Yeah. I saw something like in 1986 too. I seem to remember it was at a show at McCormick (sp) place in Chicago and then again at an indistry show in California. It appeared as a miniature person standing on a real keyboard.
It's a sketchy memory even though spent 45 minutes gazing at it.
I disagree. As a person raised fundie in the buckle of the bible-belt, I can testify to you that a vast number of people *WANT* to take the Bible literally. They enthusiastically seek ways to take it literally and to use science to reinforce their faith. They do this because 1) their faith is weak or 2) they believe everyone else's faith is weak or 3) both. And they are generally correct in the assumption that humans believe what they see and if demonstrations of healing and miracles are too farfetched, then one must seek confirmation in other ways.
BTW, I was educated at a well-respected Christian university and I learned oodles about Hermaneutics and Biblical Archaeology.
These Christian academics, over a period of generations and without realizing it, saw that society was advanced by science. And what progress had Christianity (or any religion) brought to civilization?
What major progressive contribution to civilization is solely creditable to Christianity? Was it a Christian majority or minority that brought about progress like U.S. slavery abolition or defense of Jews against Nazi holocaust? How about scoring the setbacks to civilization credited to religion versus the advancements? Be honest.
The people of academic/religious background asked themselves these questions. They didn't like the answers.
It seemed religion was being displaced by science because scientific thought brought about observable results. So, they embraced and extended science.
I won't bore you with further rant. So here's what this entire debate comes down to:
Science is about the How. Theology is about the Why.
Now, the parties in this debate need only to agree on that demarcation. No face lost on either side. Right now it seems it is religion that is trespassing.
I just hate companies who scream loudly about how any regulation or oversight disrupts their right to free trade/enterprise/market, capitalism, etc. Oh, how loudly they decry regulation and "protectionism."
Then they want the government to regulate and protect them when individuals in their employ practice their individual right of free trade/enterprise/market, capitalism, etc.
What corporations believe collectively is that only they should have the right to trade on their capabilities. Thus forcing employee loyalty because there's no place for them to go to ply their individual skills.
The solution to so many of our woes in dealing with corporations and individual freedoms is simple: parity.
A judge in this case should say... "Okay, that's fine if you want me to uphold his noncompete. But you must append the noncompete with an contract to employ or otherwise compensate him for the term of the noncompete. You are illegally interfering in interstate commerce by disallowing his movement into the free market."
I've been a handsomely paid contractor for about 4 years at a top 5 megacorp. I'm paid about a third to double the typical employee and receive comparable benefits plus... I'm contractual. In other words, I have a little more layoff warning (and some better reemployment options in other divisions) than the employees here.
They attempted to hire me a few times but were rebuffed by their finance and HR people because of the strange politics that run through megacorps.
Headcount is one reason... managers are constantly worrying if they have too much or too little headcount. But they still need work done, so they use in-house contactors to supplement their staff.
Disposability is another reason, not to put too fine a point on it. No severance, no COBRA problems, minimal legal liabilities, etc.
Portability is yet another factor. It is way easier to move me around to where I'm needed than a regular employee.
Attitude figures prominently into the equation because I don't have the megacorp entitlement mentality. I just do my job and give a little extra if I can. Normally, I can finish an entire project by the time a regular employee has finished fretting about his/her job security and the political contigencies.
Specialization, experieince and skill diversity is big plus when hiring local in-house contractors. I have a wide range of experience that lifers don't have because they only know their Invented Here technology. When this company needed Python or VMWare knowledge, I was here for them.
The funny thing is that the regular employees here have less job security than I do. Lately, they've realized it.
My theological education begs to differ on Mary Magdalene. It is a popular myth that she was a prostitute. We don't really know this for sure.
A "harlot" by some translations (not necessarily a prostitute but probably condemned for some sex-taboo, superstition or violation of Jewish law) named Mary washed Christ's feet with her hair and an expensive fragrance. It is assumed that this is Mary Magdalene but there are several confusing duplicate name instances (most of which are unexplained as if readers know to whom the author is referring or perhaps the author feels the detail unimportant) in the Bible.
