I think you did a good job summing up the position of traditional protestants. I would, however, caution against inferring the mindset of the average atheist, as you do in the second paragraph. I say this only because most of the "this is probably what they're thinking" posts by atheists/agnostics above trying to infer the mindset of the average church-goer are horribly, even to the point of caricature, off the mark. I imagine I would sound as ridiculous doing the reverse.
In short, I think the study is meaningless, and no one should read too much into it.
Mutually-assured destruction worked exactly as intended, in preventing nuclear war for over 50 years. I see no reason why those lessons can't be exported to business... a diplomacy of a different kind.
Now that they've done away with all gun and knife crimes, they need to fight shillelagh crimes. Shillelagh crimes have been steadily on the rise, doubling from one to two in just ten years. Even worse, some oafs are starting to hammer nails into their shillelaghs, just so they have metal pokey-bits to inflict more damage.
We need to tax all carpenters and lumberyards in the UK, or our youth will pay a terrible price in violence and fear.
It depends on deeply emotions are intertwined with our cognition. I would think it would be easier to model the interference of a cognitive process by, say, endorphins or adrenaline, than to model the original cognitive process itself.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of fucks. In Soviet Russia, it's what has you now.
According to Dailykos, as an evil Republican I'm supposed to be fiddling while Rome burns, cackling gleefully about the worm turning. Unfortunately, we're all going to have to eat the same shit sandwich, so I'm not exactly gloating right now. Right now I'm just worried about my bank becoming an arm of the government.
I think that the only people with any claim whatsoever to the "conservative" mantle in Congress (Republicans) are going to have a really hard time selling that image of themselves. While I don't doubt that a large number of people also calling themselves conservatives oppose this for the reasons you mention, the people that the major "conservative" party elected have been screaming "OMG it's an emergency act NOW!" over so much stuff (and getting their way, unfortunately) for so long that whining about it now makes them look like hypocrites.
Mind you, I'm not calling you a hypocrite; I don't want that to be misunderstood. I'm just saying that the "conservative" half of congress has no credible claim to your philosophy, which is a sad state of affairs IMO. A cautious but honest and rational party would be awesome.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The current batch of neo-conservatives (who are neither "new", nor "conservative") have rotted the GOP to the core. I have high hopes, however, that 4 years in super-minority status will force them to pull their shit together and take out the trash.*
*"Trash" being any Republican senator or congressman who has spent more than 4 years in congress. Term-limits was the first "take back" from the Republican revolution of '94 that got me worrying.
I admit that that's what it looks like. In fact, what is really happening is that conservatives tend to believe that any discussion of serious import is worth taking a looonnng time to discuss. In the current debate, progressives say "we don't understand the situation, but WE MUST ACT!!!!" Conservatives say "we don't understand the situation, so let's watch it for a bit before we go interfering." It's not a question of status quo, but rather not jumping into things.
Note that I am not claiming that the previous congress and president were conservative, at all. The "chicken little" knee-jerk attitude they had runs totally counter to conservatism. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, Obama is turning into a 3rd term for GWB. I can't seen anything but stylistic differences.
"Conservative" != "I like things the way they are"
Conservatives (not neo-con's) say "Let's look at what has worked before, and try that." Note that I am not claiming that such philosophy is always correct. But I do think folks should understand philosophies before they disagree with them.
Why would you choose not to be open-minded to the fact that your way may not be the best?
Are you saying that liberals do not necessarily believe that their way may be best? Because I don't think that's the case. The current congress, for instance, is quite strident in their belief that the bailout is a great idea, and will not countenance the possibility that they are doing great irreparable harm, as has been suggested by many economists. They also do so despite the fact that a majority of Americans are against it.
What about Pakistan and India, both of whom have both nuclear and space programs? What about Iran now being a space power, and claiming to be a nuclear power? The days of Russo-American nuclear hegemony are now over. The old cold war agreements are no longer effective at promoting worldwide security.
For the most part, agreements between one or two are effective (a bilateral agreement is like a contract), while agreements between many are simply meaningless gestures that only bind the honest.
Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding are ranked by historians as the three worst presidents in US history. If you don't even know who these people are, or why they were so bad, you can't really say that GWB is, in fact, the worst, can you?
