet" to us? Creating the broad landscape we were using every day from the private scientific/educational underpinnings? Offhand I'm not sure,
That part of what he said had a great deal of validity, but as I pointed out, that's not what his first statement said. In fact, I suppose one could interpret the following statements in Gore's speach not as a fleshing out of his initial statement, but as additional information. Really, if I were Gore I would have had a seroius talk with my campaign speach writers beforehand. Were these the same people the press gave so much praise to by virtue of the way they worked for Clinton? Further proof of the degree to which the press and politicians were out of touch with the american public IMHO.
However, the press morphed it almost instantly into a character flaw attack,
I think they do this for just about every important figure in the public eye they feel they can. More so perhaps for those who are
Gore's comments came out sounding goofy: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our countrys economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
IMHO, they come out sounding goofy because the premise statement is incorrect and furthermore, the second statement does not support the premise. If I say that I took the initiative in creating a system, that would mean that I were somehow responsible for coming up with the idea, performing the research and development, and constucting the system from the ground floor. However, with respect to the internet, all of these things were already in place before Gore came onto the scene.
What Gore was was perhaps the most important political figure involved in getting the federal govt. involved in growing the internet into the national resource service it came to be. That's impressive enough, why couldn't he have just said that? Instead the statement you quoted looks like election time self agrandisement filled with meaningless catch prases and little substance. The statement looks like something that "experts" would recommend one include in their corporate resume; it looks like something some young and trendy staffer compiled and wasn't adequately proofread by Gore. That the statement you quoted was delivered by Gore in a public speach incates to me at the very least a deficiency in judgement, and possibly an indication of poor ethics and morals.
To be honest, I'm not quite sure that the media wasn't doing him a favor by misquoting him. I'm not sure which of these statements coorelates more closely to the truth of what Gore did: "I invented the internet." (which could be at least stretch to mean that Gore was responsible for the internet as it was when he made the statement), or "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." (which is obviously false to anyone who knows absolutely how the internet originated and came to be.)
The critisism of the press seems to me a made up strawman.
I suspect the real issue that bugged people was the commonly perceived lack of substance in public statements by politicians in both parties (much like your own comments in regards to Bush). The emphasis seems to be on promoting oneself rather than giving the public (who was and is IMHO smarter than most give credit) the service they expect and deserve. Politicians who seem to care more about thier own image than the public good is a problem that seems to affect the Democratic party (to a greater degree than the Republican party) still today. I'm sure there good Democrats somewhere, why don't we see them?
As an exercise in school, we translated some passages of the bible from latin to english using translating dictionaries. I would recommend it to get a feel for how much can be interpreted along the way. When sentences don't quite make sense, it's hard to be clinical and not be creative.
I don't doubt that it can be difficult, for us at least. In fact it doesn't even have to be from language to language, difficulty can arise in simple interpretation within a single language. For example, take the modern word "four" -- one word, several possible meanings. It could simply be a cardinal number, or it might refer to something that falls out of the sky and hits players in the head; in order to determine the intended meaning, you need to analyze the context.
In fact, ancient Hebrew was like this too, and many times that single word could have multiple meanings, all of which make sense in the same sentance. The point of course is that culture and context go together. I would expect that scribes in the immeadiate culture would be able to make the proper determinations, however, I'm drawing from a culture in which we have relatively small diversity in terminology (english) and dictionaries that list even slang definitions. I suppose ancient scribes might not have had it so good. Of course, I'm sure there is also the case where there were people deliberately attempting to hide the truth.
Why didn't he just say 'eternal' -- there wasn't a word for it?
Poetic license? From someone somewhere along the way? Who knows?
I bet God knows. '77' or '70*7', they are both a long way from "eternal" right? And I don't think Jesus would have been careless in his choice of words here. Note that the word "eternal" is listed elsewhere in the NT. My guess is that in this particular verse, he is not encouraging disciples to persistence(he did that elsewhere), but something else. And they key to figuring out what Jesus meant by this can be found by contemplating the parable that parable that follows; the point of which Jesus explains is to encourage people to 'forgive from the heart'. That that forgiveness needs be true in both the heart of the giver and the reciever.
