If God didn't want you to have kids, this procedure wouldn't work. I always get a kick out of people who claim that God is all-powerful, and in the next breath claim that scientists are doing something that's against His will. They never seem to understand the inherent contradiction in those two statements...
Actually, most small companies I know that are still running Win98 do so because they don't need much out of their computers, and it still does the job. Not because they have special apps that require Win98. And these companies are among the prime candidates for a move to Linux.
How so? If they're unwilling or unable to move fromWin98, then the question of what they might move to is entirely academic.
Do you scrabble for absolute authority over a group of people? Do you think that the people you cite became powerful without doing so?
No, and no. I wouldn't do so for two reasons:
First, the men we're talking about were (or are) geniuses at the art of manipulating other people, where my own skills in that area are pretty pathetic. The odds of success for me are so low, and the consequences of failure so high, that I don't consider it a worthwhile gamble.
And second, these men believed themselves to be untouchable, for whatever reason, but in the end they were proven not to be. I'm neither arrogant nor foolish enough to indulge in such beliefs. Newton's law of action and reaction has a corollary - if you want to avoid the reaction, don't do the action.
Also, do you think this is an ordinary definition of "ordinary"?
I don't think we're using different definitions of "ordinary". We apparently do disagree as to whether the word applies to the three men in question though. Maybe we should just agree to disagree. As I said earlier, I view this as a matter of philosophy and belief, not hard fact, and I don't see much point in a debate that can never really be settled one way or the other.
Most of the college grads I know of used loans to pay for school. Is there seriously that much difference between graduating $45,000 in debt instead of $44,100 in debt?
Re:The Intel GMA950 makes it a non-starter...
on
The $899 Educational iMac
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think most college kids would be disappointed the minute they tried to play any game and had the machine slow to a crawl
Probably, but for parents who want their kids to focus on school work instead of games, that might well be a selling point.
Re:perhaps, but, um.....
on
PHP Hacks
·
· Score: 1
One of the highest paid coders I know uses php.
Judging by that benchmark, Bill Gates would be classified as the world's best programmer.
Also, lets not forget that there's a lot of very complex code underlying php
Complexity is not always a benchmark of programming skill either. Sometimes it's a sign that the programmers didn't have the skills to come up with a simpler, more elegant design. Having said that, I've never looked "under the hood" of PHP, and I don't know the programmers. I'm not sayng they're hacks, I'm just saying that PHP's internal complexity doesn't really prove anything either way.
Re:Advanced PHP programmer?
on
PHP Hacks
·
· Score: 1
A contradiction, sort of like a person who has a grammar nazi post in their sig, but can't spell contradiction?
No worries - to be fair, I could certainly have expressed myself more clearly. It was an awkwardly-written sentence. And I did say "either missed or ignored"; I didn't know which was the case, and didn't intend to make any bogus accusations.
Do you assert that Josef Stalin, Jim Jones, and Saddam Hussein are "ordinary citizens"? Those are the only examples you have given, and that is the phrase you used.
What I believe is that there was nothing basically different about their physical or mental makeup compared to anyone else's. They were basically ordinary people who found themselves in extraordinary situations. You've heard the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely", right? I don't agree with it - I believe that corruption is a basic part of human nature, that only those in a position of absolute power are truly free to act on it, and that history clearly demonstrates what those who find themselves in such a position tend to do with it.
For myself, I choose to be honest, refrain from stealing, avoid violence, etc. because I believe it's in my own best interests to do so. I don't view it as a moral or ethical choice, but a selfish one. If we lived in a "might makes right" society where such things were acceptable, that would put everyone (including me) at great risk of personal misfortune or injury. I don't want to live in a world like that, so I do what I can to avoid it.
Um, I'm not the one running around claiming "that history clearly demonstrates, time and time again" something I can't give a single example of.
You may disagree with my examples because they don't fit with your own beliefs, but doesn't mean I didn't give any.
I'm not going to argue about this with someone who can't understand the difference between belief and knowledge. Sorry to disappoint you, but irrational religious arguments just aren't my idea of entertainment.