My state's IT people are too incompetent and/or mismanaged to get a single decent IT project completed. I'd say 90% of IT and software design is a total waste in state gov't.
Even if they could get their act together, the house and senate can't sustain funding for them even when there's plenty of money, much less when they are Billions in the red.
Using outside firms, known for cashing in on lucrative cushy government contracts while producing virtually nothing, only compounds the problem.
What makes you think they can make this work?
What will result is a system that will track law abiding people while clever "grifters" and "criminals" short circuit the system, or worse, use the system as a means to further their agenda.
When an incompetent but well-intentioned government spies on their own, they end up exposing to danger the very people they are sworn to protect.
In the U.S., not much talent gravitates to the government sector when fortunes can be made elsewhere.
There is a little technique that Cicero used to help determine the validity of an argument in a legal matter... he reversed it.
If "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide." rings true then by the same standard of reason so should "I have something (anything) to hide, therefore I am doing something wrong." This statement carries some heavy implications for secretive orgs like the FBI, NSA, CIA? I would imagine government personnel, policemen, etc. don't advertise their personal phones and addresses, are they hiding something and therefore wrong? I'm sure George W. Bush wouldn't have voluntarily informed the media of his past alcohol problems, does that mean he would be hiding something and therefore doing wrong?
I don't advertise my credit card on a website, does that mean I'm hiding something and therefore wrong?
If the government is in charge of keeping my personal data from the wrong hands, they are in effect, hiding something from someone... are they wrong?
Corporations hide certain finances and trade secrets from stockholders and the public at large. They must be doing something wrong, right?
Try this one: "I have nothing to hide, therefore I am doing right." If I do something illegal, unethical or immoral but do so openly and transparently without hiding anything, then I must not be doing anything wrong. This effectively turns a volutary confession into a get out of jail free card. Clinton could have openly admitted to his relationship with Monica and been at no risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I saw something like in 1986 too. I seem to remember it was at a show at McCormick (sp) place in Chicago and then again at an indistry show in California. It appeared as a miniature person standing on a real keyboard. It's a sketchy memory even though spent 45 minutes gazing at it.
I disagree. As a person raised fundie in the buckle of the bible-belt, I can testify to you that a vast number of people *WANT* to take the Bible literally. They enthusiastically seek ways to take it literally and to use science to reinforce their faith. They do this because 1) their faith is weak or 2) they believe everyone else's faith is weak or 3) both. And they are generally correct in the assumption that humans believe what they see and if demonstrations of healing and miracles are too farfetched, then one must seek confirmation in other ways.
BTW, I was educated at a well-respected Christian university and I learned oodles about Hermaneutics and Biblical Archaeology.
These Christian academics, over a period of generations and without realizing it, saw that society was advanced by science. And what progress had Christianity (or any religion) brought to civilization?
What major progressive contribution to civilization is solely creditable to Christianity?
Was it a Christian majority or minority that brought about progress like U.S. slavery abolition or defense of Jews against Nazi holocaust?
How about scoring the setbacks to civilization credited to religion versus the advancements? Be honest.
The people of academic/religious background asked themselves these questions. They didn't like the answers.
It seemed religion was being displaced by science because scientific thought brought about observable results. So, they embraced and extended science.
I won't bore you with further rant. So here's what this entire debate comes down to:
Science is about the How. Theology is about the Why.
Now, the parties in this debate need only to agree on that demarcation. No face lost on either side. Right now it seems it is religion that is trespassing.
I just hate companies who scream loudly about how any regulation or oversight disrupts their right to free trade/enterprise/market, capitalism, etc. Oh, how loudly they decry regulation and "protectionism." Then they want the government to regulate and protect them when individuals in their employ practice their individual right of free trade/enterprise/market, capitalism, etc. What corporations believe collectively is that only they should have the right to trade on their capabilities. Thus forcing employee loyalty because there's no place for them to go to ply their individual skills. The solution to so many of our woes in dealing with corporations and individual freedoms is simple: parity. A judge in this case should say... "Okay, that's fine if you want me to uphold his noncompete. But you must append the noncompete with an contract to employ or otherwise compensate him for the term of the noncompete. You are illegally interfering in interstate commerce by disallowing his movement into the free market."
