I never knew that. It actually sounds like it would be good. Anyone have any comparisons with American non-boiled to boiled? Are there places in the US to try it?
Continuing from the other thread... Yes the previous one was a bit elitist. Not a problem I tend to do it especially on bad days. But hey I'm enjoying this debate no matter how OT it may be.
Hrm. I may be confusing "religion" with "religious institutions". If you're saying that religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church) are a bad thing, you'll get no argument from me. But if you're talking about religions themselves (i.e.; the fundamental principles and practices of a faith), then we're still on the same page. I hope you don't mind if we continue to use Christianity as our example. It's the religion I've had the most experience with.
Same here then. I recommend The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. When it comes to the bad things of fundamental principles and practices. As it would get long and take too much time for me to do the work myself. BTW, I don't expect you to refute this. Pages and pages of interpretations is quite a bit of info.
The Christian community is very open about their source texts, allowing anyone with the resources to make their own translations and interpretations. Translations are done by multipartisan committees to prevent intentional or accidental errors. In my experience, they try to explain things as logically as possible. For these reasons, and my own experience of the community, I find them generally trustworthy--certainly as trustworthy as I find the Physics community, for example.
Well the Bible is written as fact all the stories have happened, this is what God says, etc. Some people may interpret differently, but the Bible is meant to be interpreted exactly like any science document. If not then basically anybody can pull any interpretation they want. Then they might as well try Buddhism, avoid all the doo-doo and go for the principles.
The problem is they try to explain everything logically but the explanation is in the Bible anything else would be adding to it without proof. For example: I think a lot of preachers use everyday life to explain things, the problem is that goes back to interpretation as I stated above.
People, after reading the documentation on Christianity, felt it could work. They felt it was a worthy risk. There was no faith involved, just trust in themselves. They followed through and... well? They took the risk, made the leap... did they find the God their scriptures said was there, or not? The socialists conducted their experiment, and did not find the utopia they reasoned would be there. The Christians conducted their experiment. Was their reasoning correct, or flawed?
Well according to the Bible people are sort of forced to believe and are told to force others. "You are either with God or against God." I remember reading somewhere in the Bible once. To me it seems more of a risk to go away from Christianity as I remember being very scared while losing faith. As I began to question I feared God was reading my mind and I would block out thoughts till one day it jumped in my head before I could force it back. "Something is wrong I shouldn't be scared to think." I believe that actually happened after reading 1984 for the first time.
That's why I see it as flawed the Bible does not encourage questioning because it works off unknowns and fear. When you do pick it apart you find the link I posted at the top.
With Quantum Physics, you have no choice but to trust the smarty-men with the expensive equipment. Unless you're one of them, you'll never be able to prove it for yourself. You'll just have to settle for other, less reliable methods of testing the truth of their claims.
The thing is these guys haven proven trustworthy in the past. Even when the make a mistake the whole word knows about it no matter how embarrassing. Most scientist will step up and say "oops, sorry." Except for greedy ones, but that a little different. So when they make claims that I will probably never understand or prove in my lifetime I'll believe them.
How about like this. If a man on the street says, "Hey man can I borrow $50? I'll pay you back in 1 hour. I promise I my mothers grave."
He won't see I dime from me and I hope not from you.
If my best friend who being the status of best friend and never gave me a reason to doubt him asked me the same question.
"No problem, pay me back tomorrow or whenever."
So if one were to accept the strangers offer that would be faith. On the other hand from my friend that would be trust. The outcome could be the same way, but probability and reason says I'm gonna get my money back from my friend and from the stranger, well I will never see him or the money again.
A religious scientist could claim to know the "why" (metaphysics); and also the "how", to the limits of his science (physics). The two aren't mutually exclusive--they're not even related.
Reading that carefully yes, a scientist could "make up" the metaphysics and use physics to determine the how... on with the other thread;)
Didn't need that long explanation on what physics is. Lets try not to get "elitist" here. If you're not my mistake. I misunderstood the tone. That gets lost in text.
When Billy Graham says that "God is mysterious" the question is prove God... you can't. Niels Bohr says "Quantum Physics is mysterious." I say prove it... well you first use this $1 billion machine in ways I can't understand, it produces these results I don't understand, so why do I believe them. Multiple reason built up on trust. The scientific community is very open about their experiments allowing anyone with the resources to try, any encourage it to make sure they didn't make any mistakes. They try to explain things to the public as logical as possible. So I trust this community. Religion expects you to believe without question.