So I also have my own idea about what the true interpretation is which derives from a percieved consistency in the use of specific numbers in other places throughout the Bible. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but that doesn't mean a competing view is wrong. I'd be interested in knowing what you think is the right representation for Matthew 18:22.
if you really want to hear some convolouted logic, ask them how come "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are not mutually contridictory.
I am assuming that you are interpreting this to mean that one should kill witches. Another possible interpretation is that it is a warning not to listen to witches. For example: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch if one wishes to live" whereupon the witch would be excommunicated from the presence of God's people. Another possibility is that it was not intended as instruction for the general populace (as the ten commandements were), but only for those entrusted directly by God with the responsibility of protecting his people; the condidtion being that God himself would give the order to kill. I tend to disagree with this since the nature of Gods relationship with his people under the Mosaic covenent at the time (before his people rejected his commandments) was such that God employed angels to do this kind of work. More likely this law found its way into scripture via some unscrupulous scribe, or perhaps a series of bad translations.
Or could it be that those professing to follow the teachings of a supremely tolerant philosopher are in fact supremely failing to be tolerant.
Jesus Christ wasn't exactly tolerant; understanding and forgiving -- yes, tolerant -- no. In fact, one thing that most ancient Jews share with modern
"fundies" is a dangerous misconception of the works upon with their faith was founded. Modern fundamentalists deserve the same type of correction today that Jesus gave the Jews 2000 years ago.
It's a culture where infinity was conveyed with a phrase like "seventy times seven times" (490!).
Is that what Jesus was supposed to have said? Why didn't he just say 'eternal' -- there wasn't a word for it? Doesn't it seem just a bit strange to you that he would have said what he did in this particular fashion? Certainly there must be something to it. I mean, of all the things he said, his disciples chose to specifically relate this. Why? It's easy enough to dismiss the numerology as insignificant when compared to the message conveyed, most people and most myths don't concern themselves with that sort of detail do they?
I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I've put a significant amount of time into studying the Bible. I can say without a doubt that there is definate significance to the numerology. As with any other field of study, perspectives are modified as more information is obtained. What people believe by initial observation is often wrong because they don't have adequate life experience to make proper judgements in regards to what they are observing.
The keys can be found by making observations and drawing relations between events and seeing how they evolve (converge or diverge) over time. Be they patterns in biblical stories or historical events, or patterns in the development of life, sometimes what we don't see is even more significant than what we see. This is why we have people saying "evolution!" and another camp saying "creation!", both in opposition to one another. They are like mules wearing sun blinders, they can't see more then their own perspective gives them, and the system seems to encourage this.
soo.. what does that make me, a person who is:
- No to capital punishment
- No to war (except in self defense(*) )
- No to abortion
- No to euthanasia
Congratulations, it makes you Roman Catholic (what 80% of Christians in America confess to be). Surprized?
Most people either aren't aware of their church's position on various issues (sometimes even those who serve in the church), or don't take their church seriously.
While I enjoy the resources of Wikipedia- I often wonder how they come to terms with very controversal subjects- such as the Israeli/Palestinean conflict, the war of terror, the Halocaust--- etc.
I imagine that even a 'just the facts' representation might be difficult to arrive at for topics that involve politics and religion. Commercial vendors have much stricter data validation requirements than wikipedia. This is I suspect why Britannica is highly reguarded and generally acceptable source material. I don't think I would afford the same status to something like wikipedia.
As I see it, wikipedia's true value is in its convenience and perhaps it's ability to help in increasing the value of commercial products. I've used wikipedia only a little bit, mostly for researching religious topics. I've found that quality runs the gamut. Most entries are pretty good, but a few are just plain wrong (and self contradictory with cited reference material). But if I re-write something, someone else will come back and re-write what I wrote, etc...
So I suspect there might be limits on the level of quality achievable with any public open-sourced, openly editable work; limits that would be difficult if not impossible to overcome. I wouldn't use wikipedia for anything that I want to be athoritative. It might be good enough to be usefull as a good quick reference tool, but in general, if you can find it in wiki, and it's decent, then you should be able to find it from a more respectable source.
I asked why you would buy a flavor at B-R that you could get in a grocery store. Meaning, there are SO many flavors at B-R that you CAN'T get at the grocery store, why wouldn't you get one of those? Not quibbling with your decision to get ice cream at B-R. Just what flavor. Got it?
