You think God didn't think about this when creating his Universe v1.0? Of course he thought of it. That is why we have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the speed of light, etc. as limiters.
You know, that may have been a flippant, tongue-in-cheek comment, but mix in some beer(or other "interesting" substance) and some college buddies, and you have one hell of an interesting Friday night discussion.
Wasn't it about 60 + years ago that Orson Wells did his famous War of the Worlds radio broadcast? Weren't there more than a *few* people out there that were running around reporting lights in the sky, running for safety?
Well, in their defence, they thought the aliens were attacking. I don't recall reading about a bunch of people recanting their religious views due to the broadcast. The "invasion" part is what freaked them out. Therefore, I don't think that it is useful to attempt to draw a conclusion about a benign(or even unintentional) alien contact based on WOTW.
I do have one more question: If it's truly up to US to do for OURSELVES, then I guess you'd be in favor of evaporating all those government subsidies and corporate tax breaks and eliminating all tax loopholes so that every pays a fair and full share? I mean, after all, in a true conservative, capitalist society, shouldn't the same principles apply across the board? Shouldn't corporate America be able to fend for itself as well? Should we the people be forced to shoulder the costs of their ability to practice business? Or the costs of their inability/incompetence/criminality?
And here I am, in the middle of freaking Kansas, trying to get enough dives under my belt to become a SCUBA instructor and singing Jimmy Buffet songs, while trying to scrape enough cash together to get an old catamaran.
The old romance isn't dead. Go check out some of the online sailing(here) and SCUBA communities(here) to find some.
There is nothing *particular* (as in particular to the individual) about the access to objective truth.
True. Every one of us have the same access to the same objective reality.There is no particularity about that.
Even if there is an objective reality, which you cannot definitively prove, everyone's perception of it is inherently different.
Logic(and by extension, science) work precisely because there is an objective reality to be measured and described. Let me know when the Pythagorean Theorem is proven to be false for one person and not another, and we'll discuss it further.
And as almost any scientist will tell you, the act of observation of a situation introduces some new factor into that situation.
A situation set in an objective reality. And a factor which is calculated with the rest(and is virtually nonexistant at a macroscopic level anyway).
I should have said "should" instead of must.
True, you did let the cat out of the bag with that one. I find that subjectivists and moral relativists try at least as hard as anyone else to "impose their reality on others." They just tend to couch their beliefs in less aggressive terms.
However, I will also stipulate I feel statistically that these are outnumbered by the converse case where perceived evil has been the result.
How does one "feel statistically"? Either events X, Y and Z happened, or they didn't. Your feelings don't enter into it.
No one of us can legitemately claim to have a particular access to any particular objective truth.
Poppycock. Welcome to science and logic.
But in doing so, they must be aware it is only their own point of view they represent, not any particular idealized or absolute definition of what is true and right.
Must? Who are you to impose your ideas on my view of reality?
That kind of thinking (that one is in possession of or has access some absolute moral or social truth) doesn't lead in very good directions
That kind of thinking has led to both good things and bad. It led to both the Holocaust and the abolition of slavery in the US, as two examples.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that every social struggle has ultimately been opposing absolute moral views colliding, regardless of any attempts to label one or more of the opponents as subjective.
I agree with you for the most part, but I do take issue with one thing:
If we teach our kids that getting a tax break is more important than sacrificing a little to help those who are not as lucky as ourselves
I believe(and will teach my children) that personal philanthropy is far preferable to a government nanny state. I make it a habit to support good organizations, and I regularly buy food for homeless people aside from that.
My point is, don't equate a political view about the function and responsibility of government with a disregard for humanity.
He never mentioned being an "anti-Linux" zealot. He simply asked for a translation of the terms for someone who is not a kernel hacker. And, given that this is one of the earlier messages, he probably asked before any of the explanatory posts showed up. Lighten up.
I beg you, if you have a life right now, DO NOT START ENEMY TERRITORY!!
Or, if you are bound and determined to hear "I need a medic!" as you drift off to sleep everynight, at least ease yourself into it. I hear that "crack addict" is a good introductory stage to ET addiction.
"I've been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding".
So, it's mostly stupid people that feel the desire to give rise to a new mind, to nurture that mind and watch it grow with, react to and eventually participate in the grand scheme of life?
And it's mostly smart people who find chasing a new car, house, big screen TV, etc, more interesting than developing the unique human relationship between a parent and child?
The others are still working 80 hours, so the kids become spoiled malcontents, raised by an institution like the television.
You missed the large group of parents who don't run the rat race at all. Those of us who don't feel the need to amass a fortune at the expense of our offspring.
"One might also think on the fact that Galileo's findings - and he was vocal about them, as he should have been - were in direct conflict with the church teachings at the time;"
Nope. Remember, Copernicus taught essentially the same thing, and was never condemned.
"I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all."
That would be news to me, if it were true. Got a reference?
Slashdot Mirror
You think God didn't think about this when creating his Universe v1.0? Of course he thought of it. That is why we have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the speed of light, etc. as limiters.
You know, that may have been a flippant, tongue-in-cheek comment, but mix in some beer(or other "interesting" substance) and some college buddies, and you have one hell of an interesting Friday night discussion.
Wasn't it about 60 + years ago that Orson Wells did his famous War of the Worlds radio broadcast? Weren't there more than a *few* people out there that were running around reporting lights in the sky, running for safety?
