Yes, and you also have the Marsrutinis taxis -- microbuses that double the bus lines but come every 2-5 minutes, and charge double what the buses do (more convenience, higher cost, but tons cheaper than a normal taxi). To me, if you're going to do any kind of public transportation effectively, you also need Marsrutinis taxis. For those not in the know, in America the typical price of such a ticket would be $1 bus, $2 Mars. taxi, and normal charges for a normal taxi.
Seems to me that if you want higher precision, you abandon the stepper motor and go with a standard DC motor, and a digital encoder (such as you have on your mouse wheel). Computer controlled telescopes work this way, and they have none of the stepper motor problems.
{snippety quip = "An inventor is someone who "invents" an idea (as in writing fiction), and then "invents" that they are the inventor, and then "invents" lawsuits against anything that comes on the market and is fairly similar.
Hard work is out."} Obligatory snipety quip {/snippety quip}
{joke= "Aside from that, I can personally atte... OW! OW! OW! Those laws HURT!"} Obligatory joke {/Joke}
Yes, but your preconceptions aside -- have you considered whether life was (in general) better in the Dark Ages, or in the subsequent eras? I say in general, because there were always times and places where life was extremely good for some, but worse for others. So I'm trying not to compare Bill Gates to some serf, or a member of the ancient Hansa family to some Mexican laborer today.
My own impression is that life was a good deal less bloody in the Dark Ages, than it was in (for example) the last century; there were a good deal fewer martyrs; the tax rates, in terms of the percentage of discretionary income, were lower. Health care was worse, though. In general, though, I'd say the standard of living probably was better in the Dark Ages than it is now. Two world wars, a ton of wars of extermination, a ton of political acts of extermination, a greater separation of rich and poor, a greater all-consuming greed, and so on all make me think that things have not changed for the better.
Nor do I find most of the technology to be a significant improvement. Admittedly, there is the flush toilet, and I like the reduced smell that comes with that. There is the better hygene at the market for those in the 1st world or 2nd world -- but the difference between a vacuum cleaner and a broom are just not substantial, to my way of thinking.
But I rather take this that the scientific community is trying to be dogmatic, by retracting [not withdrawing] a referreed paper for the reason that the results of the paper conflict with a deeply held belief.
> The only reason you could have that take on this situation is if your opinion is being led by
> your religious beliefs or if you didnt read the actual article (but that never happens on Slashdot).
Actually, I did skim the article, and I'm aware of what you are saying. You misunderstand me. The results of his paper are that it is being used by a group he does not approve of.
My point here is that a scientist should not care what directions seed theories go, out of what he had written himself. He should be dispassionate about the bad theories, because in the end the scientific process is supposed to be able to weed out the weeds, and leave the truth. If that is not correct, then the scientific process is flawed. But I'm inclined to think that it is correct, as long as the scientific process stays scientific, and does not get political.
Unfortunately, our government -- in choosing to control education -- also tries to control science, and in the end makes the science political. But that's just our government. If you really have confidence in science, then you will also be aware that our government will weed itself out of science, as well. Shoot -- the Arabs did it to themselves.
This is also not about him showing himself a true scientist who can admit to being wrong. He is trying to spare himself embarrassment (RTA; this is slashdot, for crying out loud. Stop being so stereotypical). This wasn't about his incorrect research. This is about him cringing from embarrassment, and trying to yell "enough! it wasn't me! or it shouldn't have been! How did that ever happen?!?" But it happened because he isn't a true scientist. Rather, he has in the passed published beliefs as science, and now he publishes his beliefs as science. It isn't science.
If your find that the moral and theological issues are fascinating, you might like the almost-was interview with Pope John Paul II, "Crossing the threshold of Hope", available online here. The interview questions are all on the page I gave you, and then you can click on the answers. For myself, I got it on books-on-tape, which was kindof neat, because it was done like an interview with two voice actors speaking.
Thanks for your explanation - I didn't know that human authority was sanctioned by God. Does this mean that anyone who rebels against human authority is committing a sin, or is it possible to commit a greater sin by not acting in the face of oppression?
This was a serious question for St. Thomas More, chancelor under King Henry VIII ("A man for all seasons" for the entertaining movie... but there are some much more accurate biographies out there.)
The view he took on this was rather that if a rebel was successful in his coup, and did not fall, then that was proof that God had overthrown the old kingship, and once he was established, a subject could rightfully support him. But if, later, he did fall, then that was proof that one had been wrong to support him, but that since that fact couldn't be known ahead of time, there was no grave sin attached to the support.
That's a little more than I can quite swallow, myself. My tendency in thought is rather that if one is going to be an active, faithful Christian, one is not going to actively rebel against the authorities. But that doesn't mean that some wicked person won't rebel. And God does, in the process of honoring the free will he gives us, allow wicked people to clash against each other and destroy each other. Sometimes good people get killed in the process, as well. But since the important period is the eternal life -- not this temporary phase of "growing up" into the full stature of Christ -- then that's not going to be of such worry for God. Rather, his worry is to pull as many people into the kingdom as possible, before they die. And that should be the Christian's worry, as well.