...it's a comfort for facing death and being alone.
So? Are you saying that only unpleasant statements are true, and that all comforting statements are false? That's not a very good criteria for determining truth. Anyway, the last time I checked, intellectually rigorous Christianity wasn't very comforting at all.
I don't see where I've said unpleasant statements are true and that all comforting statements are false. I'm saying that religion is created for humans feel comforted facing death and being alone. I suppose I should add, to provide control to the people in charge of the religion which like you said makes Christianity uncomforting.
But take socialism, for example: people had to believe that it would work out--a violent revolution, a demolishing of the current system, its replacement by a temporary "transitional management", and the ultimate fruition of a worker's paradise--all that had to be taken on faith. But there were some good, solid reasons for making the attempt; real-world reasons that made sense to people, and clearly related to their own experiences of reality. The Bolsheviks didn't rise up because someone said "let's start a revolution and see if it works". They rose up because it made good, practical, sense to do so, even if the ultimate outcome had to be taken on faith.
Let me reiterate this... socialism was not on faith. It was based on reason. The people after reading documentation on it felt that it could work. Given their current living conditions it was a worthy risk. Their was no faith involved just trust in themselves. They followed through and it failed. In a sense it could be considered an experiment. Tried, tested, failed.
Religion in comparison has documentation says this is fact. Does not explain these "facts". If you question you will be punished, end of story. I see no similarities other than the both have some sort of text.
Please. By your reasoning, all religious people must be either dupes, madmen, or demagogues. After all, no sane, intelligent person would accept a religion with no good reasons at all.
I know depresses me everyday.
Whenever a religious person can't come up with an explanation they usually say "God works in mysterious ways" and "You just gotta have faith."
Christianity has no real relevance to real world it's a comfort for facing death and being alone. That's what makes it so appealing. Along with it are all sorts of wacko beliefs that you must believe based on one book.
Socialism isn't a good analogy. Those people were living a harsh existence as it is. So this book comes along and sounds logical and the people rebel. They trusted their own ability to reason knew that their would be risk. Their current way of life was awful, so it's not like that had much to lose anyway. Others I'm sure just followed the masses in "blind trust."
Sorta like religion, yea we don't know exactly why we are here and how. To religous people that is proof to scientific minded people that drives them to find those answers.
Not so: Why and how we are here is exactly what religious people claim to know. Also, religion purports to pick up where science leaves off. A religious scientist could claim to know the "why" (metaphysics); and also the "how", to the limits of his science (physics). The two aren't mutually exclusive--they're not even related.
Religious people claim to know because as of now we don't have any explanations. So they fill in the gap with religion (so yes they think they know). I'm not sure how a religous scientist could use physics to explain these questions without making stuff up.
I should have been clearer with that, I was throwing in a quick analogy.
I must reply... thanks for the troll. Seriously you would be surprised what that thing could do. Note I did say handle like a sports car, but not accelerate and top speed like a sports car.
You actually had a valid point sport and accord don't go together.
Not trying to disprove your point that's in most cases is a perfectly good idea. I could see many cases where that may not work. That adds server demand to have run a server side interpreter scan every page that has a go back link just for that one line.
Actually morpheus did not die. He almost did. At the end Neo became the one or whatever. I believe he killed one of the Agents? Or did something to make the others run after jumping in side of him. Also acording to what I heard in the past I believe the agents will be able to spawn multiple processes of themselves. So I guess the they are Agent 2.0.
Plus the machines still rule the real world. So even if the Matrix were destroyed there's still more movie to go around.
I think this may be wording or lack of understanding of the word faith. I don't have faith in science but trust. There's a lot of things said the can easily be proven and seen there's also a lot that there is simple no way I can prove or see for myself. So I have to trust the scientists. Religion has no trust from the get go, it makes claims that can't be proven or disproven religious people must have "blind trust" or faith.
The is a very shortsighted comment. NASA is a division of the government. So while the Air force investigating so called UFO sightings may be lying out their asses and are really working with aliens anal probing everybody, NASA on the other hand could be in the dark to this as well getting anal probed with the rest of us.
