That's ok , in about 3 years that slush fund will be used by the democrats to repress anyone who opposes the atheistic communist regime of 'taking care of everyone' and anybody who dares to disagree with them about the way it is done. So swings the pendulum because most people are so sick of both parties they keep switching back and forth hoping something will change. You got any better ideas?
Does the law mention how this should be accomplished? will it fund an agency the provides and API and allows me to check if an uploaded file contains copywriter material? I assume you would have to send all files? will the files need to be encrypted? Is there some master database of copyrighted material or can I just grab everything on you tube and claim it as mine? Is there an expectoration that you-tube will stop me from uploading video recording of myself singing happy birthday or reading curious George? how deep a look at the data is needed? No ? This looks a lot like Americas AHS ( we don't really understand , so we will give a group of bureaucrats enough power to take control over a large sector of the economy,strip people of all kinds of natural and legal rights and call it good,.)
Of course that is what you get for electing people who believe the government should provide every service that citizens need, because if your served everything you consume then you can expect that everything you consume is also controlled because finances will never be infinite. Or as the saying goes,' the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend'. So what do you do , grab more power and money until you virtually control all means of consumption and production. When it still isn't enough you encourage the less valuable people to go away , by removing the services they don't need and ensuring their 'right to die'.
so how do you fact check 'would you use a litmus test around abortion for the supreme court'? Real question 'Obama , McCain debate'.
Both candidates answered no then explained why they would never allow a supreme court justice on the court who differed with their parties stance on abortion ( aka why there no actually meant yes). In other words they both lied.
For the record, winning a debate has nothing to do with agreeing with the point you are supporting or it being the truth. Anyone who has ever been on debate team knows that.
also, if you have ever been trained in debate , or been to a debate competition, you have to realize the 'art of debating' is knowing how to present your point better then your opponent, even if you disagree with it. Often the side of the debate is picked randomly , so there is no reason to believe the human debater agreed with what they were defending. That makes it harder for a human, but not a computer.
As this article suggests , properly picking your facts can help you shape peoples opinions to whatever you think is valuable. Here is an example from personal experience. I knew a woman who was employed as a news editor in a local T.V. station in New Hampshire. She was also a roman catholic. Her boss gave here a set of instructions: 1) if the AP ( that is the associated press where they get most their articles from). Gives you are report about a public school teacher, a rabbi or a protestant minister it is not new worthy , don't bother with it, however if it is a catholic priest that must be on the new tonight. ( better for ratting?). 2) ( this she quite over). She was given 40 minutes of footage from a peaceful pro-life rally told to 'cut this up to make these people look extreme and crazy'.
That's one of the reason science is so hard. Unless you consider all the facts , without bias and allow any challenge no matter how ridiculous to the current model you are not validating the model. Even when you are done, what you have is a model with predictive power, not necessarily a model of reality because models are always a s implication , and may need revision when new data is encountered..
--- whatever it was programmed to 'trust'.
So if it trusted sites primarily from Iran it would learn the 'Koran' is the only word of God.
If it trust sites primarily from the Chinese government it would learn 'there is no God'
if it trusted sites from the united states is would learn that 'Christianity brings hope' but 'whatever you believe is ok' and would stop debating completely ! ( * LOL * )
Yes but does that make any sense with any other machine. Would it be legal to sell a pair of scissors with long unreadable legal contact a sesor controlled device that disabled the scissors if you used them paper not made by the company?
I would agree normal market forces should mean such a product would fail. If it doesn't one has to ask how the free market system has been hacked to fail.
Why do we have an FDA. because people insisted on it. People insisted on it because normal markert forces were not enough to stop suppliers from poisoning or killing a unacceptable number of consumers.
So likewise if people's natural property rights are being violated and the product is good question why?
Some situations are illegal regardless of what a desperate or uninformed person is willing to agree to. Example ( minimum wage, indenturedo servitude, slavery, prostitution)
They are wrong because the buyer is harming the seller even if the seller is willing. The principal works both ways.
Making a copy of data is more complex, because there is a difference between a physical device that you own the dvd and the data you bougt a liscense to use but On the other hand zone coding to control which counties you can play your DVD in is an obvious violation of the intent of those laws and should be illegal. Also morality of using technology as way of enforcement of law is morally questionable. Esp when that technology prevents you from doing what is legal in your country.
If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of it as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.
To me. If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of what i bought as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.
Dude I've been on Slashdot since something like 96 and I know the crowd as well as any. I don't have anything to sell it only call it like I see it. I don't have an obligation to make you happy by saying other than what I believe.
Love and a sincere desire for the truth are most important. After that any judgement is between you and God.
