I'd accept that as an acceptable argument, but the real situation is a degree removed from it.
Sweden won't torture him. I think everyone is agreed upon that. And the US isn't going to try and persecute him for crimes allegedly against Swedish citizens. Why fight this extradition, instead of the one that would come up if the United states were to charge him with crimes against them?
You're basically saying that they can't send him to any country for any crime if that country has a legal relationship allowing the transfer of prisoners over to the Untied states to face charges on an unrelated crime?
If you were to take his argument to its logical conclusion, he's saying that any crime he may have committed cannot result in punishment otherwise he might also be punished very harshly for a completely different offence?
So he may have robbed a bank, shanked the queen of Sweden, and sold half the population of Stockholm into slavery, but you can't extradite him because the Swedish might send him to the united states?
Obviously a little different from the charges he's facing, but what crime would he have to be charged with to allow him to be extradited to Sweden? Or does his noble actions with Wikileaks cause him to be immune for any other offence he committed?
One man's insult is another man's transparency. There are already documents on Wikileaks from Scientology and the church of latter day saints, adherents to those religions would certainly call the hosting of their private docs "insulting". Hosting an existing pic of Mohamed, wouldn't be much different.
Creating a new one, just for shock value and insult ? That would cross the line to being an asshole.
Its not that I know I'm wrong or that I know I'm right. Its a response to an argument that is clearly headed nowhere as its left the realm of objectivity.
We agree on the facts, disagree on semantics. You responded to facts with an argument about how to interpret those facts. That's not fun for anyone. From your responses it seems clear that you are not an emotionally disinterested party: all of your arguments will be centred around feeding that emotionally twinged pre-conceived conclusion.
The original headline, keeps the reader in suspense until the last word. Your first suggestion is anti-climactic. The Yoda one ( while funny), is too complex of a sentence structure which confuses people too much. You want a little complexity to build the suspense as the original did, but not so much that the reader (average 5th grad level) has to re parse the sentence. They may interpret it as a non native phrasing and associate it with spam.
Writing a headline is an art. Especially, now a days on th internet. If you create enough interest in a few words, boom, another click on your site greater potential for ad revenue.
Oh, so your solution to the technical problem is to get rid of the industry which experiences it?
Ok, I guess. I'm really more here on slashdot to discover some sweet techniques for solving immensely difficult technical problems.
I didn't get that from your first post. Maybe because you started out with the technical part? don't know exactly. I'm not knowledgeable in the field of trading to make an intelligent comment about the result of banning HFT. The market does need liquidity, that much I do know.
You really do not understand the domain in question. The whole idea behind hft is to analyze real time data and make a near instantaneous stock trade that capitalizes on that data analysis *before* anyone else does. Waiting a second is too long in this case. The value they add to their customers: Cold hard cash. The value to the stock market: liquidity (fair argument if its too much liquidity).
Or you could alternatively have multi-tered groups.
This is hard to explain via text but pretend an city and the area around it is a square, subdivide it into nine parcels. with the most urban in the center.
_ _ _ |_|_|_| |_|_|_| |_|_|_|
Now, for simplicity lets just say that we need 10 representatives for this area. The center square has a population that is 1.5 times the remaining eight squares. Simply give each square one representative. Nine are alloted and one remains.
Allow anyone in any of the nine squares to vote for the remaining representative.
Allowing elections in this manner would off set highly concentrated groups of like minded voters not being represented as well as lower density ones.
Very rough, may be difficult if not impossible to solve the problem, but a theoretical alternative. possibility to funky shapes.
As an independent voter, I would agree that both parties are corrupt and controlled by the extremes who self delude themselves into thinking they are the national majority.
However, you simply cannot compare the raw intelligence of Obama to Palin. Obama went to Harvard. He was president of their law review. Even without attempting to mention anything negative about Palin, that is a high standard to match. He may do things I disagree with, but that does not mean he's stupid.
Please note the difference, we could use more voters who understood the difference between people who have different beliefs and values than us versus people who have a low intelligence.