In one post you first asked why someone would buy ice cream at a B-R that they could get in a grocery store. Then you followed that question with a comment that indicated you had a problem with variety. It seemed to me that if you don't have an appreciation for variety, then you might not understand that variety is a big reason (if not the biggest reason) people go to ice cream specialty stores. So my reply was aimed at determining if you really didn't like variety. To most people that would probably sound strange, but having been a server at Denny's I know that there are quite a few people that, for whatever reason, don't like having lots of choices.
You responded to me with "Well duh...[statement that indicated you realized that we were talking about about free ice cream and that you thought that was preferable to paying for it (regardless of flavor I assume)]" and "But hello...[statement that indicated to me that you understood that ice cream stores have greater variety than the grocer and that that was a good thing]. So I was confused. You seemed to be answering your own question. Fine, but why the "Well duh..." and "But hello..."? Don't you know that these are slang terms that are generally percieved as being condecending? Well maybe you were just a very young person and perhaps I was missing something -- thus my query.
The tone and dead horse commentary of your reply that followed were obviously inappropriate to me. I was attempting to provide you with a serious response to to your question which I presumed you had postulated seriously. However, at the point of my previous reply, it seemed to me that your true intention was simply to waste my time and attempt to make me feel foolish. This is something the devil regularly attempts to do with me -- there were other red flags in your commentary, but I wont go into them here. If you understand what I'm talking about then you should know the warning signs to look for, if not (as I suspect might be the case here), well, i'm going to give you some free advice that I hope you take advantage of.
Never ever speak to anyone in a condecending manner; it simply serves no constructive purpose. Instead, to others, you'll normally look like a snobby inconsiderate brat. You also run the risk of engendering negative feelings in the one you direct your comments to, thus in at least some way alienating yourself from that person and hindering constructive communication. It may well be that you lack the life experience necessary to identify with the thoughts of the other person so that what seems obvious to you isn't necessarily to someone else. If you feel the urge to insult someone, take the time to think a little more about what's going on, or just ask the other person what their thinking is.
My original post was as much a joke as yours was. Because it should be obvious that no one would actually take ice cream flavors seriously enough to suggest that there are correct and incorrect ice cream flavors.
This was your original post:
Why on earth would you get any flavor at Baskin-Robbins that you can get from the grocery store?
I got chocolate mousse royale, but as soon as she gave it to me I saw another flavor with truffle pieces in it, then creme brulee... *sigh*
I don't see the logic in your statement that your original post was a joke. I interpreted your first statement as a serious question and your second as honest commentary. Am I missing something?
Actually, what you said, could aptly be used to characterize MY original reply. However, there was more to my reply than an extension of the concept of absurdity to build upon and clarify the point of the Rocky Rode joke. The
In case you need more explanation, my point was that the store offers a LOT of different flavors of ice cream, many of which you will not find in the grocery store.
If this was so obvious to you then why did you bother asking the question to begin with? That was you who asked why people would buy ice cream at a Baskin-Robins rather than a grocery store, right?
Is the horse dead enough yet? No? Shall I beat on it a bit more? Anyone not get the joke still? Gotta make sure we break it down into the smallest pieces possible in order to kill any humor that might linger.
Joke? Were you trying to be humorous satan? Sorry, but it looks to me as if the comments you made were aimed at making you look both condecending and foolish. I don't see any good value in your persistence here, unless of course, you really are incapable of change. As always I leave the choice yours to make.
Why on earth would you get any flavor at Baskin-Robbins that you can get from the grocery store?
Why pay for ice cream when it's offered to you freely?
I got chocolate mousse royale, but as soon as she gave it to me I saw another flavor with truffle pieces in it, then creme brulee...
Would you prefer it if plain vanilla were all that were offered to you?
For the record, my personnal fav is multicolored candy-coated bubble gum pieces in plain vanilla; a rare find indeed, but doesn't that make it all the better when finally get it?
Incredible isn't it? If I were running a company that produced anti-virus software and had a tech director say "A vulnerability isn't a vulnerability until it is discovered", there's a good chance I would fire him post haste. The concept of security through obscurity should be applied to releasing details about the particular exploit and not to the recognition of the exploit in the first place. How long do you suppose a company that would take such a position WRT security would last in the open market?
As good a concept as OSS is, I suspect it will never be popular here since there are so many malficients at work to screw up your system.