So then, the question of a sin, or a greater sin, becomes rather a question of "what actions will do the most to bring people into the kingdom of God?" As an added benefit, there will be the most true peace and the least oppression if people are in the kingdom of God rather than out of it, since it isn't possible to hate one's brother -- or even desire his goods -- if one is obeying God's commandments. Interestingly, the experience of some saints that were under the Nazis in Auschwitz (such as Macmillan Kolbe, for a Catholic, or the author's sister Betsy in "The Hiding Place" for an evangelical) was that bowing to that oppression, if done in charity, brings an end to the oppression. It brings the oppressor, often enough, into the kingdom of God, and halts the evil that was ongoing.
That shouldn't be a surprise, because evil is neither original nor definitive. Evil, rather, is a chosen lack of goodness, but it is nonetheless, a *lack* of goodness.
So then that then opens the door to valid questions such as "should I hide these Jews in a secret room in my house, from the Nazis?" or better, "Should I, as a non-Jewish Christian, take the Jewish star as a symbol of solidarity?". That's not as a rebellion -- rebellion was the assasination attempt against Hitler, for example. But it is rather a seizing hold of a greater authority ("Love your neighbor as yourself"). Note that the latter question of taking the Jewish star was said to have been taken by the Danish king -- it wasn't, according to This site. But the true story, as described on the website, was more realistic and just as real a question for the Danish people and the German Georg Duckwitz, under the authority of the Danish king and the attempted usurpation of authority by the Germans. Interestingly, it appears that Georg, although undermining his reich's desires, was acting fully within authority. So were the Danish citizens.
As far as sin goes, there are only three classes of sin for a Christian that I am aware of: sin, deadly sin, and unforgiveable sin. The unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and is a inherent rejection of forgiveness. The deadly sin is also called "mortal sin", and involves (a) a serious offense, such as those against the 10 commandments, (b) freely accepted by the wi
"The creationist zealots will likely take this bit of news, and embrace it as evidence that the scientific community is trying to be deceitful by withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons."
Not quite. Though I am not a creationist zealot, I do believe God created the world. I also feel that there are multiple correct meanings to the creation story as told in the Bible (some would say two creation stories... I call it one with two plot lines). But though I am not a creationist, I can understand where creationists are coming from, and it doesn't upset me terribly. I guess I'm not quite the zealot you are.
But I rather take this that the scientific community is trying to be dogmatic, by retracting [not withdrawing] a referreed paper for the reason that the results of the paper conflict with a deeply held belief.
As I remember with the K-T iridium layer issue, it was said by one of the researchers that "scientists do not generally change their views. Rather, the accepted view changes as the older scientists die out." The point being, that scientists are terribly dogmatic, and the more irreligious they are, the more dogmatic they are about their beliefs.
The Bible doesn't say "All natural disasters of from God". However, Paul and Peter both agree in the NT that all authority is from God. That is confirmed by Christ at the crucifixion, who said to Pilate, "you would have no power over me, if God did not give you that power. It is also confirmed by Jeremiah in the case of the Babylonian exile: if God puts you under a wicked nation, you are still to bow to those laws, and work for the good of that nation. That is why the greater sin is not yours." In other words, even Pilate's power over Christ was from God. Since the Bible is forthright that all authority is from God, though, and indeed prohibits rebelling against the authority, it is a case of direct order not to rebel against that authority. It's not even a question of personal conviction. (That is, the well-trained conscience is still paramount, but a well-trained conscience will not go against a clear, direct order in the Bible.)
So it isn't whether we should act or not act in the face of natural disaster -- that is a matter for personal conviction, and depends on the circumstances. As a matter of fact, in my current state in life I find it more right to not act, but to pray over certain daily issues. On other issues, such as the tub linking water onto the floor and rotting it out, I find it more right to act.
You say the Constitution remains to this day a framework that is viable and valid. Name any one of the ten amendments that is not regularly broken.
Or perhaps you mean that there are checks and balances?
I might note that most of Bush's appointments, which are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate, are unconfirmed. That's a sign of a dictatorship.
I might also note that the CIA appeared to capture the US presidency in the Reagan/Carter election, after a disenchantment with Carter for shaking up the CIA. It was the week before the election, when most candidates are off campaigning like crazy, and Carter was running the Iranian hostage rescue mission, and Bush was nowhere to be found, and the mission failed due to mysterious breakdowns that were later explained. (Just as this pdf was mysteriously classified.)
I contend that it would be a grave mistake to assume that the Constitution is valid. Instead, I suggest that the proper view would be to consider that the government is in power, and that the Constitution will be followed where it is convenient to be followed. But don't risk too much on that supposition.
As for rebelling against authority, I take the viewpoint that if God lets us be placed under an authority, even a bad one, then rebelling against the authority is also rebelling against God. Better not do it -- better just accept the trials that will come. This is the same viewpoint as Christians who willingly went to Auschwitz, as the price of their Christian faith and (in some cases) dual Jewish heritage, saying "Let us go to suffer for our people."
Well, the time may soon be coming. Whether it comes from Islamists or from my own authority is not so important.
