I do, however, consider it a fundamental function of a state to provide reliable and affordable health care, education, transportation and welfare to all. Those who have plenty, should give to those who are in need; thus progressive taxation.
Joe Blow makes $1,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $100.
Sounds like the rich pay more under a flat tax, doesn't it?
No, and neither have you. It never happened. Please move along.
Hilghlander 1 and the TV series were both excellent; it was downhill after that. I had high hopes for "endgame," and thought that they may have been able to capture some of what made the TV show so good. Unfortuantly, they only managed to capture what made the last season so blase. C'est la vie, I suppose.
Maybe programming houses tend to hire less competent IT staff, since the averages employees can take care of themselves quite fine.
In general, this may be true, but when we screw something up, we really screw it up. If I have to call on tech support, they had better be pretty good at what they do. If I can't figure it out, and the other guys in my office can't figure it out, and the team lead down the hall can't figure it out, anything less than a top-rate sys admin is going to be out of his league. If the guy running your system doesn't know more about it that you do, he should not be running the system.
And don't forget the standard EULA clause, "If this software doesn't work, it isn't our fault!"
Sometimes I really don't know why people even buy software anymore. Say you buy a car, and after 15 miles, the wheels fall off. If you knew that you would have no recourse, would you still invest thousands of dollars in a car?
Please explain exactly why "everything" is evidence of God. I see stuff here, but there are natural processes which explain it all rather well, so why postulate a sentient, all-knowing, all-powerful, undetectable deity?
Simply, there is no "natural processes which explain it all rather well." we can go back only so far, and then all of our theories and physical laws go out the window. Scientists believe that the universe, at one time, did not exist. Now, it, and everything in it, does exist, despite the fact that this "coming into existance" defies one of the fundamental theories of thermodynamics. There was once no matter, no energy. Now there is. Scientists have been trying to explain it for ages. Theologians explained it millenia ago.
For all you know, there are infinite alternate universes, each of which has a random set of fundamental values. The universes which happen to be able to support life, due to their combinations of values, are the universes in which life arose, and in which we are here to think about it. That explanation is at least as plausible as God (read: equally unprovable).
Fair enough. I agree that the "fundamental values" in our physical laws are not enough to prove God exists; but it is one more piece of evidence that helps build my case. It also ties in with the watchmaker example from a higher post.
When people lost religion, they lost morality, pure and simlple. Since you define "morality" as "having religion," your statement is basically tautological. You may as well have said, "When people lost religion, they lost religion." However, since I consider what I have to be morality, and since I also have no religion, your statement is false. Isn't language a wonderful thing?
I overgeneralized. I have known some people who were, by human standards, good people, and also happened to be atheists. Society as a whole, however, has become increasingly less moral as it has become increasingly less theistic.
Self interest gives us Enron. State-sponsored religion gives us the Inquisition. God, on the other hand, gives us such hard-to-swallow concepts as "don't go around killing each other" and "feed the poor." Actually, men gave us those concepts. They just claimed it was a God, so that people would listen to them.
Actually, God gave us those concepts. Men just claimed it was their idea because they don't want to admit there is a higher standard than themselves.
Flawed logic. Given the correct elements (some of which may or may not come from sand), procedures and equipment, one can in fact manufacture computer chips. The reason this is so is that reproducible evidence, which you claim does not exist, actually does.
I'm attacking your belief system, only your logic.
Quite all right. The grandparent poster said I that a watch was evidence of a watchmaker because he could follow a watchmaker's instructions and produce a watch, but since he could not follow God's instructions and make a world, creation was not evidence of God. I was merely pointing out that you don't have to be able to reproduce something for it to be true...chip makers can make chips, but I cannot. God can make worlds, but I cannot. Both are simply out of my power, but both have been done.
The correct response to that conjecture is "Yes, because I see evidence of Watchmaking before my eyes, and if I take the instructions given in the Watchmaking manual and follow them correctly, I will end up with a watch. Your so-called-God has not left any reproducible evidence of his existence or that his methodologies for creating a World work...therefore alternative theories have credence as well"
I cannot get a bunch of sand and make my own computer chips. Since these so-called chip-manufacturers have not left any reproducible evidence of their methodologies, I must assume that computer chips are the result of random reactions in nature.
Take a look around, friend. Everything you see is evidence that there is a God. Once, there was nothing, and now, there is everything. Physical laws cannot explain this, but the bible can. And no, He didn't leave a "Creating Worlds for Dummies" book laying around; he's God, which means there are things He is capable of that we are not, and that He understands things that we do not.