What bugs me is your claims about UFO footage. There is so much footage to sort through while most could be faked, strange phonomenom, illusion caused by light, etc. There is simply too many unknows in it all and if some one were to simply say "well we don't know there's not enough data." It just feeds the fire and people use that as proof to their psuedo-science. Sorta like religion, yea we don't know exactly why we are here and how. To religous people that is proof to scientific minded people that drives them to find those answers.
I think from this thread you have learned that "putting down" anything in open source will give you a Troll moderation. Gnome is great and all even if the Nautilus crashes on startup on my FreeBSD box (I'm sure I did something wrong somewhere...). You just need to admit that 15 years from now South Africa will thank Americans for Donating to Gnome desktop which saved them 20 upgrades to Windows 2017 Platnium XP Super.
I heard one strict principal throughout IBM was to always follow through to what they say no matter what the costs. As a big evil corporation that's quite a principal.
Oh sorry, I guess you were talking about Linux newbies, I misread.
I could example of a a complete computer newbie who doesn't want to learn computers is my girlfriend. She hates them, but she wanted to be able to communicate via email with some friends and family and look up the occasional website. I'm sure there are many people thrown in using computers even though they don't want to, it's just the way things are moving today almost everyone needs to be somewhat familiar.
Honestly, I have very little money. I don't even have cable tv, had to get either broadband or cable tv, I chose broadband. I rarely download movies recorded on a video camera, but I will download dvd rips or rent movies. A friend of mine has a friend that works for the local movie theater, so I'll usually go with him and get in free. Or I'll go to the $1 theater. Some of my methods of watching movies or tv shows may be illeagal, I simply don't have the money I would do with out otherwise. Hey, I'm a poor college student.
Slashdot Mirror
Boil pizza
I never knew that. It actually sounds like it would be good. Anyone have any comparisons with American non-boiled to boiled? Are there places in the US to try it?
Sorry for being off-topic.
Yeah, and the UK has a MUCH smaller population than the US.
I do believe he covered this point... even proportional to population.
Continuing from the other thread... Yes the previous one was a bit elitist. Not a problem I tend to do it especially on bad days. But hey I'm enjoying this debate no matter how OT it may be.
Hrm. I may be confusing "religion" with "religious institutions". If you're saying that religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church) are a bad thing, you'll get no argument from me. But if you're talking about religions themselves (i.e.; the fundamental principles and practices of a faith), then we're still on the same page. I hope you don't mind if we continue to use Christianity as our example. It's the religion I've had the most experience with.
Same here then. I recommend The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. When it comes to the bad things of fundamental principles and practices. As it would get long and take too much time for me to do the work myself. BTW, I don't expect you to refute this. Pages and pages of interpretations is quite a bit of info.
The Christian community is very open about their source texts, allowing anyone with the resources to make their own translations and interpretations. Translations are done by multipartisan committees to prevent intentional or accidental errors. In my experience, they try to explain things as logically as possible. For these reasons, and my own experience of the community, I find them generally trustworthy--certainly as trustworthy as I find the Physics community, for example.
Well the Bible is written as fact all the stories have happened, this is what God says, etc. Some people may interpret differently, but the Bible is meant to be interpreted exactly like any science document. If not then basically anybody can pull any interpretation they want. Then they might as well try Buddhism, avoid all the doo-doo and go for the principles.
The problem is they try to explain everything logically but the explanation is in the Bible anything else would be adding to it without proof. For example: I think a lot of preachers use everyday life to explain things, the problem is that goes back to interpretation as I stated above.
People, after reading the documentation on Christianity, felt it could work. They felt it was a worthy risk. There was no faith involved, just trust in themselves. They followed through and... well? They took the risk, made the leap... did they find the God their scriptures said was there, or not? The socialists conducted their experiment, and did not find the utopia they reasoned would be there. The Christians conducted their experiment. Was their reasoning correct, or flawed?
Well according to the Bible people are sort of forced to believe and are told to force others. "You are either with God or against God." I remember reading somewhere in the Bible once. To me it seems more of a risk to go away from Christianity as I remember being very scared while losing faith. As I began to question I feared God was reading my mind and I would block out thoughts till one day it jumped in my head before I could force it back. "Something is wrong I shouldn't be scared to think." I believe that actually happened after reading 1984 for the first time.
That's why I see it as flawed the Bible does not encourage questioning because it works off unknowns and fear. When you do pick it apart you find the link I posted at the top.