St. Malachy named the popes, through Benedict ("The glory of the olive": to understand, the Benedictines are called the Olivine order." After that, he said "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End." "
Anyhow, I consider that we may well be living in a dictatorship -- but I am not so alarmed at that, as I am alarmed at the fact that we follow every silly false god that presents itself, in mass stampede. To me, the former is just a symptom. The latter is the terrible disease that causes that symptom, and many others.
It seems to me that your library should install open office on those computers, as well. It goes against the spirit of anti-trust legislation to have public utilities (such as a university library) forcing people into a specific company's product in order to get full print capability. That is typically going to be the case, as well, because since.doc is a closed format, not everything transfers over correctly.
Now, on the other side of the coin may be the fact that Microsoft has provided the library with computers for free, under the contract that no openoffice gets installed on them. Fine, and well -- then set up one computer which the library has purchased free and clear, that sends the.odfs to the print server.
If the contract specifies no open-office anywhere, at all, then I'd say that the users should be informed of that fact, and be given the opportunity to sign up on a list of complainants, for the purpose of a university-wide lawsuit against Microsoft.
I wonder if you could say the same for, for example, mapping over what applies to motor cars and motorcycles, into (for example) electric-assist bicycles, especially after the passage of the electric-assist bicycle law.
If you look for ways to power an electric-assist bicycle, all the standard ones are recently patented (in-wheel motor, chain drive motor, etc.) They were all not only obvious -- they were already done with motorcycles, self-propeled equipment, and such.
Just a thought, here: there are contests mentioned on slashdot, regularly, that have to do with writing code that looks like it does one thing, and actually does something completely different.
In terms of such obfusciation, being able to see the source is not all that strong a protection. A much stronger protection (though also not anywhere close to absolute) is the vested interest in keeping a good name.
Even stronger protection against intentional malfeasance, is seeing how they do it and then writing your own code from the ground up. Of course, then you get back to the limitations on skill. One person is not as good as a whole team of people.
There was an app called Deskpaint, produced by Zedcor back in the mid 90's. It was small (30k or so), fast, and very useful with lots of tools.
When I say fast, I mean that it was about twice as fast, on the same computer and doing the same thing, as PaintShop at the time; by now, you could make that 30x as fast.
I used that software professionally throughout my career as a study guide prepublisher, and there was very little that I couldn't do with it.
Nowadays, the author has some other different freeware out there, but it isn't nearly as good; and it is more bloated (though still pretty light on the bloat).
In a very real way, I'd have to say Apple ][ as well. Nothing was as easily programmable, both in machine code and basic.
That said, it's just out of date. Here's what I would like, instead, and why.
(1) PDA. There's no reason, except high-performance graphics (read games/porn), that you need super large desk computers, any more. Battery powered is tons better, in lots of ways.
2) with IR. I really don't go for the electromagnetic pollution of the microwave phones/pdas/etc. This should be able to communicate from PDA to PDA, or from PDA to printer (etc.)
3) with smartcard-type drive for memory storage. This is instead of a hard drive
4) with a basic applesoft-style programming language.
5) with access to machine code, just as call-151.
6) but with isolation, so one computer program cannot corrupt another
7) dual touchpad input, adaptable to both keyboard-style and mouse-style input.
8) a123.com style lithium ion battery.
With that, I could write my own programs easily enough. As it is, I have to try to use pocket excel, which is great for a lot of things, but terribly awkward for others.
I don't know enough from the question to know if this would supply the answers he needs. My answer below requires any system equations, set up as an initial-value problem.
However, I would like to suggest that he try looking at the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration
(officially written up here in Neural, Parallel & Scientific Computations, and mentioned here in Wikipedia, and explained here.
This can give you a taylor series solution.
It occurs to me that the system might be modifiable to give fourier series solutions... hmmm... interesting problem there.
Anyhow, good luck.
Belief is indeed useless to science, except as a motivator to a scientist to do a particular experiment.
That said, the term "believe in evolution" does have meaning, for the reason that Darwinism is not just a scientific theory, but is also a (very non-scientific) religion among many people. Notable Darwinists have included Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood, Adolf Hitler, George Orwell. Likewise, the theories of Karl Marx were arguably Darwinist in nature.
As far as I can tell, the lives of those who believe in evolution are slightly more successful than others, as long as most others around them don't believe in evolution. Those are the people who are willing to do anything to advance their own situation and that of their genetic offspring (in short, they are the criminals). But when you get a whole society of evolutionists together and they manage to take control, their lives become brutish and short.
I, for one, definitely do not believe in evolution. I happen to think that evolution is one of the means by which species development within nature (and corporate development in the economy, and some engineering development in the past 1000 years) can happen. But I believe in Christ, and that is where I'm going to invest my time and energy.
I tend to read about 2-3 times faster than most "good" readers I know.
I'm not sure that should have been rated "funny". I actually find the block text to be easier to read than the poetry-style lines. First of all, the color interferes with my ability to keep the whole sentence together. My brain actually ends up sticking the black text together in one group, and the red text together in another group. That really slows me down.
So I started thinking about why I read block text so fast.