1) Andrew Johnson (R) oversaw the post-Civil War Reconstruction, which he stymied due to strong sympathies for white supremacists. He was hated by both isles of Congress. There is no telling how long Andrew Johnson's bungling of the Reconstruction set back southern economic revival and black civil rights.
2) James Buchanan (D) was president just prior to the Civil War (Lincoln must hate being sandwiched between the two worst presidents ever). He believed that southern secession was wrong, but fighting to keep them in the Union was also wrong. His vacillation ultimately led the Civil War. He was a strong supporter of slave ownership (earning the denunciation of Lincoln, who would later run to replace him).
3) Warren G. Harding (R) won his election in the largest landslide ever. He oversaw what is widely perceived as the most corrupt administration ever, appointing the entirety of his "Ohio Gang" to cabinet, where they used their power for direct personal profit. There were convictions for bribery, graft, fraud, alcohol (during Prohibition), and drugs. Some cabinet members were sent to prison, and there were multiple suicides. His mistress also successfully blackmailed him for money in exchange for... umm... discretion.
You know Bert64, you're joking about something that would be awesome. Or, it would be awesome, if it could be done without someone throwing a lawsuit at it.
I'm firmly convinced that 90% of all offenses taken spring from a deep-seated human desire for martyrdom and it's accompanying ego-expansion. Somehow, in the state of having been offended, we believe we can attain the deeply satisfying, self-aggrandizing self-righteousness of an unjustly oppressed person.
IOW, you're just looking for stuff to piss you off because you like it. Suck it up, princess.
"Technically competent" doesn't have a thing to do with it. You expect me to go to another computer, download Firefox, burn it, and cart it back over to my installation just to get a browser.
Or I can download it from IE and have Firefox on my system in less than three minutes. You're not doing me a favor by removing IE.
Oh, please. IE doesn't "prevent" competition from Firefox. It's a user education issue. I have no problem switching people from IE to Firefox. I do it almost everyday. Somehow, I manage to do it despite IE's existence in Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you did a good job summing up the position of traditional protestants. I would, however, caution against inferring the mindset of the average atheist, as you do in the second paragraph. I say this only because most of the "this is probably what they're thinking" posts by atheists/agnostics above trying to infer the mindset of the average church-goer are horribly, even to the point of caricature, off the mark. I imagine I would sound as ridiculous doing the reverse.
In short, I think the study is meaningless, and no one should read too much into it.
Mutually-assured destruction worked exactly as intended, in preventing nuclear war for over 50 years. I see no reason why those lessons can't be exported to business... a diplomacy of a different kind.
Now that they've done away with all gun and knife crimes, they need to fight shillelagh crimes. Shillelagh crimes have been steadily on the rise, doubling from one to two in just ten years. Even worse, some oafs are starting to hammer nails into their shillelaghs, just so they have metal pokey-bits to inflict more damage.
We need to tax all carpenters and lumberyards in the UK, or our youth will pay a terrible price in violence and fear.
It depends on deeply emotions are intertwined with our cognition. I would think it would be easier to model the interference of a cognitive process by, say, endorphins or adrenaline, than to model the original cognitive process itself.
Program a robot to think like a human, and they will begin acting like a human. It's amazing no one ever thinks about the negative aspects of this.
Apple can claim whatever they want, and can sue whoever they want for DMCA violations. C&D's are freely distributable.
Whether or not that claim has the weight of law is up to a judge, not a marketing director.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of fucks. In Soviet Russia, it's what has you now.
According to Dailykos, as an evil Republican I'm supposed to be fiddling while Rome burns, cackling gleefully about the worm turning. Unfortunately, we're all going to have to eat the same shit sandwich, so I'm not exactly gloating right now. Right now I'm just worried about my bank becoming an arm of the government.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The current batch of neo-conservatives (who are neither "new", nor "conservative") have rotted the GOP to the core. I have high hopes, however, that 4 years in super-minority status will force them to pull their shit together and take out the trash.*
*"Trash" being any Republican senator or congressman who has spent more than 4 years in congress. Term-limits was the first "take back" from the Republican revolution of '94 that got me worrying.