I also disagree with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and Rush. But, I wouldn't say any of them are stupid.
Yeah, pretty accurate. However there are some that trail "mainstream" creationism to be even more contrarian. So you'll find some that still beleive they were put their by satan, and some that believe they are just fictional.
To summarize the previous post I made into bite sized eazily digestible chunks:
1) God created a scientific world, set up the initial conditions and rarely intervenes in stopping it.
2) The main way he has at influencing actions, is through people. He didn't even intervene when his own son was being tortured. When people don't follow his will, evil things happen ( not the earthquake like some FUndies would say, but the shoddy living conditions in Haiti that facilitated the loss of life).
3) Good things can come from suffering. It can be redemptive. At some point everyone who is born into this world will suffer. Its how we react to our own and others suffering that can make this a good world.
To that, brand new to this post, in response to your post:
4) Man is not God. The meglomaniac you propose is trying to kill people. God is not. Even if the earthquake was caused by a man( and this has actually happened on a small scale due to oil and natural gas drilling), the most important thing in evaluating his actions would not be the result but the intent of the man. In our criminal justice system there are many different categories we can convict some one for killing another ( 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, manslaughter, reckless homicide, ect). The main difference in those is level of intent. If there is not intent at all to kill and it was truly an accident beyond their control we wouldn't convict them at all. (The great news is that God judges us the same way. You're only held accountable for what you knowingly do).
The bottom line is that your version of God, which for the umpteenth time, is not mine. And again you can choose not to believe in the one I believe in, but you won't get anywhere trying to convince me that I'm believing in the wrong God. You're trying to convince me that any God that does exist is evil. A notion that I reject out of hand. My God as I've laid out in these posts is a Good one that works through Science and the hearts of men.
Sorry for the brief earlier response. What I was objecting to, was your interpretation of the Bible. That is not my or my Fiath's interpretation of it.
There are two things that we coauld talka bout with regards to evil in Nature:
The event itself and the impact upon people.
Earthquakes, Floods, Hurracanes other natural disasters kill people. True enough. So do diseases, birth defects, and other random acts beyond control " Acts of God" according to the insurance companies.
Is a natural, not caused by human death an evil? I would say no, its not. Not if you believe the eternity of the soul. Some Christian theologians woudl say that its one of the punishments of original sin. But, we Catholics would view it as a diminished punishment due to the possibility of salvation.
Ok, what about suffering? Surely that is evil. Well, no, we would say that suffering need not be all negative. While we would not wish it upon anyone, it can be redemptive. It causes families to become closer. It causes people to care for other people. You can look at a disaster and the suffering and focus on the bad aspect of it: the suffering, or you can look at the response to it: the caring, the loving people who were previously strangers coming together to help each other. One of the things I really like about Catholicism, is its sense of Community. In a very real sense, we believe we are tied together as part of the Church. We are all in charge of caring for each other, not just other Catholics or other Christians, but all of us. Even those that have committed terrible deads, the possibility of redemption is always there. We were all created in the image of God, and all loved equally by him regardless of what we've done to destroy that relationship with him.
Now, does that mean there isn't any evil in disasters? No. There is this kind of evil:
The Haiti Earthquake was not a terrible earthquake in terms of the Richter scale. A few weeks later a larger earthquake struck Oregon state ( on our our 50 United ones for those not acquainted with US geography). Instead of 300,00 dead, there were 0. The poverty of the country, caused by many human factors starting back from the institution of slavery up to and including the dictators,drugs and corruption in the country created the shoddy buildings that collapsed causing the death and misery. The terrible hospitals, lack of medical care, clean water, jobs, food: those were caused by humans. The world didn't care enough about them. There leaders didn't care enough about them. That's the evil that was there, the lack of the world's love.
Of course, I respect your choice. How ever in response I would again argue that insted of arguing against what u believe you've created a divergent god to did believe in. you can't argue that I shouldn't believe in the god I believe in, based on your personal interpretation of a religion you don't believe in.