The problem with the atheistic hypothesis is that as you explained your only guide to ethics is what you happen to feel so you are at a loss to know if what you want is moral or just what you want. That makes it impossible to form a cogent argument for what is or isn't evil other then just calling people names and saying you don't like it. That is useless for building a consensus or effective arguing for changing the status questions.
Place your self back 200 years , what is your argument against slavery to someone who thinks it is great and that's the way it should be? Or now days is it any good to tell the Muslims in backwater Pakistan you don't like gang rape?
No if it is culturally acceptable you got nothing.
So atheism is bad for societies cohesion and useless for creating a more fair or moral world .
It's not about a book it is about what's true and the reason you live by the 10 commendents can only have 2 explaintons. ( if there is no God it is because of social conditioning and if you can get away with raping women like some holiwood types why shouldn't you?)
OR
The truth is communicated to you by God even though you aren't aware of it and you are attracted to God without realizing it. Maybe you don't believe in him because there are so many hypocrite among those who claim to belive. Whatever your reason God still loves you and keeps trying to draw you closer to him.
Is this article basically about the fact that people making malware are making more of it then is caught by the average virus detector? Is there a useful quantification here perhaps? not my greatest area off expertise but maybe I missed something.
hmm... may be long term money saver if you only need slightly more the 1/3 the staff to maintain things, of coarse the problem is usually people getting what they need through 'proper channels' when this happens. I doubt anything will come of it, or at least they will likely not take over satellite operations.
This 'would' be interesting if it's first task was to establish military basis on the moon and mars within the next 10 years. Fully funded. Can't imagine it will happen, BUT it would make for an interesting point where those promoting space exploration could use Republican talking point and say we need to settle mars to have a strong military. It is a matter of national defense. Having lived in north dakota where it is political death to vote against 'agriculture' I can imagine there are some uses in having space exploration marked as 'critical for national defense' with a republican controlled congress who, if they don't fund it will be 'voting against veterans and a strong military'.
We have been conditioned not too.
We have been taught from a young age that 'no matter what your classmates and teachers believe' that is there business and their freedom of religion no one has any right to 'judge' what anyone else believes or treat them differently (aka discriminate) because what they believe conflicts with what you believe. So , logically, if you believe nothing and are 'an evil greedy bastard' what you believe is just as good as everyone else, and we shouldn't 'judge' you for it. That is a place where liberal Protestantism has been heading for a long time helped by the unlikely bedfellow of atheism, we are only now starting to reap the benefits. Women are treated like objects and raped, people are depressed and angry and kill classmates as a way of venting. Without a return to true morality things will only get worse. The best solution I know of is prayer, sooner or later something will come along that wakes people up , but we are not in control and the battle is not between human beings but angles and daemons.
It is just as much evidence if classified and studied as any other physical phenomenon. The evidence of course is more like that used in archeology and history then physics, but as an example the miricle at Lancano, was examined in lab by two professor who published there results. Finding heart tissue from a man of middle easten descent. They were unable to find any physical phenomenon that would account for the size and arrangement of the tissue. It has embedded bread particles and is the size of a small pancake (much too large for a normal human heart) .
If you follow the Wikipedia article it likes to the published paper.
It is just as much science as any archeology.
The healings at lourds France are now in the thousands. Documented by a group of physians of differing faiths, which at various points in time have included several atheist ( but they keep converting ).
They are well documented and include cures for bone deasease, cancer, blindness , the only cause anyone has found so far is a Marian apparition.
The number and frequency makes them useful for study, because something unaccounted for is certainly happening.
In the end no one can get you to see evidence that you are closed minded too, i've talked to enough climate change deniers and young earth creationists to know that. In the end people will do what they want for whatever reason makes them happy unless they are seriously committed to knowledge of the truth.
I will pray that you find happiness in this life and your way to good things in the next.
Sorry you have seen terrible things done in the name of God. So have I. May God blessed you on your journey and lead you to truth. I was once an agnostic, it isn't very satisfying to live in a world were morality might not exist.
You write as if people feel in a vacuum. But feelings are always responses to perceptions.
A person must value something and without dependance on a transcendent absolute what you value becomes utterly arbitrary.
If a person accepts the strong atheistic hypothesis then all morality is adaptive response to evolutionary forces and utterly arbitrary.
You can of course try dismiss every piece of evidence, but there are literally thousands or more and that isn't even accounting for the millions of more modane, experiences of believers.
Is it enough for proof beyond all doubt? Of course not, but I've met people who can explain away fossil evidence as myth. So all doubt is a whole lot higher standard of proof then most sciences.