I've been a handsomely paid contractor for about 4 years at a top 5 megacorp. I'm paid about a third to double the typical employee and receive comparable benefits plus... I'm contractual. In other words, I have a little more layoff warning (and some better reemployment options in other divisions) than the employees here.
They attempted to hire me a few times but were rebuffed by their finance and HR people because of the strange politics that run through megacorps.
Headcount is one reason... managers are constantly worrying if they have too much or too little headcount. But they still need work done, so they use in-house contactors to supplement their staff.
Disposability is another reason, not to put too fine a point on it. No severance, no COBRA problems, minimal legal liabilities, etc.
Portability is yet another factor. It is way easier to move me around to where I'm needed than a regular employee.
Attitude figures prominently into the equation because I don't have the megacorp entitlement mentality. I just do my job and give a little extra if I can. Normally, I can finish an entire project by the time a regular employee has finished fretting about his/her job security and the political contigencies.
Specialization, experieince and skill diversity is big plus when hiring local in-house contractors. I have a wide range of experience that lifers don't have because they only know their Invented Here technology. When this company needed Python or VMWare knowledge, I was here for them.
The funny thing is that the regular employees here have less job security than I do. Lately, they've realized it.
In which country do you live? May I move there?
My theological education begs to differ on Mary Magdalene. It is a popular myth that she was a prostitute. We don't really know this for sure.
A "harlot" by some translations (not necessarily a prostitute but probably condemned for some sex-taboo, superstition or violation of Jewish law) named Mary washed Christ's feet with her hair and an expensive fragrance. It is assumed that this is Mary Magdalene but there are several confusing duplicate name instances (most of which are unexplained as if readers know to whom the author is referring or perhaps the author feels the detail unimportant) in the Bible.
My state's IT people are too incompetent and/or mismanaged to get a single decent IT project completed. I'd say 90% of IT and software design is a total waste in state gov't.
Even if they could get their act together, the house and senate can't sustain funding for them even when there's plenty of money, much less when they are Billions in the red.
Using outside firms, known for cashing in on lucrative cushy government contracts while producing virtually nothing, only compounds the problem.
What makes you think they can make this work?
What will result is a system that will track law abiding people while clever "grifters" and "criminals" short circuit the system, or worse, use the system as a means to further their agenda.
When an incompetent but well-intentioned government spies on their own, they end up exposing to danger the very people they are sworn to protect.
In the U.S., not much talent gravitates to the government sector when fortunes can be made elsewhere.
I've argued against rednecks in general since living in Oklahoma.
The politicians wouldn't even meet me halfway and just ban anyone with a mullet and a Camaro/T-Bird from driving.
There is a little technique that Cicero used to help determine the validity of an argument in a legal matter... he reversed it. If "I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide." rings true then by the same standard of reason so should "I have something (anything) to hide, therefore I am doing something wrong." This statement carries some heavy implications for secretive orgs like the FBI, NSA, CIA? I would imagine government personnel, policemen, etc. don't advertise their personal phones and addresses, are they hiding something and therefore wrong? I'm sure George W. Bush wouldn't have voluntarily informed the media of his past alcohol problems, does that mean he would be hiding something and therefore doing wrong? I don't advertise my credit card on a website, does that mean I'm hiding something and therefore wrong? If the government is in charge of keeping my personal data from the wrong hands, they are in effect, hiding something from someone... are they wrong? Corporations hide certain finances and trade secrets from stockholders and the public at large. They must be doing something wrong, right? Try this one: "I have nothing to hide, therefore I am doing right." If I do something illegal, unethical or immoral but do so openly and transparently without hiding anything, then I must not be doing anything wrong. This effectively turns a volutary confession into a get out of jail free card. Clinton could have openly admitted to his relationship with Monica and been at no risk.