Not really, it just as Christianity it mostly depends on the church you go to to have your religious text interpreted. The hateful and obviously unnrue parts can be explained away the same thing Catholicism does it:
It's a metaphor for..
What he said must be understood in historical context..
It's a fairy tale that in a form accessible to illiteral shepherds explained the value of..
This is a silly quote to begin with. Science can answer plenty of why questions. And the kind of why answers religion provides I find useless and insulting of my intelligence.
Great to see another scholar of the Bible. Here's my summary:
I created a man and a woman with original sin. Than I made a woman pregnant to give birth to me, then I killed myself as a sacrifice to myself to save the people I created from the sin I gave them.
I think it's you who is overreacting. Using model airplanes is one of the first thing that comes to mind in a hypothetical what if i did it scenario. Unemployed grad and living with his parents? Welcome to recession. I see no obvious signs of mental illness. Now. I see no reason why if had not been caught he would have ended up like that doctor who set an SUV on fire in Times Square, or like a pair of British doctors a few years back.
Last week I had a taste of your low power computing. I had to use a substitute workstation with some dual core amd cpu from around 2008, it was something around 2.5 ghz and 3 gigs of RAM. Just using Outlook 2007, skype, Firefox and Excel nearly brought it ti it's knees. And you 800mhz dual core Atom is probably is even more underpowered.
How is it different from "I do not work for M$ because they make evil closed source bug ridden software!" or "I do not work for Nokia cause they are sellouts!". or god forbid the company can prove (using Facebook) that you rejected their job offer because their CEO is an asian.
Ok, fire departments. roads. Sounds so benign, who in the right mind would not want fire departments, police stations and roads? But I know what you socialists (or should I say social democrats, greens and other assorted left wing sympathizers?)
really desire at heart. If you just wanted these basic services then yes, taxing everyone equally would be more than enough. But as soon as you get one foot in you immediately start implementing a full scale welfare state, universal health care, social security and a plethora of other social entitlements. Pretty soon all these little "free" things start to add up and suddenly your all out of money. So what do you do? You must engage in class warfare, you must convince people that stealing money from their better off neighbor is OK cause there is no way he can make a cool million without cheating. You must dehumanize, make them look like cheating lying thieves and then it makes it OK to engage in this modern form of highway robbery. But you can not fool me, I have studied history, the socialist cancer always begins with this sweet talk about creating a better, a more fair society and ends in gulags.
Looks good on paper but for now they are just expensive toys which may be more useful as recruiting tools (look war is just like a video game, come play with us!). Barely useful in an asymmetrical warfare conflict like the one in Afghanistan and useless in a war with a country that has a modern air force and an integrated air defense system. They'd be shot out of the sky immediately.
Well, according to some statistics in a post above, "the rich", those making a million or more are only 0.14% of the population. So they ain't the ones who voted Bush into the White House. It's poor and middle class who started the war, so let them pay for it.
I'm not surprised you chose the 50s as the base for you comparison. The truth is that it simply would not work in today's global economy. The money would flee US in a second. In the 50s there was not really much alternative to doing business and keeping money in the US, half the world was in the grip of centrally planned socialist economy, Europe was still recovering from a devastating war, territories in Asia, Africa and Latin America were going through national liberation.
No, it's only hard to tell if you are a socialist and promote class warfare. if one's income is taxed twice as much in absolute numbers he better be really using twice as much in services or he is being ripped off by a populist government sucking up to the idle poor.
Oh this brings back some memories. In Soviet Union "Unearned Income" was a criminal offense, I swear Slashdot has the largest population of wacko socialist and Communist sympathizers outside of North Korea.
Insightful? Hardly, no amount of bold text will make a logical argument appear where there is none. You have not proven at all that a 'system' is better then 'industry'. North Korea also has a 'system' and I'm willing to be it does not produce results comparable to US 'industry'.
This is a rather naive and over simplified view of the market economy. There areas in the US where one can't get broadband or even basic services at any rate. It's all about cost/risks. People do not want drugs in their neighborhood, they do not want to live next to junkies. It has been proven that the drug war can be "won" locally.