Interestingly enough, almost every Norton product I've ever purchased and installed has managed to screw up my system somehow. How's that for secure software? However, I'm not sure I'm ready to attribute that to Symantec instead of the malficients.
Based on another reply, I'm thinking I should go out and buy a couple of hard drives and hope I can copy all those old CDs.
Unless you are sure that the media you bought was high quality, you are going to have to get it off the CD-R's you burned and on to something more reliable. If that data is important to you, do it quickly.
What I got from the article was that the majority of CD-R's currently on sale at your local comp store are not good for archival purposes. There are no standards for archival media and there is considerable variation in available CD-R quality which makes it difficult to use the media for archival purposes. The good news is that the report identifies the deficiency here, and plans are in place for the govt. to work with industry to develop and implement standards for archival media.
Nevertheless, there are some recordable media available, notably those that use Phthalocyanine dye and gold coating, that can be used for archival purposes with suitable care. If you decide to archive on recordable disks, keep them stored in a dark and cool place. Generic CD-R's left in the car can go bad in as little as a few weeks; however, quality media suitably stored will be useable several decades down the road.
You should look for those keywords on the label for the CD-R's your planning on buying to determine if they are going to last since manufactures aren't always consistent in the use of a particular media type for their generic CD-R's. Better yet, do the research and find them online.
Since you have so much data to archive, you might consider buying a couple mobile USB drives and use those as your back-up medium instead of recordable disks. Another option, if you have a capable drive, is to use DVD-R media. However, for DVD-R, the report indicates that while quality varies, the specific data regarding the recording surfaces tested was unavailable. You would probably have to do a little more research yourself to find out how to pick quality archival DVD-R media, otherwise it appears to be a coin toss.
That's 600 dollars in India, which is equivalent to about 6,000,000 dollars in the US. Then of course, if you bang it up in a crash, then you'll have to rebuild it. You'll have to build it better, stronger, and faster than it was before. And who knows how much that will cost then.
Slashdot Mirror
I've examined Flying Spaghetti Monster creation theory quite extensively. But to be honest, whenever I try to stick a fork in it, I find FSM to be full of holes -- the theory just doesn't stick. After analyzing the FSM diagrams myself, I've come to the conclusion that FSM theory was cleverly fabricated and covertly proposed by tobaco companies in an effort to corrupt our morals. A couple meat balls and some noodles? Who do they think they are fooling!?!
Good post, but one correction; the Catholic Church isn't anti-evolution (follow the linked article). The Church is anti-Darwinian evolution. I don't see why this should be a surprise to anyone either. Twenty years ago when I was in school, we were also taught the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwin himself came to question his own theory based upon observance of the development of traits in species that were not necessary for survival or procreation.
I didn't see it on the main page, but I did find it on several mirrors sites. stentz-binary-i386 (includes checksum for DVD iso) or FC4-arch-DVD.iso is what your looking for.
TDI milage is nice, but VW reliabilty has always been sub-par. Also, low sulfur diesel fuel wont be here until another year or two.
IMHO the proverb you quoted doesn't support the idea that God works through randomness in an absolute sence. Rather that randomness to which it refers exists only in the prespective of man who is unable to comprehend the ways and works of God. It's not that there isn't randomness in the universe, nor that God does not work through it, but...
With respect to creation, Einstien was able to comprehend enough about the complexity of the universe in his observation to conclude that at least there was some form of intelligence involved in it's design. When I read the first couple in Genesis, I can't help but come up with the idea that that which God created was 'ordered' which necessarily implies intelligent design. The catch as I see it, is in ones ability to observe what is and truely recognize where it came from and how and why it came to be.
Jesus came to us 2000 years ago and did miraculous things things that people witnessed first hand; many people still didn't believe in him. Man has an amazing ability to rationalize anything that can't be immeadiately explained.
Reality is sometimes a matter of perspectives. This leaves me wondering exactly how much secular science could even hope accomplish towards either proving or disproving that God created the universe. Probably many people would never believe God even existed unless they personally experienced heavenly intervention in thier own lives. I think that's why people often say God finds you before you find him.
Those who are "converted", such as myself, often say they found him in the realization of his creations. But really, the process of coming to believe (which can be more powerfull than the actual realization) is only as powerful as it is unique to the individual believer.
Tell me where the chicken came from, and I'll tell you where the Universe came from.