With Quantum Physics, you have no choice but to trust the smarty-men with the expensive equipment. Unless you're one of them, you'll never be able to prove it for yourself. You'll just have to settle for other, less reliable methods of testing the truth of their claims.
The thing is these guys haven proven trustworthy in the past. Even when the make a mistake the whole word knows about it no matter how embarrassing. Most scientist will step up and say "oops, sorry." Except for greedy ones, but that a little different. So when they make claims that I will probably never understand or prove in my lifetime I'll believe them.
How about like this. If a man on the street says, "Hey man can I borrow $50? I'll pay you back in 1 hour. I promise I my mothers grave."
He won't see I dime from me and I hope not from you.
If my best friend who being the status of best friend and never gave me a reason to doubt him asked me the same question. "No problem, pay me back tomorrow or whenever."
So if one were to accept the strangers offer that would be faith. On the other hand from my friend that would be trust. The outcome could be the same way, but probability and reason says I'm gonna get my money back from my friend and from the stranger, well I will never see him or the money again.
A religious scientist could claim to know the "why" (metaphysics); and also the "how", to the limits of his science (physics). The two aren't mutually exclusive--they're not even related.
;)
Reading that carefully yes, a scientist could "make up" the metaphysics and use physics to determine the how... on with the other thread
Didn't need that long explanation on what physics is. Lets try not to get "elitist" here. If you're not my mistake. I misunderstood the tone. That gets lost in text.
When Billy Graham says that "God is mysterious" the question is prove God... you can't. Niels Bohr says "Quantum Physics is mysterious." I say prove it... well you first use this $1 billion machine in ways I can't understand, it produces these results I don't understand, so why do I believe them. Multiple reason built up on trust. The scientific community is very open about their experiments allowing anyone with the resources to try, any encourage it to make sure they didn't make any mistakes. They try to explain things to the public as logical as possible. So I trust this community. Religion expects you to believe without question.
...it's a comfort for facing death and being alone.
So? Are you saying that only unpleasant statements are true, and that all comforting statements are false? That's not a very good criteria for determining truth. Anyway, the last time I checked, intellectually rigorous Christianity wasn't very comforting at all.
I don't see where I've said unpleasant statements are true and that all comforting statements are false. I'm saying that religion is created for humans feel comforted facing death and being alone. I suppose I should add, to provide control to the people in charge of the religion which like you said makes Christianity uncomforting.
But take socialism, for example: people had to believe that it would work out--a violent revolution, a demolishing of the current system, its replacement by a temporary "transitional management", and the ultimate fruition of a worker's paradise--all that had to be taken on faith. But there were some good, solid reasons for making the attempt; real-world reasons that made sense to people, and clearly related to their own experiences of reality. The Bolsheviks didn't rise up because someone said "let's start a revolution and see if it works". They rose up because it made good, practical, sense to do so, even if the ultimate outcome had to be taken on faith.
Let me reiterate this... socialism was not on faith. It was based on reason. The people after reading documentation on it felt that it could work. Given their current living conditions it was a worthy risk. Their was no faith involved just trust in themselves. They followed through and it failed. In a sense it could be considered an experiment. Tried, tested, failed.
Religion in comparison has documentation says this is fact. Does not explain these "facts". If you question you will be punished, end of story. I see no similarities other than the both have some sort of text.
Please. By your reasoning, all religious people must be either dupes, madmen, or demagogues. After all, no sane, intelligent person would accept a religion with no good reasons at all.
I know depresses me everyday.
Whenever a religious person can't come up with an explanation they usually say "God works in mysterious ways" and "You just gotta have faith." Christianity has no real relevance to real world it's a comfort for facing death and being alone. That's what makes it so appealing. Along with it are all sorts of wacko beliefs that you must believe based on one book.
Socialism isn't a good analogy. Those people were living a harsh existence as it is. So this book comes along and sounds logical and the people rebel. They trusted their own ability to reason knew that their would be risk. Their current way of life was awful, so it's not like that had much to lose anyway. Others I'm sure just followed the masses in "blind trust."
Sorta like religion, yea we don't know exactly why we are here and how. To religous people that is proof to scientific minded people that drives them to find those answers.
Not so: Why and how we are here is exactly what religious people claim to know. Also, religion purports to pick up where science leaves off. A religious scientist could claim to know the "why" (metaphysics); and also the "how", to the limits of his science (physics). The two aren't mutually exclusive--they're not even related.