Regarding your second question. First of all limited supply and high prices means that far less people are going to *start* doing drugs. This is the main benefit that will eradicate drug use in the long term. Without continuing supply of new users the remaining addict population will disappear over time, naturally (drugs kill, it's a medical fact), or one can hope more will apply for treatment. Real life data does show a disturbing short term trend, as supply chains for traditional drugs like heroin are disrupted some addicts resort to more dangerous home cooked substitutes. Unfortunate, but it falls under the "natural disappearance" scenario since these drugs kill much quicker.
Really? What does this barely coherent diatribe have to do with my rather well thought out reply to the GP? Next time if you want to say something to me please try to address the actual points presented.
I agree about Arab citizens (even though there are disturbing calls from even the mainstream parties to strip them of their citizenship or trade land where they live). People like their foreign minister who openly hates Arab citizens would have no place in mainstream American or European politics. However by apartheid people usually mean the currently implemented de-facto one state solution that includes the disputed territories. Millions of Arabs living their are limited in their basic civil and economic rights not unlike blacks of late Apartheid South Africa.
And judging by Israeli plans for a two state solution their vision of a future Palestinian state is similar to South Africa's Bantustans, a caricature of a state designed to strip blacks South African's of their citizenship and provide whites in power with cheap controlled labor.
I've been following the politics of ME for years, it's quite clear that Israel believes that they can keep the current status quo forever while bullshitting the rest of the world with half-hearted peace talks where they behave with barely hidden contempt for their negotiation partners. But the way things have been developing I think they are wrong and neither the International community nor their Arab neighbors are going to tolerate the stalling much longer.
You are a stubborn and irrational fool then. A medical test is the only objective measure of ones health and fitness for a physically demanding occupation.
This is silly and irrational. He passed an only objective test of ones ability and got the highest class medical rating. The numbers are irrelevant, nowadays it's not uncommon to see heart attacks and strokes in people barely out of their 20s.
Just to summarize - philosophically I'm all for people choosing their way to die. But it's my fundamental belief that pot aside, drug addiction is incompatible with living in modern (post)industrial society. The addict becomes a danger every time, unless you really do want to provide them with a complete state subsidized existence.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, it just as Christianity it mostly depends on the church you go to to have your religious text interpreted. The hateful and obviously unnrue parts can be explained away the same thing Catholicism does it:
It's a metaphor for..
What he said must be understood in historical context..
It's a fairy tale that in a form accessible to illiteral shepherds explained the value of..
This is a silly quote to begin with. Science can answer plenty of why questions. And the kind of why answers religion provides I find useless and insulting of my intelligence.
Great to see another scholar of the Bible. Here's my summary:
I created a man and a woman with original sin. Than I made a woman pregnant to give birth to me, then I killed myself as a sacrifice to myself to save the people I created from the sin I gave them.
It all makes sense.
A dent? It penetrated three outer rings out of five, some dent.
I think it's you who is overreacting. Using model airplanes is one of the first thing that comes to mind in a hypothetical what if i did it scenario. Unemployed grad and living with his parents? Welcome to recession. I see no obvious signs of mental illness. Now. I see no reason why if had not been caught he would have ended up like that doctor who set an SUV on fire in Times Square, or like a pair of British doctors a few years back.
Last week I had a taste of your low power computing. I had to use a substitute workstation with some dual core amd cpu from around 2008, it was something around 2.5 ghz and 3 gigs of RAM. Just using Outlook 2007, skype, Firefox and Excel nearly brought it ti it's knees. And you 800mhz dual core Atom is probably is even more underpowered.
So what happened to number five?
How is it different from "I do not work for M$ because they make evil closed source bug ridden software!" or "I do not work for Nokia cause they are sellouts!". or god forbid the company can prove (using Facebook) that you rejected their job offer because their CEO is an asian.
Ok, fire departments. roads. Sounds so benign, who in the right mind would not want fire departments, police stations and roads? But I know what you socialists (or should I say social democrats, greens and other assorted left wing sympathizers?) really desire at heart. If you just wanted these basic services then yes, taxing everyone equally would be more than enough. But as soon as you get one foot in you immediately start implementing a full scale welfare state, universal health care, social security and a plethora of other social entitlements. Pretty soon all these little "free" things start to add up and suddenly your all out of money. So what do you do? You must engage in class warfare, you must convince people that stealing money from their better off neighbor is OK cause there is no way he can make a cool million without cheating. You must dehumanize, make them look like cheating lying thieves and then it makes it OK to engage in this modern form of highway robbery. But you can not fool me, I have studied history, the socialist cancer always begins with this sweet talk about creating a better, a more fair society and ends in gulags.