They press did him a favor by changing it to "invented" (which calls to mind people like Franklin and Edison) instead of using his whole quote?
What difference does it make wether I say "I invented the phonograph", or "I created the phonograph"? Could I not say the latter makes him into someone with a God complex? In any case, the words are in fact synonymous. What Gore actually said was a further qualification to "I created the internet"; it was "I took the initiative in creating the internet". I said that the further qualification might actually be harder to justify than what the press turned it into. It might have been easier for someone unfamiliar with the context of the quote to derive some truth from "I invented the internet" than "I took the initiative in creating the internet". I don't know, I suppose it's a matter of perspectives. In any case, another point that I made was that I believe the arguement over terminology in this case misses the greater point.
The greater point was that people were tired of being treated like small children with parents who only give them blanket statements. At that time a good reasonable person would have had valid cause for concern because of the climate created by Gore's boss. It didn't really matter how the press spun it, People were reading between, and even past the lines to determine the truth. They didn't have much of a choice really.
Tell me, just how many people believe that Congress has a technology research lab downstairs for their members to use on their downtime to invent important new things for the public's interest?
Is there such a thing as downtime for an important public servant? The fact is it's the leader's job to envision and direct activities ie. "The New Deal". While there may not be a specific congressional office devoted to research and development for congressional members, they do regularly interact with government agencies in various disciplines charged with the responsibility of coming up with new things to benefit the public interest. NASA for example, does much more than research space flight.
Do you honestly think that Gore was trying to set forth that he created the underlying technological backbone that was the Internet, ARPANet, et al?
Nope. However, I was involved in the work of DoD systems modernization and integration at the time. I was an electrical engineer who's father (an air force communications officer) got him interested in computers and modems and BBS's not long after the technologies started to become public domain. Even so, the internet was still relatively new and a significant portion of the general population didn't even have internet access yet, let alone know what exactly it was or how it came to be. All that really matters is what JQP would have known at the time, not what your typical slashdot geek knows now.
So was Gore out of line in saying it was through his effort that Congress pushed forth policies to bring "what we now know as the Internet" to us? Creating the broad landscape we were using every day from the private scientific/educational underpinnings? Offhand I'm not sure,
That part of what he said had a great deal of validity, but as I pointed out, that's not what his first statement said. In fact, I suppose one could interpret the following statements in Gore's speach not as a fleshing out of his initial statement, but as additional information. Really, if I were Gore I would have had a seroius talk with my campaign speach writers beforehand. Were these the same people the press gave so much praise to by virtue of the way they worked for Clinton? Further proof of the degree to which the press and politicians were out of touch with the american public IMHO.
However, the press morphed it almost instantly into a character flaw attack,
I think they do this for just about every important figure in the public eye they feel they can. More so perhaps for those who are
Gore's comments came out sounding goofy: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our countrys economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
IMHO, they come out sounding goofy because the premise statement is incorrect and furthermore, the second statement does not support the premise. If I say that I took the initiative in creating a system, that would mean that I were somehow responsible for coming up with the idea, performing the research and development, and constucting the system from the ground floor. However, with respect to the internet, all of these things were already in place before Gore came onto the scene.
What Gore was was perhaps the most important political figure involved in getting the federal govt. involved in growing the internet into the national resource service it came to be. That's impressive enough, why couldn't he have just said that? Instead the statement you quoted looks like election time self agrandisement filled with meaningless catch prases and little substance. The statement looks like something that "experts" would recommend one include in their corporate resume; it looks like something some young and trendy staffer compiled and wasn't adequately proofread by Gore. That the statement you quoted was delivered by Gore in a public speach incates to me at the very least a deficiency in judgement, and possibly an indication of poor ethics and morals.
To be honest, I'm not quite sure that the media wasn't doing him a favor by misquoting him. I'm not sure which of these statements coorelates more closely to the truth of what Gore did: "I invented the internet." (which could be at least stretch to mean that Gore was responsible for the internet as it was when he made the statement), or "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." (which is obviously false to anyone who knows absolutely how the internet originated and came to be.)
The critisism of the press seems to me a made up strawman.