Is the case proved? You have to decide for yourself. But your dead wrong and just plain ill informef you think there is no evidence.
right, you have to start from the place there is no one who deserves salvation. Then it becomes a mystery ( aka something too difficult for a human to understand fully). Why some are saved and for that matter which ones. Because everything belongs to God and we should have not doubt he wills to save all. The scriptures make it clear what God expects us to do to be saved, but they are relatively silent on exactly who will be dambed , lest we should make ourselves judges.
We know the God judges not with human eyes , but instead judges the unseen human heart. So unless you know with certitude what opportunities for salvation someone rejected, you cannot know with certitude their final destination. Also, you can never know what someone repented of or thought between exhaling their last breath and the soul leaving the body.
Of this I'm sure, there are two extremes to be avoided, not everyone goes to hell, as we all deserver and not everyone goes to heaven. I don't think it is ours to 'know' beyond that. We must look to ourselves and do the best to help others, but always hope God is merciful to people who have not been giving the grace to know what is true, because it is impossible to know, if they were unable or unwilling and if they changed their mind before they died.
The worse we can say about someone is that the life they lived does not bode well for them if they did not change their path as their last act upon this earth. We can hope , that in God's mercy, he supplied them with the grace to do just that, if they would accept it.
no , it doesn't. However, there are mountains of evidence for the existence of God and it is a theory that makes sense. If your interested I can send you a few links. On the other hand, it is something that can't be proved convulsively because likely the proof would require super human intelligence, not because of how remote God is , but how close. Just like it isn't easy to prove the existence of EM or quantum physics without special training and equipment even though it is all around us all the time. Of coarse by some estimations 30% or more of the people on the earth don't have a high enough IQ to understand the mathematics that prove quantum mechanics, so it should be no shock there are limits on what we are able to fully understand.
you have created an incredible straw man, which has little or nothing to do with what Christians actually believe? You are welcome to burn him , but if you would like to understand why a person can Go to Hell when there is completely good I'l;l offer you a simple way to think about it:
God is not a rapist, he will not violate your free will, if you reject him in this life in such a way that your rejection carries over into the next, he lets you be alone with yourself for eternity, well you probably get to interact with the other beings you do accept , that is Hell.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok , in about 3 years that slush fund will be used by the democrats to repress anyone who opposes the atheistic communist regime of 'taking care of everyone' and anybody who dares to disagree with them about the way it is done. So swings the pendulum because most people are so sick of both parties they keep switching back and forth hoping something will change. You got any better ideas?
Does the law mention how this should be accomplished? will it fund an agency the provides and API and allows me to check if an uploaded file contains copywriter material? I assume you would have to send all files? will the files need to be encrypted? Is there some master database of copyrighted material or can I just grab everything on you tube and claim it as mine? Is there an expectoration that you-tube will stop me from uploading video recording of myself singing happy birthday or reading curious George? how deep a look at the data is needed? No ? This looks a lot like Americas AHS ( we don't really understand , so we will give a group of bureaucrats enough power to take control over a large sector of the economy,strip people of all kinds of natural and legal rights and call it good, .)
Of course that is what you get for electing people who believe the government should provide every service that citizens need, because if your served everything you consume then you can expect that everything you consume is also controlled because finances will never be infinite. Or as the saying goes,' the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend'. So what do you do , grab more power and money until you virtually control all means of consumption and production. When it still isn't enough you encourage the less valuable people to go away , by removing the services they don't need and ensuring their 'right to die'.
so how do you fact check 'would you use a litmus test around abortion for the supreme court'?
Real question 'Obama , McCain debate'.
Both candidates answered no then explained why they would never allow a supreme court justice on the court who differed with their parties stance on abortion ( aka why there no actually meant yes).
In other words they both lied.
For the record, winning a debate has nothing to do with agreeing with the point you are supporting or it being the truth. Anyone who has ever been on debate team knows that.
also, if you have ever been trained in debate , or been to a debate competition, you have to realize the 'art of debating' is knowing how to present your point better then your opponent, even if you disagree with it. Often the side of the debate is picked randomly , so there is no reason to believe the human debater agreed with what they were defending. That makes it harder for a human, but not a computer.
As this article suggests , properly picking your facts can help you shape peoples opinions to whatever you think is valuable.
Here is an example from personal experience. I knew a woman who was employed as a news editor in a local T.V. station in New Hampshire.
She was also a roman catholic.
Her boss gave here a set of instructions:
1) if the AP ( that is the associated press where they get most their articles from). Gives you are report about a public school teacher, a rabbi or a protestant minister it is not new worthy , don't bother with it, however if it is a catholic priest that must be on the new tonight. ( better for ratting?).