Let's go over that last "funny" post. Yeah, it was written in the style of tongue-in-cheek quips, but I'm not sure the guy was joking.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't discard the extra 'noise' that I get from reading. I read roughly every second or third line
Okay, I read approximately one phrase (line) at a time. When I'm speed reading, I don't bother to understand the words of that line until my eyes are already on the next line. It feels like I'm reading every second or third line, but I'm actually hitting every one.
build up a composite image of the paragraph, tokenise it in parallel
I then attach a significance to the phrase, and approximate what the relation of the phrases are, according to ifs, ands, and buts, as well as punctuation.
and then parse it from that.
Then I discard the lines that seem relatively unimportant, giving me a basic summary of the paragraph. From this, I fit the other sentences back in as needed. What that means, realistically speaking, is that I look at the paragraph, identify the main topic, and glance through it as needed to understand the specifics.
It's a much better fit with how the optical system works than how people tend to describe reading, and possibly why I read a lot faster than most people I know. This new system slows my reading rate a lot.
I tend to read about 2-3 times faster than most "good" readers I know.
I'm not sure that should have been rated "funny". I actually find the block text to be easier to read than the poetry-style lines. First of all, the color interferes with my ability to keep the whole sentence together. My brain actually ends up sticking the black text together in one group, and the red text together in another group. That really slows me down.
So I started thinking about why I read block text so fast.
Let's go over that last "funny" post. Yeah, it was written in the style of tongue-in-cheek quips, but I'm not sure the guy was joking.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't discard the extra 'noise' that I get from reading. I read roughly every second or third line
Okay, I read approximately one phrase (line) at a time. When I'm speed reading, I don't bother to understand the words of that line until my eyes are already on the next line. It feels like I'm reading every second or third line, but I'm actually hitting every one.
build up a composite image of the paragraph, tokenise it in parallel
I then attach a significance to the phrase, and approximate what the relation of the phrases are, according to ifs, ands, and buts, as well as punctuation.
and then parse it from that.
Then I discard the lines that seem relatively unimportant, giving me a basic summary of the paragraph. From this, I fit the other sentences back in as needed. What that means, realistically speaking, is that I look at the paragraph, identify the main topic, and glance through it as needed to understand the specifics.
It's a much better fit with how the optical system works than how people tend to describe reading, and possibly why I read a lot faster than most people I know. This new system slows my reading rate a lot.
For the first false assumption: I doubt that any offspring of human/neanderthal -- if such offspring was possible at all -- would have been able to reproduce.
However, that doesn't stop gene transfer between -- for example -- humans and their dogs, or humans and their cats, or humans and their birds.
There's something called viral gene transfer, and if I understand correctly it works partially through retroviruses. I expect that if there is human/neanderthal gene mixing, it is more likely to have been through viruses that the mixing occurred.
Another possibly false assumpt ion that was not made outright, but implied, is that there is merit to a larger brain. I'm not so sure that's correct. Yes, it stands to reason... if your reason inclines in the direction of "more is better". But there are other factors in intelligence, including bistability, instability, speed, and so on and so forth.
Someone else suggested ZAP. I don't know what they are like for other things, but I converted my bike over to electric power with one of their ZAP XPress kits. On the one hand, the kit had a bunch of plastic parts that broke almost immediately. When I tried to contact their warranty department, they said "please write in." So I wrote in, and the required warranty request bounced Adressee unknown. Also, on the negative side, the company seems to do all its work in China, which implies to me unjustified profits and possible slave labor. On the other hand, once I replaced the parts with alternative, stronger parts, the kit did last me for a year and paid itself off.
But they do sell a bunch of $1500 electric mopeds, if you're interested in going that route.
There are some other vehicles out there, too -- you'll have to look for them, though. Some are only in development, like the x-cycle, while others are incredibly expensive, like the Sparrow.
Here's my suggestion.
I'm going to assume that you can get under the hood of a car, remove the engine, and essentially work on a car without killing yourself.
In that case, you probably want to get a street-legal old vw-bug or Ford Fiesta (or Yugo)... anyhow, something that is small and aerodynamic, and then convert it to electric with a $3000 conversion kit from e-volks. (They also have a $1500 conversion kit, but I'd go with the better one if I were you.) This is Wilderness Energy (which sells hub bicycle conversion kits, unfortunately also of Chinese manufacture and easily broken) expanded to automobiles.
Just... I'd go ahead and make the electric supply/recharge system separate from the vehicle, for the reason that you'll want to change it over later as you get more money.
Initially, you'll want Sealed-Lead-Acid batteries as can be had from Wal-Mart in the Bike section. They're cheap but heavy, and you string up enough of them to get whatever distance and speed you need.
But later, you'll want to convert to Lithium-ion phosphate, since it is lightweight, extremely efficient, long lasting, and doesn't blow up like a DELL.
Just out of wondering, what company provides the address 68.99.17.80? Apparently, that's the address of the recieving email. Is it HP? or a local ISP? What is the state law of that ISP regarding phishing?
... the little spiral notebooks made of 3x5 notecards. Also, get 3-4 notecard boxes.