I suspect the real issue that bugged people was the commonly perceived lack of substance in public statements by politicians in both parties (much like your own comments in regards to Bush). The emphasis seems to be on promoting oneself rather than giving the public (who was and is IMHO smarter than most give credit) the service they expect and deserve. Politicians who seem to care more about thier own image than the public good is a problem that seems to affect the Democratic party (to a greater degree than the Republican party) still today. I'm sure there good Democrats somewhere, why don't we see them?
Exactly what are minors being protected from?"
Whatever the MPA deems is morally acceptable. More discriminating viewers might be interested in this site:
http://www.usccb.org/movies/index.htm
I don't doubt that it can be difficult, for us at least. In fact it doesn't even have to be from language to language, difficulty can arise in simple interpretation within a single language. For example, take the modern word "four" -- one word, several possible meanings. It could simply be a cardinal number, or it might refer to something that falls out of the sky and hits players in the head; in order to determine the intended meaning, you need to analyze the context. In fact, ancient Hebrew was like this too, and many times that single word could have multiple meanings, all of which make sense in the same sentance. The point of course is that culture and context go together. I would expect that scribes in the immeadiate culture would be able to make the proper determinations, however, I'm drawing from a culture in which we have relatively small diversity in terminology (english) and dictionaries that list even slang definitions. I suppose ancient scribes might not have had it so good. Of course, I'm sure there is also the case where there were people deliberately attempting to hide the truth.
Poetic license? From someone somewhere along the way? Who knows?
I bet God knows. '77' or '70*7', they are both a long way from "eternal" right? And I don't think Jesus would have been careless in his choice of words here. Note that the word "eternal" is listed elsewhere in the NT. My guess is that in this particular verse, he is not encouraging disciples to persistence(he did that elsewhere), but something else. And they key to figuring out what Jesus meant by this can be found by contemplating the parable that parable that follows; the point of which Jesus explains is to encourage people to 'forgive from the heart'. That that forgiveness needs be true in both the heart of the giver and the reciever.
So I also have my own idea about what the true interpretation is which derives from a percieved consistency in the use of specific numbers in other places throughout the Bible. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but that doesn't mean a competing view is wrong. I'd be interested in knowing what you think is the right representation for Matthew 18:22.
if you really want to hear some convolouted logic, ask them how come "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are not mutually contridictory.
I am assuming that you are interpreting this to mean that one should kill witches. Another possible interpretation is that it is a warning not to listen to witches. For example: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch if one wishes to live" whereupon the witch would be excommunicated from the presence of God's people. Another possibility is that it was not intended as instruction for the general populace (as the ten commandements were), but only for those entrusted directly by God with the responsibility of protecting his people; the condidtion being that God himself would give the order to kill. I tend to disagree with this since the nature of Gods relationship with his people under the Mosaic covenent at the time (before his people rejected his commandments) was such that God employed angels to do this kind of work. More likely this law found its way into scripture via some unscrupulous scribe, or perhaps a series of bad translations.
Or could it be that those professing to follow the teachings of a supremely tolerant philosopher are in fact supremely failing to be tolerant.
Jesus Christ wasn't exactly tolerant; understanding and forgiving -- yes, tolerant -- no. In fact, one thing that most ancient Jews share with modern "fundies" is a dangerous misconception of the works upon with their faith was founded. Modern fundamentalists deserve the same type of correction today that Jesus gave the Jews 2000 years ago.
It's a culture where infinity was conveyed with a phrase like "seventy times seven times" (490!).
Is that what Jesus was supposed to have said? Why didn't he just say 'eternal' -- there wasn't a word for it? Doesn't it seem just a bit strange to you that he would have said what he did in this particular fashion? Certainly there must be something to it. I mean, of all the things he said, his disciples chose to specifically relate this. Why? It's easy enough to dismiss the numerology as insignificant when compared to the message conveyed, most people and most myths don't concern themselves with that sort of detail do they?
I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I've put a significant amount of time into studying the Bible. I can say without a doubt that there is definate significance to the numerology. As with any other field of study, perspectives are modified as more information is obtained. What people believe by initial observation is often wrong because they don't have adequate life experience to make proper judgements in regards to what they are observing.
The keys can be found by making observations and drawing relations between events and seeing how they evolve (converge or diverge) over time. Be they patterns in biblical stories or historical events, or patterns in the development of life, sometimes what we don't see is even more significant than what we see. This is why we have people saying "evolution!" and another camp saying "creation!", both in opposition to one another. They are like mules wearing sun blinders, they can't see more then their own perspective gives them, and the system seems to encourage this.
soo.. what does that make me, a person who is: - No to capital punishment - No to war (except in self defense(*) ) - No to abortion - No to euthanasia
Congratulations, it makes you Roman Catholic (what 80% of Christians in America confess to be). Surprized?