Free will is the ability to to reason, to make decisions. You've changed the definition to make your argument. As such there isn't much we can discuss unless we use the same terms.
But of course that isn't true. You'd care. We do care about much stupider things. Tv characters, shows, Operating systems, Cell phones, Video game systems, Unix Editors. Heck most of the stuff we didn't even personally create, but we still have flame wars over it.
Free will man, Free will. Personal responsibility is a bitch. If we couldn't choose to Not Love, we couldn't choose to Love. You can choose to see it from an atheist perspective (there is no god we have to do everything to ensure that Dalhmers do not exist, and if they do they are caught, or from a Christian position: WE are supposed to do the work of God, we should do everything to ensure that Dalhmers do not exist, and if they do they are caught.
But don't blame Christians for believing something they don't. We don't believe that God is superman who saves everyone from all evil. We believe he's more of a super manager who tels us what our role is, how to do it best, and to try our best.
A brilliant man once said " There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church." You are creating a God in your mind that is unworthy of your Love so that you can deny him with a clear conscious. I'm not sure why and should probably try to steer clear from further psychologically analyzing you, but I can tell you that the God I believe in can be scary. God is scary because he is unconditional love. And that unconditional love is tough to believe in, because we always find ourselves coming up short. Unconditional Love inspires and requires a response. A response we aren't always the best at giving as imperfect as we are. We don't always Love others the way we should. Our society is sick, we don't love each other the way we should. And on occasion we end up producing someone like Dalhmer. And we have no one to blame, but ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
I'd accept that as an acceptable argument, but the real situation is a degree removed from it.
Sweden won't torture him. I think everyone is agreed upon that. And the US isn't going to try and persecute him for crimes allegedly against Swedish citizens. Why fight this extradition, instead of the one that would come up if the United states were to charge him with crimes against them?
You're basically saying that they can't send him to any country for any crime if that country has a legal relationship allowing the transfer of prisoners over to the Untied states to face charges on an unrelated crime?
If you were to take his argument to its logical conclusion, he's saying that any crime he may have committed cannot result in punishment otherwise he might also be punished very harshly for a completely different offence?
So he may have robbed a bank, shanked the queen of Sweden, and sold half the population of Stockholm into slavery, but you can't extradite him because the Swedish might send him to the united states?
Obviously a little different from the charges he's facing, but what crime would he have to be charged with to allow him to be extradited to Sweden? Or does his noble actions with Wikileaks cause him to be immune for any other offence he committed?
One man's insult is another man's transparency. There are already documents on Wikileaks from Scientology and the church of latter day saints, adherents to those religions would certainly call the hosting of their private docs "insulting". Hosting an existing pic of Mohamed, wouldn't be much different.
Creating a new one, just for shock value and insult ? That would cross the line to being an asshole.
Difference?
My grandma never used IRC. QED.
Its not that I know I'm wrong or that I know I'm right. Its a response to an argument that is clearly headed nowhere as its left the realm of objectivity.
We agree on the facts, disagree on semantics. You responded to facts with an argument about how to interpret those facts. That's not fun for anyone. From your responses it seems clear that you are not an emotionally disinterested party: all of your arguments will be centred around feeding that emotionally twinged pre-conceived conclusion.
You've done a great job trying to create an argument to support a faulty conclusion to preserve your world view.
For that, I commend you. You have a future in politics and/or internet based arguments. I wish you the best of luck in the new year.
The original headline, keeps the reader in suspense until the last word. Your first suggestion is anti-climactic. The Yoda one ( while funny), is too complex of a sentence structure which confuses people too much. You want a little complexity to build the suspense as the original did, but not so much that the reader (average 5th grad level) has to re parse the sentence. They may interpret it as a non native phrasing and associate it with spam.
Writing a headline is an art. Especially, now a days on th internet. If you create enough interest in a few words, boom, another click on your site greater potential for ad revenue.
Yes it does. It really grew out of the English game rounders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/11/08/history-lessons-with-bud/
So did the English Language, Baseball, apple pie, and George Washington, but we still call those American.