2) ( this she quite over). She was given 40 minutes of footage from a peaceful pro-life rally told to 'cut this up to make these people look extreme and crazy'.
That's one of the reason science is so hard. Unless you consider all the facts , without bias and allow any challenge no matter how ridiculous to the current model you are not validating the model. Even when you are done, what you have is a model with predictive power, not necessarily a model of reality because models are always a s implication , and may need revision when new data is encountered..
'And it would lean'?
--- whatever it was programmed to 'trust'.
So if it trusted sites primarily from Iran it would learn the 'Koran' is the only word of God.
If it trust sites primarily from the Chinese government it would learn 'there is no God'
if it trusted sites from the united states is would learn that 'Christianity brings hope' but 'whatever you believe is ok' and would stop debating completely ! ( * LOL * )
Yes but does that make any sense with any other machine. Would it be legal to sell a pair of scissors with long unreadable legal contact a sesor controlled device that disabled the scissors if you used them paper not made by the company?
I would agree normal market forces should mean such a product would fail. If it doesn't one has to ask how the free market system has been hacked to fail.
Why do we have an FDA. because people insisted on it. People insisted on it because normal markert forces were not enough to stop suppliers from poisoning or killing a unacceptable number of consumers.
So likewise if people's natural property rights are being violated and the product is good question why?
Some situations are illegal regardless of what a desperate or uninformed person is willing to agree to. Example ( minimum wage, indenturedo servitude, slavery, prostitution)
They are wrong because the buyer is harming the seller even if the seller is willing. The principal works both ways.
No but the dvd consortium prevents Sony from selling a DVD player in the United States that can play a DVD you bought in japan.
Making a copy of data is more complex, because there is a difference between a physical device that you own the dvd and the data you bougt a liscense to use but On the other hand zone coding to control which counties you can play your DVD in is an obvious violation of the intent of those laws and should be illegal. Also morality of using technology as way of enforcement of law is morally questionable. Esp when that technology prevents you from doing what is legal in your country.
If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of it as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.
To me. If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of what i bought as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.
Dude I've been on Slashdot since something like 96 and I know the crowd as well as any. I don't have anything to sell it only call it like I see it. I don't have an obligation to make you happy by saying other than what I believe.
Love and a sincere desire for the truth are most important. After that any judgement is between you and God.
The problem with the atheistic hypothesis is that as you explained your only guide to ethics is what you happen to feel so you are at a loss to know if what you want is moral or just what you want. That makes it impossible to form a cogent argument for what is or isn't evil other then just calling people names and saying you don't like it. That is useless for building a consensus or effective arguing for changing the status questions.
Place your self back 200 years , what is your argument against slavery to someone who thinks it is great and that's the way it should be? Or now days is it any good to tell the Muslims in backwater Pakistan you don't like gang rape?
No if it is culturally acceptable you got nothing.
So atheism is bad for societies cohesion and useless for creating a more fair or moral world .
It's not about a book it is about what's true and the reason you live by the 10 commendents can only have 2 explaintons. ( if there is no God it is because of social conditioning and if you can get away with raping women like some holiwood types why shouldn't you?)
OR
The truth is communicated to you by God even though you aren't aware of it and you are attracted to God without realizing it. Maybe you don't believe in him because there are so many hypocrite among those who claim to belive. Whatever your reason God still loves you and keeps trying to draw you closer to him.
Is this article basically about the fact that people making malware are making more of it then is caught by the average virus detector? Is there a useful quantification here perhaps? not my greatest area off expertise but maybe I missed something.
remember, voting against rockets ( and bases on mars) is a vote against the national defense and veterans.
hmm... may be long term money saver if you only need slightly more the 1/3 the staff to maintain things, of coarse the problem is usually people getting what they need through 'proper channels' when this happens. I doubt anything will come of it, or at least they will likely not take over satellite operations.
after all ,don't we need to take it over before china does?
This 'would' be interesting if it's first task was to establish military basis on the moon and mars within the next 10 years. Fully funded.
Can't imagine it will happen, BUT it would make for an interesting point where those promoting space exploration could use Republican talking point and say we need to settle mars to have a strong military. It is a matter of national defense. Having lived in north dakota where it is political death to vote against 'agriculture' I can imagine there are some uses in having space exploration marked as 'critical for national defense' with a republican controlled congress who, if they don't fund it will be 'voting against veterans and a strong military'.
We have been conditioned not too.