Sounds like you expected a simple, easy-to-debunk list of names instead of a coherent statement of my beliefs. Sorry to disappoint you.
Or do you mean to say that "Josef Stalin, Jim Jones, and Saddam Hussein" are a representative sample of humanity?
You asked for examples of what happens to people who have no concern whatsoever of facing any negative consequences for their actions, in this world or the next. People who are in that position are exceedingly rare - most of us do have such concerns, whether real or imagined. The above individuals are examples of those who do find themselves in such a position.
Can you name any counter-examples of individuals in a similar position, who acted in a way that most of us would describe as "good"?
If you teach your kid that he'll get punished when he grabs Billy's toy, he learns that *you* don't want him to grab toys. If you teach him to observe that Billy is sad when his toy is stolen, and Billy might be his friend if they share toys instead, and it feels good to have a friend...
I don't see a morality lesson in there. If you teach Billy all that, then you've taught him to overcome his naturally-selfish instincts and thereby avoid their undesirable consequences. How is that not in agreement with what I said above?
What's left to look at are those who are in a position of power and influence, and either aren't religious or believe that God is on their side...
Well, good thing we can safely ignore the 9/11 hijackers then, because they were definitely spiritual.
I've highlighted the part of my post you either missed or ignored. The hijackers believed God to be on their side, thus had no fear of negative consequences in the afterlife. In fact, they believed that their actions guaranteed a happy afterlife.
Ah, the classic "all atheists are evil, because they do not believe in god" argument. Don't you see anything wrong with it?
Yes, I see plenty that's wrong with that argument. That's why I didn't make that argument. I didn't say atheists are evil. I said *people* are evil, and that fear of an afterlife of punishment is a powerful deterrent that keeps many of us from exercising our baser instincts.
Next time, you might want to try replying to what I actually wrote. You won't make yourself look quite so foolish.
A computer is just a lump of silicon, plastic, and metal. It doesn't make you do anything, and claiming that it does is just as big a cop-out as claiming your neighbor's dog is telling you to kill people.
Well, a gun is just a lump of plastic and metal. It doesn't make you do anything
Quite right. To quote an over-used catchphrase, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Computers don't commit identify theft, people commit identify theft.
yet somehow we try to pass all sorts of legislation to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
I'm not sure who you're referring to with that "we", but it ain't me. I'm not even in favor of having to register firearms.
First, I want to point out that it's very rare for someone to be in a situation where they have absolutely no concern for the consequences of their actions. Statistics say that here in the US, about 90% of the population describes themselves as spiritual. Most religions have some notion of an afterlife of pain or punishment, or karmic balance, or some such - i.e. consequences. And virtually anyplace you go in the world you'll find some sort of organized police force.
What's left to look at are those who are in a position of power and influence, and either aren't religious or believe that God is on their side - i.e. people who have either absolutely no concern with the consequences of their actions (in this world or the next) or believe those consequences will be positive in nature. People like Josef Stalin, Jim Jones, and Saddam Hussein.
Also, any parent will tell you the importance of teaching children about right vs. wrong. Have you ever really thought about what that says about our inborn tendencies? Why would that lesson need to be taught, if we weren't essentially amoral by nature? Further, look at how that lesson is taught. Do we teach our children to avoid being bad simply because it's bad? Or do we teach them that being bad has consequences?
What it essentially comes down to is a question of belief. The question of whether people are inherently good or evil has been debated forever, with no conclusive answer to it in sight. I have my beliefs on the matter, but I recognize those for what they are - belief, not knowledge. If you believe differently, I won't tell you that you're wrong, because I can't prove that. But neither can you prove that my belief is wrong.
If the guy had allowed his life to be devoured by Everquest, would you still blame her for thinking computers were the devil?
Yes, without question I would. A computer is just a lump of silicon, plastic, and metal. It doesn't make you do anything, and claiming that it does is just as big a cop-out as claiming your neighbor's dog is telling you to kill people.
Considering how much money could be made through illegal means and how easily, morals are a much more important deterrent than the police.
