I don't believe that to be true. Anytime I've had a discussion -not online, but a real-life face-to-face discussion - I've been able to make my case and it is often well received. Not 100% of the time, but I'm not right 100% of the time, either.
Online? well, exaggeration seems the rule, more often than not.;)
For me, the key is this: If I want others to listen and respect my views, I've found it most helpful to listen and respect them and theirs.
Bill Nye is an entertainer. Just because he used to play a character called "The Science Guy", that doesn't give him credibility on all matters pertaining to science. (yes I know he has an engineering degree-but that's a long time ago. He hasn't been paid as an engineer in decades)
His opinion carries the same weight I would give to any entertainer's
Unfortunately, the ideal utopia where people "learn to resist" doesn't seem to exist. It sounds good, but I don't know of consistently demonstrated examples showing how people can learn such a skill and then execute that skill on a regular basis.
Before we can make the world we want, we need to be honest with ourselves about the world (and people) as it is (they are)
I'm often both amazed and confused, but not on this topic. I meant what I said. "Founding principal" - look in chapter 4.
Much to our relief, we discovered we did not need to consider another's conception of God.
When, therefore, we speak to you of God, we mean your own conception of God. This applies, too, to other spiritual expressions which you find in this book.
Do not let any prejudice you may have against spiritual terms deter you from honestly asking yourself what they mean to you
(emphasis mine).
I've been to many meetings (my rough estimate is 3042) and at nearly all of those we refuse to allow the Lord's prayer. The whole group exercises that tradition 2 you referred to and determines that we don't want to use it since it is tied to Christianity. We don't really give much consideration to an individual's expressed faith. (or lack thereof)
To be fair, there is wide variation across the whole of the fellowship, so as always YMMV
How could those rates be compared? I suggest that any data sourced from AA would be invalid, since the source would be a groups of admitted chronic liars.:)
There has always been a large contingent within (and outside of) the AA fellowship that hoped AA would be a tool to get us heathens back into the church. The woman who introduced the founders was one such person, and there have been many throughout the history of the fellowship.
But it hasn't worked, despite the seeming evidence. It is possible, even easy, to attend meetings and practice the program without having to indulge in thinly disguised Christianity. FWIW, it's also possible to be both an Atheist and an AA member.
The often overlooked key is to let each member define what the word "God" means. Its a founding principle
Completely OT, but "sparking debate" is just as likely to get tagged as "troll" or "flamebait". Which is a shame. Much like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
Are you kidding me? The NSA loved this blog post. Hell, they may have even wrote it.
In summary, it said NSA good, politicians in Washington bad. The same politicians who are now getting people riled up, all because they want to take the NSA down a notch or two.
Snowden's "leaks" and the controversy in their wake, are part of a carefully thought-out campaign to take power away from the NSA.
Are you sure she was the party exhibiting bad judgement? I'm not.
I'm of the opinion the "authorities" in this case were the ones guilty if poor judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
"...then the law is an ass" - Charles Dickens
I don't think Dora was adopted with the intent to woo & marry later. At least I didn't get that from from the story.
I don't believe that to be true. Anytime I've had a discussion -not online, but a real-life face-to-face discussion - I've been able to make my case and it is often well received. Not 100% of the time, but I'm not right 100% of the time, either. Online? well, exaggeration seems the rule, more often than not. ;)
For me, the key is this: If I want others to listen and respect my views, I've found it most helpful to listen and respect them and theirs.
C'mon, this is Slashdot. No one reads the articles :)
Bill Nye is an entertainer. Just because he used to play a character called "The Science Guy", that doesn't give him credibility on all matters pertaining to science. (yes I know he has an engineering degree-but that's a long time ago. He hasn't been paid as an engineer in decades) His opinion carries the same weight I would give to any entertainer's
FWIW, the also offer a way to use encryption with their infrastructure
Windows, Mac & Linux clients are available
You misunderstand. I'm not stating anything of the sort, I'm trying to clarify who the couplet/poem was referring to.
Oh c'mon, mods! I wouldn't consider this flame-bait; a much better description is an "Inconvenient Truth"
Effectively anonymous scientists don't count. It means people like Al Gore and Will.I.Am.
"Advertising" is the answer.
Kennedy was a great of example of wealth disparity.
Advertising?
Before we can make the world we want, we need to be honest with ourselves about the world (and people) as it is (they are)
should've spelt "principle" properly
Much to our relief, we discovered we did not need to consider another's conception of God.
When, therefore, we speak to you of God, we mean your own conception of God. This applies, too, to other spiritual expressions which you find in this book. Do not let any prejudice you may have against spiritual terms deter you from honestly asking yourself what they mean to you
(emphasis mine).
I've been to many meetings (my rough estimate is 3042) and at nearly all of those we refuse to allow the Lord's prayer. The whole group exercises that tradition 2 you referred to and determines that we don't want to use it since it is tied to Christianity. We don't really give much consideration to an individual's expressed faith. (or lack thereof)
To be fair, there is wide variation across the whole of the fellowship, so as always YMMV
How could those rates be compared? I suggest that any data sourced from AA would be invalid, since the source would be a groups of admitted chronic liars. :)
There has always been a large contingent within (and outside of) the AA fellowship that hoped AA would be a tool to get us heathens back into the church. The woman who introduced the founders was one such person, and there have been many throughout the history of the fellowship.
But it hasn't worked, despite the seeming evidence. It is possible, even easy, to attend meetings and practice the program without having to indulge in thinly disguised Christianity. FWIW, it's also possible to be both an Atheist and an AA member.
The often overlooked key is to let each member define what the word "God" means. Its a founding principle
Completely OT, but "sparking debate" is just as likely to get tagged as "troll" or "flamebait". Which is a shame. Much like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
Oh, they aren't totally opposed to the NSA, they just want to be sure the NSA is controllable.
In summary, it said NSA good, politicians in Washington bad. The same politicians who are now getting people riled up, all because they want to take the NSA down a notch or two.
Snowden's "leaks" and the controversy in their wake, are part of a carefully thought-out campaign to take power away from the NSA.
ITM!
Why must it be fear? Why can't the motive simply be "What I post on Slashdot is nobody's business"?
No. Google is CIA, not NSA.
Are there objective methods for assessing this ability?
Why yes, there are objective methods. Here's what you should look for:
their IT group is ineffective, loathed by all other departments, and runs at of what the CFO has deemed appropriate
Are you sure she was the party exhibiting bad judgement? I'm not. I'm of the opinion the "authorities" in this case were the ones guilty if poor judgement.
So "Intelligence" means don't take risk? Do only what is permitted?