As for alternative theories, it basically ammounts to this. There is a God, or we got really, really lucky. The strength of the atomic forces, or gravity, the distance of the earth to the sun, and a whole host of other values are tuned for the existance of life. Some of these values, if altered by a thousandth of a percent, would have gaurenteed that the universe would have imploded into a fireball, or drifted away into nothingness. But here we are.
Self-Interest works really, really well...religion...well...not so well.
When people lost religion, they lost morality, pure and simlple. You are correct, however, that when religion became state-sponsored, trouble followed closely.
Self interest gives us Enron. State-sponsored religion gives us the Inquisition. God, on the other hand, gives us such hard-to-swallow concepts as "don't go around killing each other" and "feed the poor."
Re:Swapping Values Without Using a Temporary Varia
on
The Python Cookbook
·
· Score: 2
Ah, fond memories. I remember showing that to a friend a while ago. He looked at it all cross-eyed, then ran off to see if it actually worked. Five minutes and a "holy s**t!" later, I knew he got it.
And there isn't anything wrong with implementing an old trick to get your feet wet in a new language. "Hello, world!" is a classic for a reason. When you are learning somethign new, any tie you can make with what you already know is helpful.
And I saw something like a moutain on fire fall into the sea... Yep, Revelations sounds like it describes the death of humanity by asteroid to me. Perhaps all sentient species get premonitions about the end of their civilizations.
Actually, that only kills off one third of the population.
What I also find hilarious about the copyright argument... The RIAA says music sales are down due to d/l's of mp3's and the various other formats of music; however, I guess our current state of the economy would have nothing to do with the decrease in sales? I wonder if they compared other times of poor economy with their sales trends if they would be comparable to the downside trend they have been noticing.
I wonder if they compared their situation to other times providers of non-esentiall goods were guilty of price fixing.
I caught the parts with Liv Tyler in them, yes.;-)
Besides, if God decides to whack us with a rock, he'll have decided several billion years ago. There doesn't seem to be a lot that changes unexpectedly up there (save the occasional asteroid collision.)
Fair enough, I suppose. The Revelation already tells us He decided to whack us with a rock (two of them, actually).
Oh, and we'll be able to sell lots of commemorative t-shirts, magazines, and specially colored ribbons for the occasion. Go America!
"It is times like these that make us realize it is not whether you are a Republican or a Democrate, but an Amer....hey, waitaminute, we're all gonna die, right? Screw this, yeah, I am sleeping with my intern. What are you going to do, not re-elect me?"
Is there anyone in the astronomical community who can explain the apparent desire to "de-list" Pluto as a planet?
IANAA (an astronomer), but based on observation, I find scientists in general to be very exacting in the words the use to describe things, even when the definition of the word is as vague as "big, um, thingie." It was originally decided that Pluto was, indeed, a big um thingie, but another camp soon arose that declared the first camp's interpretation of "big" and "thingie" wrong, though they both agree on the proper use of "um."
Simmilar to the religious wars between EMACSers and VIers, both camps are willing to fight to the death over just how big a thingie must be to be considered "big enough." The "Pluto-is-a-Planet" camp declares that they like their planets light and fast, while the "Pluto-is-an-asteroid" proponents chide Pluto's lack of features and extensibility.
Worse, new factions have developed, touting slogans such as "My Planet, My Choice," "Keep Your Definitions Off My Planet," and "Size Does Matter," the latter of which is often followed by "No matter what your girlfriend told you." These groups seem to be more concerned with personal political agendas than the advancement of science, but due to their vocal nature, have all but eclipsed the scientific community in the public eye.
RIAA President Jack Valenti only complicated matters when he, apparently out of innocent ignorance, chimed in with "A nineth planet is to the astronomical community what the Boston Strangler is to a woman home alone." Fortunatly, the RIAA's web site is unable to stay live long enough for many people to read this comment.
Finally, recently disovered correspondence from the Sonny Bono Library indicate that the late senator intended to present the "Sonny Bono Interstellar Copyright Act," which would have declared Pluto to be both a planet and the copyright of the Walt Disney Corp., requiering all textbooks to pay Walt Disney the "royalties any hard-working mega-conglomerate deserves for the use of its dead founder's intellectual property." This bill would have also retroactivly extended copyright by 20 plutonian years (4960 earth years).