Now, keep your notebook in your pocket with a pen. Write your organizational notes on the notecards, and file them when you get home.
It's a lot cheaper than a pda, and can go more places.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and you also have the Marsrutinis taxis -- microbuses that double the bus lines but come every 2-5 minutes, and charge double what the buses do (more convenience, higher cost, but tons cheaper than a normal taxi). To me, if you're going to do any kind of public transportation effectively, you also need Marsrutinis taxis. For those not in the know, in America the typical price of such a ticket would be $1 bus, $2 Mars. taxi, and normal charges for a normal taxi.
Seems to me that if you want higher precision, you abandon the stepper motor and go with a standard DC motor, and a digital encoder (such as you have on your mouse wheel). Computer controlled telescopes work this way, and they have none of the stepper motor problems.
{snippety quip = "An inventor is someone who "invents" an idea (as in writing fiction), and then "invents" that they are the inventor, and then "invents" lawsuits against anything that comes on the market and is fairly similar.
Hard work is out."} Obligatory snipety quip {/snippety quip}
{joke= "Aside from that, I can personally atte... OW! OW! OW! Those laws HURT!"} Obligatory joke {/Joke}
{sig = "
Yes, but your preconceptions aside -- have you considered whether life was (in general) better in the Dark Ages, or in the subsequent eras? I say in general, because there were always times and places where life was extremely good for some, but worse for others. So I'm trying not to compare Bill Gates to some serf, or a member of the ancient Hansa family to some Mexican laborer today.
My own impression is that life was a good deal less bloody in the Dark Ages, than it was in (for example) the last century; there were a good deal fewer martyrs; the tax rates, in terms of the percentage of discretionary income, were lower. Health care was worse, though. In general, though, I'd say the standard of living probably was better in the Dark Ages than it is now. Two world wars, a ton of wars of extermination, a ton of political acts of extermination, a greater separation of rich and poor, a greater all-consuming greed, and so on all make me think that things have not changed for the better.
Nor do I find most of the technology to be a significant improvement. Admittedly, there is the flush toilet, and I like the reduced smell that comes with that. There is the better hygene at the market for those in the 1st world or 2nd world -- but the difference between a vacuum cleaner and a broom are just not substantial, to my way of thinking.
But I rather take this that the scientific community is trying to be dogmatic, by retracting [not withdrawing] a referreed paper for the reason that the results of the paper conflict with a deeply held belief.
> The only reason you could have that take on this situation is if your opinion is being led by
> your religious beliefs or if you didnt read the actual article (but that never happens on Slashdot).
Actually, I did skim the article, and I'm aware of what you are saying. You misunderstand me. The results of his paper are that it is being used by a group he does not approve of.
My point here is that a scientist should not care what directions seed theories go, out of what he had written himself. He should be dispassionate about the bad theories, because in the end the scientific process is supposed to be able to weed out the weeds, and leave the truth. If that is not correct, then the scientific process is flawed. But I'm inclined to think that it is correct, as long as the scientific process stays scientific, and does not get political.
Unfortunately, our government -- in choosing to control education -- also tries to control science, and in the end makes the science political. But that's just our government. If you really have confidence in science, then you will also be aware that our government will weed itself out of science, as well. Shoot -- the Arabs did it to themselves.
This is also not about him showing himself a true scientist who can admit to being wrong. He is trying to spare himself embarrassment (RTA; this is slashdot, for crying out loud. Stop being so stereotypical). This wasn't about his incorrect research. This is about him cringing from embarrassment, and trying to yell "enough! it wasn't me! or it shouldn't have been! How did that ever happen?!?" But it happened because he isn't a true scientist. Rather, he has in the passed published beliefs as science, and now he publishes his beliefs as science. It isn't science.
If your find that the moral and theological issues are fascinating, you might like the almost-was interview with Pope John Paul II, "Crossing the threshold of Hope", available online here. The interview questions are all on the page I gave you, and then you can click on the answers. For myself, I got it on books-on-tape, which was kindof neat, because it was done like an interview with two voice actors speaking.
Thanks for your explanation - I didn't know that human authority was sanctioned by God. Does this mean that anyone who rebels against human authority is committing a sin, or is it possible to commit a greater sin by not acting in the face of oppression?
This was a serious question for St. Thomas More, chancelor under King Henry VIII ("A man for all seasons" for the entertaining movie... but there are some much more accurate biographies out there.)
The view he took on this was rather that if a rebel was successful in his coup, and did not fall, then that was proof that God had overthrown the old kingship, and once he was established, a subject could rightfully support him. But if, later, he did fall, then that was proof that one had been wrong to support him, but that since that fact couldn't be known ahead of time, there was no grave sin attached to the support.
That's a little more than I can quite swallow, myself. My tendency in thought is rather that if one is going to be an active, faithful Christian, one is not going to actively rebel against the authorities. But that doesn't mean that some wicked person won't rebel. And God does, in the process of honoring the free will he gives us, allow wicked people to clash against each other and destroy each other. Sometimes good people get killed in the process, as well. But since the important period is the eternal life -- not this temporary phase of "growing up" into the full stature of Christ -- then that's not going to be of such worry for God. Rather, his worry is to pull as many people into the kingdom as possible, before they die. And that should be the Christian's worry, as well.