Most people either aren't aware of their church's position on various issues (sometimes even those who serve in the church), or don't take their church seriously.
While I enjoy the resources of Wikipedia- I often wonder how they come to terms with very controversal subjects- such as the Israeli/Palestinean conflict, the war of terror, the Halocaust--- etc.
I imagine that even a 'just the facts' representation might be difficult to arrive at for topics that involve politics and religion. Commercial vendors have much stricter data validation requirements than wikipedia. This is I suspect why Britannica is highly reguarded and generally acceptable source material. I don't think I would afford the same status to something like wikipedia.
As I see it, wikipedia's true value is in its convenience and perhaps it's ability to help in increasing the value of commercial products. I've used wikipedia only a little bit, mostly for researching religious topics. I've found that quality runs the gamut. Most entries are pretty good, but a few are just plain wrong (and self contradictory with cited reference material). But if I re-write something, someone else will come back and re-write what I wrote, etc...
So I suspect there might be limits on the level of quality achievable with any public open-sourced, openly editable work; limits that would be difficult if not impossible to overcome. I wouldn't use wikipedia for anything that I want to be athoritative. It might be good enough to be usefull as a good quick reference tool, but in general, if you can find it in wiki, and it's decent, then you should be able to find it from a more respectable source.
I asked why you would buy a flavor at B-R that you could get in a grocery store. Meaning, there are SO many flavors at B-R that you CAN'T get at the grocery store, why wouldn't you get one of those? Not quibbling with your decision to get ice cream at B-R. Just what flavor. Got it?
In one post you first asked why someone would buy ice cream at a B-R that they could get in a grocery store. Then you followed that question with a comment that indicated you had a problem with variety. It seemed to me that if you don't have an appreciation for variety, then you might not understand that variety is a big reason (if not the biggest reason) people go to ice cream specialty stores. So my reply was aimed at determining if you really didn't like variety. To most people that would probably sound strange, but having been a server at Denny's I know that there are quite a few people that, for whatever reason, don't like having lots of choices.
You responded to me with "Well duh...[statement that indicated you realized that we were talking about about free ice cream and that you thought that was preferable to paying for it (regardless of flavor I assume)]" and "But hello...[statement that indicated to me that you understood that ice cream stores have greater variety than the grocer and that that was a good thing]. So I was confused. You seemed to be answering your own question. Fine, but why the "Well duh..." and "But hello..."? Don't you know that these are slang terms that are generally percieved as being condecending? Well maybe you were just a very young person and perhaps I was missing something -- thus my query.
The tone and dead horse commentary of your reply that followed were obviously inappropriate to me. I was attempting to provide you with a serious response to to your question which I presumed you had postulated seriously. However, at the point of my previous reply, it seemed to me that your true intention was simply to waste my time and attempt to make me feel foolish. This is something the devil regularly attempts to do with me -- there were other red flags in your commentary, but I wont go into them here. If you understand what I'm talking about then you should know the warning signs to look for, if not (as I suspect might be the case here), well, i'm going to give you some free advice that I hope you take advantage of.
Never ever speak to anyone in a condecending manner; it simply serves no constructive purpose. Instead, to others, you'll normally look like a snobby inconsiderate brat. You also run the risk of engendering negative feelings in the one you direct your comments to, thus in at least some way alienating yourself from that person and hindering constructive communication. It may well be that you lack the life experience necessary to identify with the thoughts of the other person so that what seems obvious to you isn't necessarily to someone else. If you feel the urge to insult someone, take the time to think a little more about what's going on, or just ask the other person what their thinking is.
My original post was as much a joke as yours was. Because it should be obvious that no one would actually take ice cream flavors seriously enough to suggest that there are correct and incorrect ice cream flavors.
This was your original post:
Why on earth would you get any flavor at Baskin-Robbins that you can get from the grocery store? I got chocolate mousse royale, but as soon as she gave it to me I saw another flavor with truffle pieces in it, then creme brulee... *sigh*
I don't see the logic in your statement that your original post was a joke. I interpreted your first statement as a serious question and your second as honest commentary. Am I missing something?