Actually, this newly found celestial body is not a planet at all, much less a "10th planet"... It's just a Kuiper belt object, which happens to be rather large. Quaoar further strengthens the theory that Pluto is not a conventional planet but rather a Kuiper Belt object.
Ten planets? Eight? In either case, it won't matter for at lest 20 more years, when the schools finally getting around to updating their textbooks.
You know, this makes me think. People get all bent out of shape about trying to detect asteroids hell-bent on destroying the earth, and we are just now finding an entire freaking planet(oid). If God decides to whack us with a rock, I really don't think there is a whole lot we can do to stop it.
Yeah, no shit. In case anyone doubts this, check out this site for some statistics on rape sentencing. It's pretty sad.
What a wonderful way to ruin a Friday. Now I'm all angry.
It'd be real easy to go on an off-topic rant here, but I'll try and keep it/.-centric by commenting that these kinds of crimes, where people are actually harmed, physically and emotionally, should be so much higher on the legal system's to-do list than figuring out how to shut down Johnny MP3 ripper. How in the hell does the DMCA even make it to the floor for debate when we don't take care violent offenders?still don't care
Actually, that might be a better way to go, as far as newbie users are concerned. An applet that pops up and says "Do you want to give this program permission to change your computer? Yes / No", knows what the root password is, and can then su under the covers would mix some security with easy-of-use.
That's true, but I think there are probably a lot of people out there who only use one hand for the mouse and use the other hand for keyboard shortcuts...
For me, web browsing is a background task; it's what I do when I'm waiting for a compile to finish, or something simmilar. Because of this, I do most of my web-reading via keyboard; page-up and page-down, primarily, then alt-tabing or ctrl-alt-lefting back to whatever I was doing originally. Still, when it comes to navigation, i.e. clicking a link or traveling through my history, I have to go to the mouse. Gestures would be ideal in this situation, since they can take place anywhere, but you have to mouse over to a menu/button.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh. Here's the whole thing.
Joe Blow makes $1,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $100.
John Doe makes $100,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $10,000
Sounds like the rich pay more under a flat tax, doesn't it?
I do, however, consider it a fundamental function of a state to provide reliable and affordable health care, education, transportation and welfare to all. Those who have plenty, should give to those who are in need; thus progressive taxation.
Joe Blow makes $1,000 a year, and pays 10% in taxes. That's $100.
Sounds like the rich pay more under a flat tax, doesn't it?
Ever seen Highlander 2?
No, and neither have you. It never happened. Please move along.
Hilghlander 1 and the TV series were both excellent; it was downhill after that. I had high hopes for "endgame," and thought that they may have been able to capture some of what made the TV show so good. Unfortuantly, they only managed to capture what made the last season so blase. C'est la vie, I suppose.
No, it'd be a software company.
Maybe programming houses tend to hire less competent IT staff, since the averages employees can take care of themselves quite fine.
In general, this may be true, but when we screw something up, we really screw it up. If I have to call on tech support, they had better be pretty good at what they do. If I can't figure it out, and the other guys in my office can't figure it out, and the team lead down the hall can't figure it out, anything less than a top-rate sys admin is going to be out of his league. If the guy running your system doesn't know more about it that you do, he should not be running the system.
And don't forget the standard EULA clause, "If this software doesn't work, it isn't our fault!"
Sometimes I really don't know why people even buy software anymore. Say you buy a car, and after 15 miles, the wheels fall off. If you knew that you would have no recourse, would you still invest thousands of dollars in a car?
No, this has nothing to do with proving His existance; it's a theological explanation of one of His cahracteristics.
Theologically, one of the defining characteistics of God is his self-existance; he requiers nothing else to exist, He simply is.
According to the Bible, the materials necessary to create the Universe are...nothing.
Actually, according to the Bible, the materials necessary to produce a Universe are...God. Science has yet to come up with anything better.
Read what you quoted: "Everything you see is evidence that there is a God." I'll prove the Bible right some other time.
Please explain exactly why "everything" is evidence of God. I see stuff here, but there are natural processes which explain it all rather well, so why postulate a sentient, all-knowing, all-powerful, undetectable deity?
Simply, there is no "natural processes which explain it all rather well." we can go back only so far, and then all of our theories and physical laws go out the window. Scientists believe that the universe, at one time, did not exist. Now, it, and everything in it, does exist, despite the fact that this "coming into existance" defies one of the fundamental theories of thermodynamics. There was once no matter, no energy. Now there is. Scientists have been trying to explain it for ages. Theologians explained it millenia ago.