We have been taught from a young age that 'no matter what your classmates and teachers believe' that is there business and their freedom of religion no one has any right to 'judge' what anyone else believes or treat them differently (aka discriminate) because what they believe conflicts with what you believe. So , logically, if you believe nothing and are 'an evil greedy bastard' what you believe is just as good as everyone else, and we shouldn't 'judge' you for it. That is a place where liberal Protestantism has been heading for a long time helped by the unlikely bedfellow of atheism, we are only now starting to reap the benefits. Women are treated like objects and raped, people are depressed and angry and kill classmates as a way of venting. Without a return to true morality things will only get worse. The best solution I know of is prayer, sooner or later something will come along that wakes people up , but we are not in control and the battle is not between human beings but angles and daemons.
It is just as much evidence if classified and studied as any other physical phenomenon. The evidence of course is more like that used in archeology and history then physics, but as an example the miricle at Lancano, was examined in lab by two professor who published there results. Finding heart tissue from a man of middle easten descent. They were unable to find any physical phenomenon that would account for the size and arrangement of the tissue. It has embedded bread particles and is the size of a small pancake (much too large for a normal human heart) .
If you follow the Wikipedia article it likes to the published paper.
It is just as much science as any archeology.
The healings at lourds France are now in the thousands. Documented by a group of physians of differing faiths, which at various points in time have included several atheist ( but they keep converting ).
They are well documented and include cures for bone deasease, cancer, blindness , the only cause anyone has found so far is a Marian apparition.
The number and frequency makes them useful for study, because something unaccounted for is certainly happening.
In the end no one can get you to see evidence that you are closed minded too, i've talked to enough climate change deniers and young earth creationists to know that. In the end people will do what they want for whatever reason makes them happy unless they are seriously committed to knowledge of the truth.
I will pray that you find happiness in this life and your way to good things in the next.
May God bless you.
Sorry you have seen terrible things done in the name of God. So have I. May God blessed you on your journey and lead you to truth. I was once an agnostic, it isn't very satisfying to live in a world were morality might not exist.
You write as if people feel in a vacuum. But feelings are always responses to perceptions.
A person must value something and without dependance on a transcendent absolute what you value becomes utterly arbitrary.
If a person accepts the strong atheistic hypothesis then all morality is adaptive response to evolutionary forces and utterly arbitrary.
Really? Would you like some links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...
http://www.miraclehunter.com/m...
You can of course try dismiss every piece of evidence, but there are literally thousands or more and that isn't even accounting for the millions of more modane, experiences of believers.
Is it enough for proof beyond all doubt? Of course not, but I've met people who can explain away fossil evidence as myth. So all doubt is a whole lot higher standard of proof then most sciences.
Is the case proved? You have to decide for yourself. But your dead wrong and just plain ill informef you think there is no evidence.
right, you have to start from the place there is no one who deserves salvation. Then it becomes a mystery ( aka something too difficult for a human to understand fully). Why some are saved and for that matter which ones. Because everything belongs to God and we should have not doubt he wills to save all. The scriptures make it clear what God expects us to do to be saved, but they are relatively silent on exactly who will be dambed , lest we should make ourselves judges.
We know the God judges not with human eyes , but instead judges the unseen human heart. So unless you know with certitude what opportunities for salvation someone rejected, you cannot know with certitude their final destination. Also, you can never know what someone repented of or thought between exhaling their last breath and the soul leaving the body.
Of this I'm sure, there are two extremes to be avoided, not everyone goes to hell, as we all deserver and not everyone goes to heaven. I don't think it is ours to 'know' beyond that. We must look to ourselves and do the best to help others, but always hope God is merciful to people who have not been giving the grace to know what is true, because it is impossible to know, if they were unable or unwilling and if they changed their mind before they died.
The worse we can say about someone is that the life they lived does not bode well for them if they did not change their path as their last act upon this earth.
We can hope , that in God's mercy, he supplied them with the grace to do just that, if they would accept it.
no , it doesn't. However, there are mountains of evidence for the existence of God and it is a theory that makes sense. If your interested I can send you a few links.
On the other hand, it is something that can't be proved convulsively because likely the proof would require super human intelligence, not because of how remote God is , but how close. Just like it isn't easy to prove the existence of EM or quantum physics without special training and equipment even though it is all around us all the time. Of coarse by some estimations 30% or more of the people on the earth don't have a high enough IQ to understand the mathematics that prove quantum mechanics, so it should be no shock there are limits on what we are able to fully understand.
you have created an incredible straw man, which has little or nothing to do with what Christians actually believe?
You are welcome to burn him , but if you would like to understand why a person can Go to Hell when there is completely good I'l;l offer you a simple way to think about it:
God is not a rapist, he will not violate your free will, if you reject him in this life in such a way that your rejection carries over into the next, he lets you be alone with yourself for eternity, well you probably get to interact with the other beings you do accept , that is Hell.