Actually, what you said, could aptly be used to characterize MY original reply. However, there was more to my reply than an extension of the concept of absurdity to build upon and clarify the point of the Rocky Rode joke. The
In case you need more explanation, my point was that the store offers a LOT of different flavors of ice cream, many of which you will not find in the grocery store.
If this was so obvious to you then why did you bother asking the question to begin with? That was you who asked why people would buy ice cream at a Baskin-Robins rather than a grocery store, right?
Is the horse dead enough yet? No? Shall I beat on it a bit more? Anyone not get the joke still? Gotta make sure we break it down into the smallest pieces possible in order to kill any humor that might linger.
Joke? Were you trying to be humorous satan? Sorry, but it looks to me as if the comments you made were aimed at making you look both condecending and foolish. I don't see any good value in your persistence here, unless of course, you really are incapable of change. As always I leave the choice yours to make.
But hello, this is a store nicknamed 31 Flavors. Take advantage of it!
What in the world are you talking about?
Why on earth would you get any flavor at Baskin-Robbins that you can get from the grocery store?
Why pay for ice cream when it's offered to you freely?
I got chocolate mousse royale, but as soon as she gave it to me I saw another flavor with truffle pieces in it, then creme brulee...
Would you prefer it if plain vanilla were all that were offered to you?
For the record, my personnal fav is multicolored candy-coated bubble gum pieces in plain vanilla; a rare find indeed, but doesn't that make it all the better when finally get it?
Well OK, except that the only logical response to your example question is "Yes."
I thought it was common knowledge that if you go to a Baskin-Robins with a Yahoo coupon, you should get the rainbow sherbet.
Incredible isn't it? If I were running a company that produced anti-virus software and had a tech director say "A vulnerability isn't a vulnerability until it is discovered", there's a good chance I would fire him post haste. The concept of security through obscurity should be applied to releasing details about the particular exploit and not to the recognition of the exploit in the first place. How long do you suppose a company that would take such a position WRT security would last in the open market?
As good a concept as OSS is, I suspect it will never be popular here since there are so many malficients at work to screw up your system.
Interestingly enough, almost every Norton product I've ever purchased and installed has managed to screw up my system somehow. How's that for secure software? However, I'm not sure I'm ready to attribute that to Symantec instead of the malficients.
Based on another reply, I'm thinking I should go out and buy a couple of hard drives and hope I can copy all those old CDs.
Unless you are sure that the media you bought was high quality, you are going to have to get it off the CD-R's you burned and on to something more reliable. If that data is important to you, do it quickly.
What I got from the article was that the majority of CD-R's currently on sale at your local comp store are not good for archival purposes. There are no standards for archival media and there is considerable variation in available CD-R quality which makes it difficult to use the media for archival purposes. The good news is that the report identifies the deficiency here, and plans are in place for the govt. to work with industry to develop and implement standards for archival media.
Nevertheless, there are some recordable media available, notably those that use Phthalocyanine dye and gold coating, that can be used for archival purposes with suitable care. If you decide to archive on recordable disks, keep them stored in a dark and cool place. Generic CD-R's left in the car can go bad in as little as a few weeks; however, quality media suitably stored will be useable several decades down the road.
You should look for those keywords on the label for the CD-R's your planning on buying to determine if they are going to last since manufactures aren't always consistent in the use of a particular media type for their generic CD-R's. Better yet, do the research and find them online.
Since you have so much data to archive, you might consider buying a couple mobile USB drives and use those as your back-up medium instead of recordable disks. Another option, if you have a capable drive, is to use DVD-R media. However, for DVD-R, the report indicates that while quality varies, the specific data regarding the recording surfaces tested was unavailable. You would probably have to do a little more research yourself to find out how to pick quality archival DVD-R media, otherwise it appears to be a coin toss.
Yeah I know, my reply was just a really bad joke, which you might have to be thirtysomething at least to fully get. Sorry. ;)
Seriously though, pretty impressive for a small college student project.
Only $600 for one of these puppies.
That's 600 dollars in India, which is equivalent to about 6,000,000 dollars in the US. Then of course, if you bang it up in a crash, then you'll have to rebuild it. You'll have to build it better, stronger, and faster than it was before. And who knows how much that will cost then.