For all you know, there are infinite alternate universes, each of which has a random set of fundamental values. The universes which happen to be able to support life, due to their combinations of values, are the universes in which life arose, and in which we are here to think about it. That explanation is at least as plausible as God (read: equally unprovable).
Fair enough. I agree that the "fundamental values" in our physical laws are not enough to prove God exists; but it is one more piece of evidence that helps build my case. It also ties in with the watchmaker example from a higher post.
When people lost religion, they lost morality, pure and simlple.
Since you define "morality" as "having religion," your statement is basically tautological. You may as well have said, "When people lost religion, they lost religion." However, since I consider what I have to be morality, and since I also have no religion, your statement is false. Isn't language a wonderful thing?
I overgeneralized. I have known some people who were, by human standards, good people, and also happened to be atheists. Society as a whole, however, has become increasingly less moral as it has become increasingly less theistic.
Self interest gives us Enron. State-sponsored religion gives us the Inquisition. God, on the other hand, gives us such hard-to-swallow concepts as "don't go around killing each other" and "feed the poor."
Actually, men gave us those concepts. They just claimed it was a God, so that people would listen to them.
Actually, God gave us those concepts. Men just claimed it was their idea because they don't want to admit there is a higher standard than themselves.
Flawed logic. Given the correct elements (some of which may or may not come from sand), procedures and equipment, one can in fact manufacture computer chips. The reason this is so is that reproducible evidence, which you claim does not exist, actually does.
I'm attacking your belief system, only your logic.
Quite all right. The grandparent poster said I that a watch was evidence of a watchmaker because he could follow a watchmaker's instructions and produce a watch, but since he could not follow God's instructions and make a world, creation was not evidence of God. I was merely pointing out that you don't have to be able to reproduce something for it to be true...chip makers can make chips, but I cannot. God can make worlds, but I cannot. Both are simply out of my power, but both have been done.
The correct response to that conjecture is "Yes, because I see evidence of Watchmaking before my eyes, and if I take the instructions given in the Watchmaking manual and follow them correctly, I will end up with a watch. Your so-called-God has not left any reproducible evidence of his existence or that his methodologies for creating a World work...therefore alternative theories have credence as well"
I cannot get a bunch of sand and make my own computer chips. Since these so-called chip-manufacturers have not left any reproducible evidence of their methodologies, I must assume that computer chips are the result of random reactions in nature.
Take a look around, friend. Everything you see is evidence that there is a God. Once, there was nothing, and now, there is everything. Physical laws cannot explain this, but the bible can. And no, He didn't leave a "Creating Worlds for Dummies" book laying around; he's God, which means there are things He is capable of that we are not, and that He understands things that we do not.
As for alternative theories, it basically ammounts to this. There is a God, or we got really, really lucky. The strength of the atomic forces, or gravity, the distance of the earth to the sun, and a whole host of other values are tuned for the existance of life. Some of these values, if altered by a thousandth of a percent, would have gaurenteed that the universe would have imploded into a fireball, or drifted away into nothingness. But here we are.
Self-Interest works really, really well...religion...well...not so well.
When people lost religion, they lost morality, pure and simlple. You are correct, however, that when religion became state-sponsored, trouble followed closely.
Self interest gives us Enron. State-sponsored religion gives us the Inquisition. God, on the other hand, gives us such hard-to-swallow concepts as "don't go around killing each other" and "feed the poor."
1. Nothing
2. ???
3. CREATION!!!
Ah, fond memories. I remember showing that to a friend a while ago. He looked at it all cross-eyed, then ran off to see if it actually worked. Five minutes and a "holy s**t!" later, I knew he got it.
And there isn't anything wrong with implementing an old trick to get your feet wet in a new language. "Hello, world!" is a classic for a reason. When you are learning somethign new, any tie you can make with what you already know is helpful.
And I saw something like a moutain on fire fall into the sea... Yep, Revelations sounds like it describes the death of humanity by asteroid to me. Perhaps all sentient species get premonitions about the end of their civilizations.
Actually, that only kills off one third of the population.
Yaah, that's what we need...ICANN with the force of law.
What I also find hilarious about the copyright argument... The RIAA says music sales are down due to d/l's of mp3's and the various other formats of music; however, I guess our current state of the economy would have nothing to do with the decrease in sales? I wonder if they compared other times of poor economy with their sales trends if they would be comparable to the downside trend they have been noticing.
I wonder if they compared their situation to other times providers of non-esentiall goods were guilty of price fixing.
Didn't you see Armageddon?