Well, in their defence, they thought the aliens were attacking. I don't recall reading about a bunch of people recanting their religious views due to the broadcast. The "invasion" part is what freaked them out. Therefore, I don't think that it is useful to attempt to draw a conclusion about a benign(or even unintentional) alien contact based on WOTW.
I do have one more question: If it's truly up to US to do for OURSELVES, then I guess you'd be in favor of evaporating all those government subsidies and corporate tax breaks and eliminating all tax loopholes so that every pays a fair and full share? I mean, after all, in a true conservative, capitalist society, shouldn't the same principles apply across the board? Shouldn't corporate America be able to fend for itself as well? Should we the people be forced to shoulder the costs of their ability to practice business? Or the costs of their inability/incompetence/criminality?
Yes.
And she freaking lost tonight. I am looking forward to that one ass spending time in jail, however.
And here I am, in the middle of freaking Kansas, trying to get enough dives under my belt to become a SCUBA instructor and singing Jimmy Buffet songs, while trying to scrape enough cash together to get an old catamaran.
The old romance isn't dead. Go check out some of the online sailing(here) and SCUBA communities(here) to find some.
There is nothing *particular* (as in particular to the individual) about the access to objective truth.
True. Every one of us have the same access to the same objective reality.There is no particularity about that.
Even if there is an objective reality, which you cannot definitively prove, everyone's perception of it is inherently different.
Logic(and by extension, science) work precisely because there is an objective reality to be measured and described. Let me know when the Pythagorean Theorem is proven to be false for one person and not another, and we'll discuss it further.
And as almost any scientist will tell you, the act of observation of a situation introduces some new factor into that situation.
A situation set in an objective reality. And a factor which is calculated with the rest(and is virtually nonexistant at a macroscopic level anyway).
I should have said "should" instead of must.
True, you did let the cat out of the bag with that one. I find that subjectivists and moral relativists try at least as hard as anyone else to "impose their reality on others." They just tend to couch their beliefs in less aggressive terms.
However, I will also stipulate I feel statistically that these are outnumbered by the converse case where perceived evil has been the result.
How does one "feel statistically"? Either events X, Y and Z happened, or they didn't. Your feelings don't enter into it.
No one of us can legitemately claim to have a particular access to any particular objective truth.
Poppycock. Welcome to science and logic.
But in doing so, they must be aware it is only their own point of view they represent, not any particular idealized or absolute definition of what is true and right.
Must? Who are you to impose your ideas on my view of reality?
That kind of thinking (that one is in possession of or has access some absolute moral or social truth) doesn't lead in very good directions
That kind of thinking has led to both good things and bad. It led to both the Holocaust and the abolition of slavery in the US, as two examples.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that every social struggle has ultimately been opposing absolute moral views colliding, regardless of any attempts to label one or more of the opponents as subjective.
to find what you need, and 'apt-get install emacs21' to install it.
I can't decide if this is a joke or not.
It is there to allow you to use Mozilla/Firefox as an actual application development platform. For more information, look here.
I agree with you for the most part, but I do take issue with one thing:
If we teach our kids that getting a tax break is more important than sacrificing a little to help those who are not as lucky as ourselves
I believe(and will teach my children) that personal philanthropy is far preferable to a government nanny state. I make it a habit to support good organizations, and I regularly buy food for homeless people aside from that.
My point is, don't equate a political view about the function and responsibility of government with a disregard for humanity.
You inhuman beast! Your second penalty is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention!
If you allow Britney Spears concerts to continue, then the terrorists have won.
Oh yeah? Well, make an offer on a TS1000 with the 16k ram upgrade then :)
Good job! That was much more readable!
(sarcasm detected, reread for politic jokes)
Let's try rewriting for proper spelling and grammar next time.
Is it bad that I would happily watch these?
I think that Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series would be great in miniseries format....
He led them into Aman in the first place.
He never mentioned being an "anti-Linux" zealot. He simply asked for a translation of the terms for someone who is not a kernel hacker. And, given that this is one of the earlier messages, he probably asked before any of the explanatory posts showed up. Lighten up.
I beg you, if you have a life right now, DO NOT START ENEMY TERRITORY!!
Or, if you are bound and determined to hear "I need a medic!" as you drift off to sleep everynight, at least ease yourself into it. I hear that "crack addict" is a good introductory stage to ET addiction.
"I've been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding".
So, it's mostly stupid people that feel the desire to give rise to a new mind, to nurture that mind and watch it grow with, react to and eventually participate in the grand scheme of life?
And it's mostly smart people who find chasing a new car, house, big screen TV, etc, more interesting than developing the unique human relationship between a parent and child?
The others are still working 80 hours, so the kids become spoiled malcontents, raised by an institution like the television.
You missed the large group of parents who don't run the rat race at all. Those of us who don't feel the need to amass a fortune at the expense of our offspring.
They can do whatever they want with their bodies, up to the point at which they endanger someone else's body, namely, their child's.
Then I care.
"only states have a constitutional right to bare arms"
Damn! I have to get rid of all of my short sleeve shirts, just in time for summer!
No thanks. Any issue I might agree with them on is swamped by this.
You are correct, sir. 10 Call clear 20 print "BASIC is lame" Run
"One might also think on the fact that Galileo's findings - and he was vocal about them, as he should have been - were in direct conflict with the church teachings at the time;"
Nope. Remember, Copernicus taught essentially the same thing, and was never condemned.
"I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all."
That would be news to me, if it were true. Got a reference?