Religious people claim to know because as of now we don't have any explanations. So they fill in the gap with religion (so yes they think they know). I'm not sure how a religous scientist could use physics to explain these questions without making stuff up.
I should have been clearer with that, I was throwing in a quick analogy.
I must reply... thanks for the troll. Seriously you would be surprised what that thing could do. Note I did say handle like a sports car, but not accelerate and top speed like a sports car.
You actually had a valid point sport and accord don't go together.
Record your steps so I can do mine as well.
Litte broken image there, the page isn't linked anymore.
Actually users are stupid and that's the number rule with web development... beta test from a complete idiots point of view.
Not trying to disprove your point that's in most cases is a perfectly good idea. I could see many cases where that may not work. That adds server demand to have run a server side interpreter scan every page that has a go back link just for that one line.
A friend of mine and I always use donjohnson808@aol.com. We add the 808 because all the AOL address have numbers after them.
Actually morpheus did not die. He almost did. At the end Neo became the one or whatever. I believe he killed one of the Agents? Or did something to make the others run after jumping in side of him. Also acording to what I heard in the past I believe the agents will be able to spawn multiple processes of themselves. So I guess the they are Agent 2.0.
Plus the machines still rule the real world. So even if the Matrix were destroyed there's still more movie to go around.
I think this may be wording or lack of understanding of the word faith. I don't have faith in science but trust. There's a lot of things said the can easily be proven and seen there's also a lot that there is simple no way I can prove or see for myself. So I have to trust the scientists. Religion has no trust from the get go, it makes claims that can't be proven or disproven religious people must have "blind trust" or faith.
The is a very shortsighted comment. NASA is a division of the government. So while the Air force investigating so called UFO sightings may be lying out their asses and are really working with aliens anal probing everybody, NASA on the other hand could be in the dark to this as well getting anal probed with the rest of us.
What bugs me is your claims about UFO footage. There is so much footage to sort through while most could be faked, strange phonomenom, illusion caused by light, etc. There is simply too many unknows in it all and if some one were to simply say "well we don't know there's not enough data." It just feeds the fire and people use that as proof to their psuedo-science. Sorta like religion, yea we don't know exactly why we are here and how. To religous people that is proof to scientific minded people that drives them to find those answers.
Assuming our brains will have M$ components. To get high all one would have to do is think real hard and BSOD!
Hopefully money isn't going to buying painkillers but a method to make the cancer go away. That would be worth more than making Gnome better.
I think from this thread you have learned that "putting down" anything in open source will give you a Troll moderation. Gnome is great and all even if the Nautilus crashes on startup on my FreeBSD box (I'm sure I did something wrong somewhere...). You just need to admit that 15 years from now South Africa will thank Americans for Donating to Gnome desktop which saved them 20 upgrades to Windows 2017 Platnium XP Super.
That's a damn cool looking case... too bad it's $368. Any cheap clones, perhaps not aluminum?
I heard one strict principal throughout IBM was to always follow through to what they say no matter what the costs. As a big evil corporation that's quite a principal.
Well in that case... Free popcorn!!! or just about. That's damn cool. I'm gonna have to keep any eye out for Whirly Pops, might just invest in it.
I could example of a a complete computer newbie
Should read...
A good example of a a complete computer newbie
Damn it mistyped that time.
Oh sorry, I guess you were talking about Linux newbies, I misread.
I could example of a a complete computer newbie who doesn't want to learn computers is my girlfriend. She hates them, but she wanted to be able to communicate via email with some friends and family and look up the occasional website. I'm sure there are many people thrown in using computers even though they don't want to, it's just the way things are moving today almost everyone needs to be somewhat familiar.
Honestly, I have very little money. I don't even have cable tv, had to get either broadband or cable tv, I chose broadband. I rarely download movies recorded on a video camera, but I will download dvd rips or rent movies. A friend of mine has a friend that works for the local movie theater, so I'll usually go with him and get in free. Or I'll go to the $1 theater. Some of my methods of watching movies or tv shows may be illeagal, I simply don't have the money I would do with out otherwise. Hey, I'm a poor college student.
Free popcorn? I usually pay $1.50 for I think it's a pack of 3 bags. Either way sure beats the $4.00 for about 2 bags worth.