Oh, so your solution to the technical problem is to get rid of the industry which experiences it?
Ok, I guess. I'm really more here on slashdot to discover some sweet techniques for solving immensely difficult technical problems.
I didn't get that from your first post. Maybe because you started out with the technical part? don't know exactly. I'm not knowledgeable in the field of trading to make an intelligent comment about the result of banning HFT. The market does need liquidity, that much I do know.
You really do not understand the domain in question. The whole idea behind hft is to analyze real time data and make a near instantaneous stock trade that capitalizes on that data analysis *before* anyone else does. Waiting a second is too long in this case. The value they add to their customers: Cold hard cash. The value to the stock market: liquidity (fair argument if its too much liquidity).
Yeah, that's not right. "Just Saying" is modern parlance for "this is so obvious I can't believe I even have to bring it up".
If you're not up to speed with new slang, that's cool, just don't uncorrect us like a bull through the hall.
God speed all the bakers at dawn!
Or you could alternatively have multi-tered groups.
This is hard to explain via text but pretend an city and the area around it is a square, subdivide it into nine parcels. with the most urban in the center.
_ _ _
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|
Now, for simplicity lets just say that we need 10 representatives for this area. The center square has a population that is 1.5 times the remaining eight squares. Simply give each square one representative. Nine are alloted and one remains.
Allow anyone in any of the nine squares to vote for the remaining representative.
Allowing elections in this manner would off set highly concentrated groups of like minded voters not being represented as well as lower density ones.
Very rough, may be difficult if not impossible to solve the problem, but a theoretical alternative. possibility to funky shapes.
Oh, I didn't say he wasn't a liar. I said he wasn't stupid. He knows what he does.
As an independent voter, I would agree that both parties are corrupt and controlled by the extremes who self delude themselves into thinking they are the national majority.
However, you simply cannot compare the raw intelligence of Obama to Palin. Obama went to Harvard. He was president of their law review. Even without attempting to mention anything negative about Palin, that is a high standard to match. He may do things I disagree with, but that does not mean he's stupid.
Please note the difference, we could use more voters who understood the difference between people who have different beliefs and values than us versus people who have a low intelligence.
I also disagree with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and Rush. But, I wouldn't say any of them are stupid.
Yeah, pretty accurate. However there are some that trail "mainstream" creationism to be even more contrarian. So you'll find some that still beleive they were put their by satan, and some that believe they are just fictional.
To summarize the previous post I made into bite sized eazily digestible chunks:
1) God created a scientific world, set up the initial conditions and rarely intervenes in stopping it.
2) The main way he has at influencing actions, is through people. He didn't even intervene when his own son was being tortured. When people don't follow his will, evil things happen ( not the earthquake like some FUndies would say, but the shoddy living conditions in Haiti that facilitated the loss of life).
3) Good things can come from suffering. It can be redemptive. At some point everyone who is born into this world will suffer. Its how we react to our own and others suffering that can make this a good world.
To that, brand new to this post, in response to your post:
4) Man is not God. The meglomaniac you propose is trying to kill people. God is not. Even if the earthquake was caused by a man( and this has actually happened on a small scale due to oil and natural gas drilling), the most important thing in evaluating his actions would not be the result but the intent of the man. In our criminal justice system there are many different categories we can convict some one for killing another ( 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, manslaughter, reckless homicide, ect). The main difference in those is level of intent. If there is not intent at all to kill and it was truly an accident beyond their control we wouldn't convict them at all. (The great news is that God judges us the same way. You're only held accountable for what you knowingly do).
The bottom line is that your version of God, which for the umpteenth time, is not mine. And again you can choose not to believe in the one I believe in, but you won't get anywhere trying to convince me that I'm believing in the wrong God. You're trying to convince me that any God that does exist is evil. A notion that I reject out of hand. My God as I've laid out in these posts is a Good one that works through Science and the hearts of men.
Sorry for the brief earlier response. What I was objecting to, was your interpretation of the Bible. That is not my or my Fiath's interpretation of it.