I admit that that's what it looks like. In fact, what is really happening is that conservatives tend to believe that any discussion of serious import is worth taking a looonnng time to discuss. In the current debate, progressives say "we don't understand the situation, but WE MUST ACT!!!!" Conservatives say "we don't understand the situation, so let's watch it for a bit before we go interfering." It's not a question of status quo, but rather not jumping into things.
Note that I am not claiming that the previous congress and president were conservative, at all. The "chicken little" knee-jerk attitude they had runs totally counter to conservatism. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, Obama is turning into a 3rd term for GWB. I can't seen anything but stylistic differences.
"Conservative" != "I like things the way they are"
Conservatives (not neo-con's) say "Let's look at what has worked before, and try that." Note that I am not claiming that such philosophy is always correct. But I do think folks should understand philosophies before they disagree with them.
Are you saying that liberals do not necessarily believe that their way may be best? Because I don't think that's the case. The current congress, for instance, is quite strident in their belief that the bailout is a great idea, and will not countenance the possibility that they are doing great irreparable harm, as has been suggested by many economists. They also do so despite the fact that a majority of Americans are against it.
M'thinks it shares much in common with its gaming namesake, the Phantom Console.
What about Pakistan and India, both of whom have both nuclear and space programs? What about Iran now being a space power, and claiming to be a nuclear power? The days of Russo-American nuclear hegemony are now over. The old cold war agreements are no longer effective at promoting worldwide security.
For the most part, agreements between one or two are effective (a bilateral agreement is like a contract), while agreements between many are simply meaningless gestures that only bind the honest.
Remember that governments aren't honest.
He wants you to know that he's very passionate about his apathy.
Naw, if you were really activist, you would already have a Shaprie pen and a pile of bumper stickers that say "FUCK ______!"
Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding are ranked by historians as the three worst presidents in US history. If you don't even know who these people are, or why they were so bad, you can't really say that GWB is, in fact, the worst, can you?
1) Andrew Johnson (R) oversaw the post-Civil War Reconstruction, which he stymied due to strong sympathies for white supremacists. He was hated by both isles of Congress. There is no telling how long Andrew Johnson's bungling of the Reconstruction set back southern economic revival and black civil rights.
2) James Buchanan (D) was president just prior to the Civil War (Lincoln must hate being sandwiched between the two worst presidents ever). He believed that southern secession was wrong, but fighting to keep them in the Union was also wrong. His vacillation ultimately led the Civil War. He was a strong supporter of slave ownership (earning the denunciation of Lincoln, who would later run to replace him).
3) Warren G. Harding (R) won his election in the largest landslide ever. He oversaw what is widely perceived as the most corrupt administration ever, appointing the entirety of his "Ohio Gang" to cabinet, where they used their power for direct personal profit. There were convictions for bribery, graft, fraud, alcohol (during Prohibition), and drugs. Some cabinet members were sent to prison, and there were multiple suicides. His mistress also successfully blackmailed him for money in exchange for... umm... discretion.
Embryonic stem cell research is legal, and always has been.
Or wait until you have confirmation from a source other than a disgruntled employee on the TV show of a partisan hack fighting for prime-time ratings.
Or, you could go on as you were.
When in danger
Or in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout.
You know Bert64, you're joking about something that would be awesome. Or, it would be awesome, if it could be done without someone throwing a lawsuit at it.
Of course. That's why I said 90%, not 100%. But I'll tell you this: the things that offend me are all actions, not words.
I'm firmly convinced that 90% of all offenses taken spring from a deep-seated human desire for martyrdom and it's accompanying ego-expansion. Somehow, in the state of having been offended, we believe we can attain the deeply satisfying, self-aggrandizing self-righteousness of an unjustly oppressed person.
IOW, you're just looking for stuff to piss you off because you like it. Suck it up, princess.
"Technically competent" doesn't have a thing to do with it. You expect me to go to another computer, download Firefox, burn it, and cart it back over to my installation just to get a browser.
Or I can download it from IE and have Firefox on my system in less than three minutes. You're not doing me a favor by removing IE.
Oh, please. IE doesn't "prevent" competition from Firefox. It's a user education issue. I have no problem switching people from IE to Firefox. I do it almost everyday. Somehow, I manage to do it despite IE's existence in Windows.
What if I build by own systems?
Fixed that for you...