Except that history clearly demonstrates, time and time again, what invariably happens when ordinary citizens are left with only their own morals to keep them honest - and it ain't pretty.
Slashdot Mirror
If God didn't want you to have kids, this procedure wouldn't work. I always get a kick out of people who claim that God is all-powerful, and in the next breath claim that scientists are doing something that's against His will. They never seem to understand the inherent contradiction in those two statements...
It's 42, of course.
Speaking of Larry Niven - he wrote about the difficulties Superman and Lois Lane would have in an essay called Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.
First, the men we're talking about were (or are) geniuses at the art of manipulating other people, where my own skills in that area are pretty pathetic. The odds of success for me are so low, and the consequences of failure so high, that I don't consider it a worthwhile gamble.
And second, these men believed themselves to be untouchable, for whatever reason, but in the end they were proven not to be. I'm neither arrogant nor foolish enough to indulge in such beliefs. Newton's law of action and reaction has a corollary - if you want to avoid the reaction, don't do the action.
I don't think we're using different definitions of "ordinary". We apparently do disagree as to whether the word applies to the three men in question though. Maybe we should just agree to disagree. As I said earlier, I view this as a matter of philosophy and belief, not hard fact, and I don't see much point in a debate that can never really be settled one way or the other.
Most of the college grads I know of used loans to pay for school. Is there seriously that much difference between graduating $45,000 in debt instead of $44,100 in debt?
Complexity is not always a benchmark of programming skill either. Sometimes it's a sign that the programmers didn't have the skills to come up with a simpler, more elegant design. Having said that, I've never looked "under the hood" of PHP, and I don't know the programmers. I'm not sayng they're hacks, I'm just saying that PHP's internal complexity doesn't really prove anything either way.
"Advanced PHP programmer"? Now there's a contradition for you.
No worries - to be fair, I could certainly have expressed myself more clearly. It was an awkwardly-written sentence. And I did say "either missed or ignored"; I didn't know which was the case, and didn't intend to make any bogus accusations.
For myself, I choose to be honest, refrain from stealing, avoid violence, etc. because I believe it's in my own best interests to do so. I don't view it as a moral or ethical choice, but a selfish one. If we lived in a "might makes right" society where such things were acceptable, that would put everyone (including me) at great risk of personal misfortune or injury. I don't want to live in a world like that, so I do what I can to avoid it.
I'm not going to argue about this with someone who can't understand the difference between belief and knowledge. Sorry to disappoint you, but irrational religious arguments just aren't my idea of entertainment.
You asked for examples of what happens to people who have no concern whatsoever of facing any negative consequences for their actions, in this world or the next. People who are in that position are exceedingly rare - most of us do have such concerns, whether real or imagined. The above individuals are examples of those who do find themselves in such a position.
Can you name any counter-examples of individuals in a similar position, who acted in a way that most of us would describe as "good"?
Next time, you might want to try replying to what I actually wrote. You won't make yourself look quite so foolish.
I'm not sure who you're referring to with that "we", but it ain't me. I'm not even in favor of having to register firearms.
What's left to look at are those who are in a position of power and influence, and either aren't religious or believe that God is on their side - i.e. people who have either absolutely no concern with the consequences of their actions (in this world or the next) or believe those consequences will be positive in nature. People like Josef Stalin, Jim Jones, and Saddam Hussein.
Also, any parent will tell you the importance of teaching children about right vs. wrong. Have you ever really thought about what that says about our inborn tendencies? Why would that lesson need to be taught, if we weren't essentially amoral by nature? Further, look at how that lesson is taught. Do we teach our children to avoid being bad simply because it's bad? Or do we teach them that being bad has consequences?
What it essentially comes down to is a question of belief. The question of whether people are inherently good or evil has been debated forever, with no conclusive answer to it in sight. I have my beliefs on the matter, but I recognize those for what they are - belief, not knowledge. If you believe differently, I won't tell you that you're wrong, because I can't prove that. But neither can you prove that my belief is wrong.