So then, the question of a sin, or a greater sin, becomes rather a question of "what actions will do the most to bring people into the kingdom of God?" As an added benefit, there will be the most true peace and the least oppression if people are in the kingdom of God rather than out of it, since it isn't possible to hate one's brother -- or even desire his goods -- if one is obeying God's commandments. Interestingly, the experience of some saints that were under the Nazis in Auschwitz (such as Macmillan Kolbe, for a Catholic, or the author's sister Betsy in "The Hiding Place" for an evangelical) was that bowing to that oppression, if done in charity, brings an end to the oppression. It brings the oppressor, often enough, into the kingdom of God, and halts the evil that was ongoing.
That shouldn't be a surprise, because evil is neither original nor definitive. Evil, rather, is a chosen lack of goodness, but it is nonetheless, a *lack* of goodness.
So then that then opens the door to valid questions such as "should I hide these Jews in a secret room in my house, from the Nazis?" or better, "Should I, as a non-Jewish Christian, take the Jewish star as a symbol of solidarity?". That's not as a rebellion -- rebellion was the assasination attempt against Hitler, for example. But it is rather a seizing hold of a greater authority ("Love your neighbor as yourself"). Note that the latter question of taking the Jewish star was said to have been taken by the Danish king -- it wasn't, according to This site. But the true story, as described on the website, was more realistic and just as real a question for the Danish people and the German Georg Duckwitz, under the authority of the Danish king and the attempted usurpation of authority by the Germans. Interestingly, it appears that Georg, although undermining his reich's desires, was acting fully within authority. So were the Danish citizens.
As far as sin goes, there are only three classes of sin for a Christian that I am aware of: sin, deadly sin, and unforgiveable sin. The unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and is a inherent rejection of forgiveness. The deadly sin is also called "mortal sin", and involves (a) a serious offense, such as those against the 10 commandments, (b) freely accepted by the wi
"The creationist zealots will likely take this bit of news, and embrace it as evidence that the scientific community is trying to be deceitful by withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons."
Not quite. Though I am not a creationist zealot, I do believe God created the world. I also feel that there are multiple correct meanings to the creation story as told in the Bible (some would say two creation stories... I call it one with two plot lines). But though I am not a creationist, I can understand where creationists are coming from, and it doesn't upset me terribly. I guess I'm not quite the zealot you are.
But I rather take this that the scientific community is trying to be dogmatic, by retracting [not withdrawing] a referreed paper for the reason that the results of the paper conflict with a deeply held belief.
As I remember with the K-T iridium layer issue, it was said by one of the researchers that "scientists do not generally change their views. Rather, the accepted view changes as the older scientists die out." The point being, that scientists are terribly dogmatic, and the more irreligious they are, the more dogmatic they are about their beliefs.
The Bible doesn't say "All natural disasters of from God". However, Paul and Peter both agree in the NT that all authority is from God. That is confirmed by Christ at the crucifixion, who said to Pilate, "you would have no power over me, if God did not give you that power. It is also confirmed by Jeremiah in the case of the Babylonian exile: if God puts you under a wicked nation, you are still to bow to those laws, and work for the good of that nation. That is why the greater sin is not yours." In other words, even Pilate's power over Christ was from God. Since the Bible is forthright that all authority is from God, though, and indeed prohibits rebelling against the authority, it is a case of direct order not to rebel against that authority. It's not even a question of personal conviction. (That is, the well-trained conscience is still paramount, but a well-trained conscience will not go against a clear, direct order in the Bible.)
So it isn't whether we should act or not act in the face of natural disaster -- that is a matter for personal conviction, and depends on the circumstances. As a matter of fact, in my current state in life I find it more right to not act, but to pray over certain daily issues. On other issues, such as the tub linking water onto the floor and rotting it out, I find it more right to act.
You say the Constitution remains to this day a framework that is viable and valid.
Name any one of the ten amendments that is not regularly broken.
Or perhaps you mean that there are checks and balances?
I might note that most of Bush's appointments, which are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate, are unconfirmed. That's a sign of a dictatorship.
I might also note that the CIA appeared to capture the US presidency in the Reagan/Carter election, after a disenchantment with Carter for shaking up the CIA. It was the week before the election, when most candidates are off campaigning like crazy, and Carter was running the Iranian hostage rescue mission, and Bush was nowhere to be found, and the mission failed due to mysterious breakdowns that were later explained. (Just as this pdf was mysteriously classified.)
I contend that it would be a grave mistake to assume that the Constitution is valid. Instead, I suggest that the proper view would be to consider that the government is in power, and that the Constitution will be followed where it is convenient to be followed. But don't risk too much on that supposition.
As for rebelling against authority, I take the viewpoint that if God lets us be placed under an authority, even a bad one, then rebelling against the authority is also rebelling against God. Better not do it -- better just accept the trials that will come. This is the same viewpoint as Christians who willingly went to Auschwitz, as the price of their Christian faith and (in some cases) dual Jewish heritage, saying "Let us go to suffer for our people."