Looks good on paper but for now they are just expensive toys which may be more useful as recruiting tools (look war is just like a video game, come play with us!). Barely useful in an asymmetrical warfare conflict like the one in Afghanistan and useless in a war with a country that has a modern air force and an integrated air defense system. They'd be shot out of the sky immediately.
Well, according to some statistics in a post above, "the rich", those making a million or more are only 0.14% of the population. So they ain't the ones who voted Bush into the White House. It's poor and middle class who started the war, so let them pay for it.
I'm not surprised you chose the 50s as the base for you comparison. The truth is that it simply would not work in today's global economy. The money would flee US in a second. In the 50s there was not really much alternative to doing business and keeping money in the US, half the world was in the grip of centrally planned socialist economy, Europe was still recovering from a devastating war, territories in Asia, Africa and Latin America were going through national liberation.
That's OK, rich Europeans and Russians also like foreign cars, often American luxury sedans and SUVs. So it all evens out in the end.
No, it's only hard to tell if you are a socialist and promote class warfare. if one's income is taxed twice as much in absolute numbers he better be really using twice as much in services or he is being ripped off by a populist government sucking up to the idle poor.
Not everyone needs a house for "family life" and why the hell you need to put a double bed in every bedroom?
Oh this brings back some memories. In Soviet Union "Unearned Income" was a criminal offense, I swear Slashdot has the largest population of wacko socialist and Communist sympathizers outside of North Korea.
Insightful? Hardly, no amount of bold text will make a logical argument appear where there is none. You have not proven at all that a 'system' is better then 'industry'. North Korea also has a 'system' and I'm willing to be it does not produce results comparable to US 'industry'.
This is a rather naive and over simplified view of the market economy. There areas in the US where one can't get broadband or even basic services at any rate. It's all about cost/risks. People do not want drugs in their neighborhood, they do not want to live next to junkies. It has been proven that the drug war can be "won" locally.
Regarding your second question. First of all limited supply and high prices means that far less people are going to *start* doing drugs. This is the main benefit that will eradicate drug use in the long term. Without continuing supply of new users the remaining addict population will disappear over time, naturally (drugs kill, it's a medical fact), or one can hope more will apply for treatment. Real life data does show a disturbing short term trend, as supply chains for traditional drugs like heroin are disrupted some addicts resort to more dangerous home cooked substitutes. Unfortunate, but it falls under the "natural disappearance" scenario since these drugs kill much quicker.
Really? What does this barely coherent diatribe have to do with my rather well thought out reply to the GP? Next time if you want to say something to me please try to address the actual points presented.
I agree about Arab citizens (even though there are disturbing calls from even the mainstream parties to strip them of their citizenship or trade land where they live). People like their foreign minister who openly hates Arab citizens would have no place in mainstream American or European politics. However by apartheid people usually mean the currently implemented de-facto one state solution that includes the disputed territories. Millions of Arabs living their are limited in their basic civil and economic rights not unlike blacks of late Apartheid South Africa.
And judging by Israeli plans for a two state solution their vision of a future Palestinian state is similar to South Africa's Bantustans, a caricature of a state designed to strip blacks South African's of their citizenship and provide whites in power with cheap controlled labor.
I've been following the politics of ME for years, it's quite clear that Israel believes that they can keep the current status quo forever while bullshitting the rest of the world with half-hearted peace talks where they behave with barely hidden contempt for their negotiation partners. But the way things have been developing I think they are wrong and neither the International community nor their Arab neighbors are going to tolerate the stalling much longer.
You are a stubborn and irrational fool then. A medical test is the only objective measure of ones health and fitness for a physically demanding occupation.
So, this is the real Obama's job creation plan! All is starting to make sense now.
If it was up to people like Al Gore we'd be up to our necks in Polar Bears and without jobs.
This is silly and irrational. He passed an only objective test of ones ability and got the highest class medical rating. The numbers are irrelevant, nowadays it's not uncommon to see heart attacks and strokes in people barely out of their 20s.
Just to summarize - philosophically I'm all for people choosing their way to die. But it's my fundamental belief that pot aside, drug addiction is incompatible with living in modern (post)industrial society. The addict becomes a danger every time, unless you really do want to provide them with a complete state subsidized existence.