;-)
I caught the parts with Liv Tyler in them, yes.
Besides, if God decides to whack us with a rock, he'll have decided several billion years ago. There doesn't seem to be a lot that changes unexpectedly up there (save the occasional asteroid collision.)
Fair enough, I suppose. The Revelation already tells us He decided to whack us with a rock (two of them, actually).
Oh, and we'll be able to sell lots of commemorative t-shirts, magazines, and specially colored ribbons for the occasion. Go America!
"It is times like these that make us realize it is not whether you are a Republican or a Democrate, but an Amer....hey, waitaminute, we're all gonna die, right? Screw this, yeah, I am sleeping with my intern. What are you going to do, not re-elect me?"
Planet Quake is more likely.
Is there anyone in the astronomical community who can explain the apparent desire to "de-list" Pluto as a planet?
IANAA (an astronomer), but based on observation, I find scientists in general to be very exacting in the words the use to describe things, even when the definition of the word is as vague as "big, um, thingie." It was originally decided that Pluto was, indeed, a big um thingie, but another camp soon arose that declared the first camp's interpretation of "big" and "thingie" wrong, though they both agree on the proper use of "um."
Simmilar to the religious wars between EMACSers and VIers, both camps are willing to fight to the death over just how big a thingie must be to be considered "big enough." The "Pluto-is-a-Planet" camp declares that they like their planets light and fast, while the "Pluto-is-an-asteroid" proponents chide Pluto's lack of features and extensibility.
Worse, new factions have developed, touting slogans such as "My Planet, My Choice," "Keep Your Definitions Off My Planet," and "Size Does Matter," the latter of which is often followed by "No matter what your girlfriend told you." These groups seem to be more concerned with personal political agendas than the advancement of science, but due to their vocal nature, have all but eclipsed the scientific community in the public eye.
RIAA President Jack Valenti only complicated matters when he, apparently out of innocent ignorance, chimed in with "A nineth planet is to the astronomical community what the Boston Strangler is to a woman home alone." Fortunatly, the RIAA's web site is unable to stay live long enough for many people to read this comment.
Finally, recently disovered correspondence from the Sonny Bono Library indicate that the late senator intended to present the "Sonny Bono Interstellar Copyright Act," which would have declared Pluto to be both a planet and the copyright of the Walt Disney Corp., requiering all textbooks to pay Walt Disney the "royalties any hard-working mega-conglomerate deserves for the use of its dead founder's intellectual property." This bill would have also retroactivly extended copyright by 20 plutonian years (4960 earth years).
This is what keeps science alive, folks.
Actually, this newly found celestial body is not a planet at all, much less a "10th planet" ... It's just a Kuiper belt object, which happens to be rather large. Quaoar further strengthens the theory that Pluto is not a conventional planet but rather a Kuiper Belt object.
Ten planets? Eight? In either case, it won't matter for at lest 20 more years, when the schools finally getting around to updating their textbooks.
You know, this makes me think. People get all bent out of shape about trying to detect asteroids hell-bent on destroying the earth, and we are just now finding an entire freaking planet(oid). If God decides to whack us with a rock, I really don't think there is a whole lot we can do to stop it.
Yeah, no shit. In case anyone doubts this, check out this site for some statistics on rape sentencing. It's pretty sad.
/.-centric by commenting that these kinds of crimes, where people are actually harmed, physically and emotionally, should be so much higher on the legal system's to-do list than figuring out how to shut down Johnny MP3 ripper. How in the hell does the DMCA even make it to the floor for debate when we don't take care violent offenders?still don't care
What a wonderful way to ruin a Friday. Now I'm all angry.
It'd be real easy to go on an off-topic rant here, but I'll try and keep it
Actually, that might be a better way to go, as far as newbie users are concerned. An applet that pops up and says "Do you want to give this program permission to change your computer? Yes / No", knows what the root password is, and can then su under the covers would mix some security with easy-of-use.
That's true, but I think there are probably a lot of people out there who only use one hand for the mouse and use the other hand for keyboard shortcuts...
For me, web browsing is a background task; it's what I do when I'm waiting for a compile to finish, or something simmilar. Because of this, I do most of my web-reading via keyboard; page-up and page-down, primarily, then alt-tabing or ctrl-alt-lefting back to whatever I was doing originally. Still, when it comes to navigation, i.e. clicking a link or traveling through my history, I have to go to the mouse. Gestures would be ideal in this situation, since they can take place anywhere, but you have to mouse over to a menu/button.