Well, the time may soon be coming. Whether it comes from Islamists or from my own authority is not so important.
St. Malachy named the popes, through Benedict ("The glory of the olive": to understand, the Benedictines are called the Olivine order." After that, he said "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End." "
Anyhow, I consider that we may well be living in a dictatorship -- but I am not so alarmed at that, as I am alarmed at the fact that we follow every silly false god that presents itself, in mass stampede. To me, the former is just a symptom. The latter is the terrible disease that causes that symptom, and many others.
It seems to me that your library should install open office on those computers, as well. It goes against the spirit of anti-trust legislation to have public utilities (such as a university library) forcing people into a specific company's product in order to get full print capability. That is typically going to be the case, as well, because since .doc is a closed format, not everything transfers over correctly.
.odfs to the print server.
Now, on the other side of the coin may be the fact that Microsoft has provided the library with computers for free, under the contract that no openoffice gets installed on them. Fine, and well -- then set up one computer which the library has purchased free and clear, that sends the
If the contract specifies no open-office anywhere, at all, then I'd say that the users should be informed of that fact, and be given the opportunity to sign up on a list of complainants, for the purpose of a university-wide lawsuit against Microsoft.
I wonder if you could say the same for, for example, mapping over what applies to motor cars and motorcycles, into (for example) electric-assist bicycles, especially after the passage of the electric-assist bicycle law.
If you look for ways to power an electric-assist bicycle, all the standard ones are recently patented (in-wheel motor, chain drive motor, etc.) They were all not only obvious -- they were already done with motorcycles, self-propeled equipment, and such.
Corallary: a thing is never official until it's denied (at least here in America... and in Soviet Russia).
Just a thought, here: there are contests mentioned on slashdot, regularly, that have to do with writing code that looks like it does one thing, and actually does something completely different.
In terms of such obfusciation, being able to see the source is not all that strong a protection. A much stronger protection (though also not anywhere close to absolute) is the vested interest in keeping a good name.
Even stronger protection against intentional malfeasance, is seeing how they do it and then writing your own code from the ground up. Of course, then you get back to the limitations on skill. One person is not as good as a whole team of people.
There was an app called Deskpaint, produced by Zedcor back in the mid 90's. It was small (30k or so), fast, and very useful with lots of tools. When I say fast, I mean that it was about twice as fast, on the same computer and doing the same thing, as PaintShop at the time; by now, you could make that 30x as fast. I used that software professionally throughout my career as a study guide prepublisher, and there was very little that I couldn't do with it. Nowadays, the author has some other different freeware out there, but it isn't nearly as good; and it is more bloated (though still pretty light on the bloat).
In a very real way, I'd have to say Apple ][ as well. Nothing was as easily programmable, both in machine code and basic.
That said, it's just out of date. Here's what I would like, instead, and why.
(1) PDA. There's no reason, except high-performance graphics (read games/porn), that you need super large desk computers, any more. Battery powered is tons better, in lots of ways.
2) with IR. I really don't go for the electromagnetic pollution of the microwave phones/pdas/etc. This should be able to communicate from PDA to PDA, or from PDA to printer (etc.)
3) with smartcard-type drive for memory storage. This is instead of a hard drive
4) with a basic applesoft-style programming language.
5) with access to machine code, just as call-151.
6) but with isolation, so one computer program cannot corrupt another
7) dual touchpad input, adaptable to both keyboard-style and mouse-style input.
8) a123.com style lithium ion battery.
With that, I could write my own programs easily enough. As it is, I have to try to use pocket excel, which is great for a lot of things, but terribly awkward for others.
I don't know enough from the question to know if this would supply the answers he needs. My answer below requires any system equations, set up as an initial-value problem. However, I would like to suggest that he try looking at the Parker-Sochacki solution to the Picard iteration (officially written up here in Neural, Parallel & Scientific Computations, and mentioned here in Wikipedia, and explained here. This can give you a taylor series solution. It occurs to me that the system might be modifiable to give fourier series solutions... hmmm... interesting problem there. Anyhow, good luck.
Belief is indeed useless to science, except as a motivator to a scientist to do a particular experiment.
That said, the term "believe in evolution" does have meaning, for the reason that Darwinism is not just a scientific theory, but is also a (very non-scientific) religion among many people. Notable Darwinists have included Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood, Adolf Hitler, George Orwell. Likewise, the theories of Karl Marx were arguably Darwinist in nature.
As far as I can tell, the lives of those who believe in evolution are slightly more successful than others, as long as most others around them don't believe in evolution. Those are the people who are willing to do anything to advance their own situation and that of their genetic offspring (in short, they are the criminals). But when you get a whole society of evolutionists together and they manage to take control, their lives become brutish and short.
I, for one, definitely do not believe in evolution. I happen to think that evolution is one of the means by which species development within nature (and corporate development in the economy, and some engineering development in the past 1000 years) can happen. But I believe in Christ, and that is where I'm going to invest my time and energy.