There are two things that we coauld talka bout with regards to evil in Nature:
The event itself and the impact upon people.
Earthquakes, Floods, Hurracanes other natural disasters kill people. True enough. So do diseases, birth defects, and other random acts beyond control " Acts of God" according to the insurance companies.
Is a natural, not caused by human death an evil? I would say no, its not. Not if you believe the eternity of the soul. Some Christian theologians woudl say that its one of the punishments of original sin. But, we Catholics would view it as a diminished punishment due to the possibility of salvation.
Ok, what about suffering? Surely that is evil. Well, no, we would say that suffering need not be all negative. While we would not wish it upon anyone, it can be redemptive. It causes families to become closer. It causes people to care for other people. You can look at a disaster and the suffering and focus on the bad aspect of it: the suffering, or you can look at the response to it: the caring, the loving people who were previously strangers coming together to help each other. One of the things I really like about Catholicism, is its sense of Community. In a very real sense, we believe we are tied together as part of the Church. We are all in charge of caring for each other, not just other Catholics or other Christians, but all of us. Even those that have committed terrible deads, the possibility of redemption is always there. We were all created in the image of God, and all loved equally by him regardless of what we've done to destroy that relationship with him.
Now, does that mean there isn't any evil in disasters? No. There is this kind of evil:
The Haiti Earthquake was not a terrible earthquake in terms of the Richter scale. A few weeks later a larger earthquake struck Oregon state ( on our our 50 United ones for those not acquainted with US geography). Instead of 300,00 dead, there were 0. The poverty of the country, caused by many human factors starting back from the institution of slavery up to and including the dictators,drugs and corruption in the country created the shoddy buildings that collapsed causing the death and misery. The terrible hospitals, lack of medical care, clean water, jobs, food: those were caused by humans. The world didn't care enough about them. There leaders didn't care enough about them. That's the evil that was there, the lack of the world's love.
Of course, I respect your choice. How ever in response I would again argue that insted of arguing against what u believe you've created a divergent god to did believe in. you can't argue that I shouldn't believe in the god I believe in, based on your personal interpretation of a religion you don't believe in.
Free will is the ability to to reason, to make decisions. You've changed the definition to make your argument. As such there isn't much we can discuss unless we use the same terms.
But of course that isn't true. You'd care. We do care about much stupider things. Tv characters, shows, Operating systems, Cell phones, Video game systems, Unix Editors. Heck most of the stuff we didn't even personally create, but we still have flame wars over it.
Free will man, Free will. Personal responsibility is a bitch. If we couldn't choose to Not Love, we couldn't choose to Love. You can choose to see it from an atheist perspective (there is no god we have to do everything to ensure that Dalhmers do not exist, and if they do they are caught, or from a Christian position: WE are supposed to do the work of God, we should do everything to ensure that Dalhmers do not exist, and if they do they are caught.
But don't blame Christians for believing something they don't. We don't believe that God is superman who saves everyone from all evil. We believe he's more of a super manager who tels us what our role is, how to do it best, and to try our best.
A brilliant man once said " There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church." You are creating a God in your mind that is unworthy of your Love so that you can deny him with a clear conscious. I'm not sure why and should probably try to steer clear from further psychologically analyzing you, but I can tell you that the God I believe in can be scary. God is scary because he is unconditional love. And that unconditional love is tough to believe in, because we always find ourselves coming up short. Unconditional Love inspires and requires a response. A response we aren't always the best at giving as imperfect as we are. We don't always Love others the way we should. Our society is sick, we don't love each other the way we should. And on occasion we end up producing someone like Dalhmer. And we have no one to blame, but ourselves.
Not that you'll take this seriously, but ...
God is Good. A good dead, is a reflection of his nature. We are most like him, when we imitate him.
Every *good* thing. Evil is the absence of his will being done. Good things are accomplished by adhering to his will through our free will.
Just like Cold is the absence of Heat. So Evil is the absence of God. Luckily for us, there is a lot of God in even those who do not believe in Him.