I'm not sure that should have been rated "funny". I actually find the block text to be easier to read than the poetry-style lines. First of all, the color interferes with my ability to keep the whole sentence together. My brain actually ends up sticking the black text together in one group, and the red text together in another group. That really slows me down.
So I started thinking about why I read block text so fast.
Let's go over that last "funny" post. Yeah, it was written in the style of tongue-in-cheek quips, but I'm not sure the guy was joking.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't discard the extra 'noise' that I get from reading. I read roughly every second or third line
Okay, I read approximately one phrase (line) at a time. When I'm speed reading, I don't bother to understand the words of that line until my eyes are already on the next line. It feels like I'm reading every second or third line, but I'm actually hitting every one.
build up a composite image of the paragraph, tokenise it in parallel
I then attach a significance to the phrase, and approximate what the relation of the phrases are, according to ifs, ands, and buts, as well as punctuation.
and then parse it from that.
Then I discard the lines that seem relatively unimportant, giving me a basic summary of the paragraph. From this, I fit the other sentences back in as needed. What that means, realistically speaking, is that I look at the paragraph, identify the main topic, and glance through it as needed to understand the specifics.
It's a much better fit with how the optical system works than how people tend to describe reading, and possibly why I read a lot faster than most people I know. This new system slows my reading rate a lot.
Which is what I've experienced, too.
I tend to read about 2-3 times faster than most "good" readers I know.
I'm not sure that should have been rated "funny". I actually find the block text to be easier to read than the poetry-style lines. First of all, the color interferes with my ability to keep the whole sentence together. My brain actually ends up sticking the black text together in one group, and the red text together in another group. That really slows me down.
So I started thinking about why I read block text so fast.
Let's go over that last "funny" post. Yeah, it was written in the style of tongue-in-cheek quips, but I'm not sure the guy was joking.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't discard the extra 'noise' that I get from reading. I read roughly every second or third line
Okay, I read approximately one phrase (line) at a time. When I'm speed reading, I don't bother to understand the words of that line until my eyes are already on the next line. It feels like I'm reading every second or third line, but I'm actually hitting every one.
build up a composite image of the paragraph, tokenise it in parallel
I then attach a significance to the phrase, and approximate what the relation of the phrases are, according to ifs, ands, and buts, as well as punctuation.
and then parse it from that.
Then I discard the lines that seem relatively unimportant, giving me a basic summary of the paragraph. From this, I fit the other sentences back in as needed. What that means, realistically speaking, is that I look at the paragraph, identify the main topic, and glance through it as needed to understand the specifics.
It's a much better fit with how the optical system works than how people tend to describe reading, and possibly why I read a lot faster than most people I know. This new system slows my reading rate a lot.
Which is what I've experienced, too.
For the first false assumption: I doubt that any offspring of human/neanderthal -- if such offspring was possible at all -- would have been able to reproduce.
However, that doesn't stop gene transfer between -- for example -- humans and their dogs, or humans and their cats, or humans and their birds.
There's something called viral gene transfer, and if I understand correctly it works partially through retroviruses. I expect that if there is human/neanderthal gene mixing, it is more likely to have been through viruses that the mixing occurred.
Another possibly false assumpt ion that was not made outright, but implied, is that there is merit to a larger brain. I'm not so sure that's correct. Yes, it stands to reason... if your reason inclines in the direction of "more is better". But there are other factors in intelligence, including bistability, instability, speed, and so on and so forth.
But they do sell a bunch of $1500 electric mopeds, if you're interested in going that route.
There are some other vehicles out there, too -- you'll have to look for them, though. Some are only in development, like the x-cycle, while others are incredibly expensive, like the Sparrow.
Here's my suggestion.
I'm going to assume that you can get under the hood of a car, remove the engine, and essentially work on a car without killing yourself.
In that case, you probably want to get a street-legal old vw-bug or Ford Fiesta (or Yugo)... anyhow, something that is small and aerodynamic, and then convert it to electric with a $3000 conversion kit from e-volks. (They also have a $1500 conversion kit, but I'd go with the better one if I were you.) This is Wilderness Energy (which sells hub bicycle conversion kits, unfortunately also of Chinese manufacture and easily broken) expanded to automobiles.
Just... I'd go ahead and make the electric supply/recharge system separate from the vehicle, for the reason that you'll want to change it over later as you get more money.
Initially, you'll want Sealed-Lead-Acid batteries as can be had from Wal-Mart in the Bike section. They're cheap but heavy, and you string up enough of them to get whatever distance and speed you need.
But later, you'll want to convert to Lithium-ion phosphate, since it is lightweight, extremely efficient, long lasting, and doesn't blow up like a DELL.
Two sources for those are A123 and Valence.
Just out of wondering, what company provides the address 68.99.17.80? Apparently, that's the address of the recieving email. Is it HP? or a local ISP? What is the state law of that ISP regarding phishing?
Only if you have a dated photograph of yourself with the book on top of your Apple ][+.
... the little spiral notebooks made of 3x5 notecards. Also, get 3-4 notecard boxes. Now, keep your notebook in your pocket with a pen. Write your organizational notes on the notecards, and file them when you get home. It's a lot cheaper than a pda, and can go more places.