>The point was not to argue the validity of Scripture; rather I am operting under the assumtion that it is Divinely inspired in the first place. Therefore, according to Scripture, you can't pick and choose
Thanks for clarifying the assumption; but it follows trivially from your assumption (that ALL of scripture is Divinely inspired) that ANY SUBSET of scripture is Divinely inspired.
You don't need to quote Timothy; just use set theory.
IIRC Matthew 23:40 notes that Scripture is massively redundant, and reduces swiftly to two Commanments. No-one's quite sure why God is so prolix.
You are quoting the document's claim for authority as proof of the document's authority. The logic is that, because the document says it is authentic, it is therefore authentic.
> would you rather have a wife that had slept with a dozen men, or one who had never lain with a man in her life. Maybe you would rather have the former, but I'll take the latter.
1. Obviously you've never slept with a virgin. Sex, like everything else, gets better with practice.
2. As for STDs, virginity gaurantee nothing. Kids know many ways to remain a virgin while exercising their hormones; and in fact apparantly kids who take the vow of virginity appear to have similar or worse rates of disease & unintended preganancy, because they tend not to take precautions against disease while engaging in risky behavior. If you're concerned about your fiancee having disease, you should have him/her get tested.... and expect them to want you to get tested too.
3. If you are marrying for love, none of this should be an issue. If you're marrying because you have a fantasy about deflowering a virgin on your wedding night, well, o.k. but that's not the same as love.
If I read the article correctly, it talks about business skills, whereas most of the comments so far relate to management.
They're not the same thing. Many of us would hate to be managers, and/or would suck at it, and that's o.k.
Entrepreneurship is a lot like that part of a MMPORG in which you go out and get the gold from the monsters; management is like keeping track of your inventory of potions & arrows. If you like the former and hate the latter, don't worry.... you're normal. You just need to admit you like being an entrepreneur, even if it's within the confines of your cubicle.
Fair 'nuf! I too enjoyed the movies, all of them, the same way I enjoy comic books: without shame and without expectations. And definitely not for the words balloons.
It must have been painful for the actors; perhaps they used the pub method as well.
With respect, I don't think the balance is one of numbers, or of power. What this 'balance' is, is not clearly stated in the movies. Ignoring any official backstory as developed in the books, comics and games (....on the grounds that I haven't read or played them) it seems clear from the movies is that the imbalance is caused by a because feature of the Jedi order: A Jedi Is Forbidden To Love An Individual.
This feature stunts the emotional development, in humans at least. Look at the "Wise" Mace Windu --- he has no idea that he is driving young skywalker to homicidal revolt. Even Yoda, when taken into Skywalkers, partial confidence, can't figure out that the basic problem is that the power and fear of love is wracking young Skywalker, something that any high school guidance counselor would instantly understand.
The Jedi may be swordsmasters, in turn with life and the universe, and generically in love with everything, but they don't understand the love of individuals built into each of us.
This imbalance that has an important 2ndary effect: it's breeding power over the force OUT of the Jedi line. At the end of the series, balance has been replaced as the surviving Jeni Leia is deeply in love Hans and the future Jedi order will have to give up on celebacy. Definitely an improvement, and all due to Anakim's homices.
Re:Visualisation is the only thing he's good at no
on
The New Force at Lucasfilm
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> The dialog sucks
Worse than sucks; it's unnecessary. If you eliminate the dialogue entirely, not much changes. It's that visual. The dialogue adds... not much positive.
Every word after Obi-Wan cuts off Skywalker's legs is a negative, e.g. "I loved you man!" is something no actor needs to say; it's evident from the acting. The worst lines in all six movies is when the dying Portman (shades of "Love Story") says, "I think I'll spoil one of the plots points of the next movie by telling the audience that Luke has a sister named Leia on Alderan."
The series is a lot of fun and makes "Lord of the Rings" look pretentious, but really: didn't Lucas ever watch Star Wars?
But, under Arrow's impossibility theorem, no voting system is perfectly "fair" - monotonic, non-dictatorial, et cetera ---- so long as there are at least 2 voters and 3 candidates.
If no perfect system is possible, that's sad, but no reason not to go for a system that's better than today's risible mess.
> It's a month past deadline and if I don't finish it by the end of next week, I'm fired
I'm sorry to say that you should spend the next week sending out resumes instead of putting in unpaid overtime.
An organization that abuses you that badly today will do it again tomorrow. Try to get a gig where they abuse you only during regular work hours.
If you have moral objections to that recommendation (after all, when I was in the same position as you, I ignored the same advice...), you should focus your efforts at getting the website to the point where it's a good example of your work, so when you start job hunting in 7+1 days, future employers will be impressed.
It seems to me thise thread has come an awefully long way from the original posting, to no good effect. Your argument is that gravity-wave communications are not practical because... something about fiber optics in your work area... well, ok. What-ever
Ben Franklin probably heard much the same thing about electricity.
>if your using one frequency nobody else on the planet can use the same frequency.
An interesting problem, to be sure. Frequency assignment (if that means anything to gravity-based communications) would have to be very broadly based indeed. Co-operative means for sharing bandwidth already exist in a variety of communications media (e.g. the internet).
> fiber-optics are an excellent example: you and I may not know how difficult the technology is, but we do know that it's still too expensive to justify using it to meet our personal comm needs.
How do you know that this very communication was not carried out via fiber optics?
>If it's hard to detect, wouldn't that make it hard for submarines, miners, and networks to actually use it?
No.
You would, of course, actually USE the system only if you had equipment that worked. The average user would not need to know how difficult it was to get the technology to work, any more than you or I need to know how difficult it was to get fiber-optics to work. The difficulty is in developing the technology, not using it.
Now I confess that I did mix up several applications: military, safety, and general-purpose networking. Military com would focus on the difficulty of picking out one particular gravity wave out of all the other gravity phenomena; safety (e.g. miners) would focus on the advantages of using gravity waves or gravitons to communicate in extreme environments; and general-purpose networking would have a 3rd set of priorities.
None of these are things that we will see tomorrow or even for a very long time; indeed they may never pay off; or they may be as common as candles some day... the same may be said for any other exotic technology, such as quantum computing.
Communications may be a more important application than spacecraft. If it is hard but possible to detect artificial gravity sources fluctuating at a particular frequency, we would have a transmitter/receiver pair that is (a) hard to detect; (b) not blocked by much of anything, e.g. usable by submarines, deep-shaft miners, and networks that don't want to either lay cable or launch satellites.
... back when I was a flunky for Coleco (remember Colecovision?) I was struck by the fact that the last line in nearly all their game documentation was something like: "The Thrill Of Discovery! This game has other features which you can discover by as you play."
At the time, I thought: Brilliant; if the game has bugs, no problem, it's just a "feature".
But now I think that actually, exploring the official, authorized, documented limits of a game or other toy to see where it acts in ways that the designer did not intend (...or at least, will not officially admit to intending...) can be as important a part of its play value as what you are "supposed to do" with it. For example, in AoE, making armies do stupid little dithering dances or carving forests into naughty words may be the same sort of unauthorized fun as dressing GI Joe in Barbie clothes or testing whether Bert or Earnie can fly the farthest.
> the fallacy of people thinking they can pick up a new language in a few hours, days, or even week
While I agree that part of the problem with trying to understand any technical document, whether engineering or legal, is the need for serious study of the relevant discipline's language, in my experience in the legal profession the prior poster is also correct that bad logic, holes, loose language and so forth is also very common in legal documents.
Part of the problem is that law is, unlike engineering, a contentious process. Compilers don't care whether the code has a trapdoor or not, but the other side in a legal negotiation does.
Another part of the problem is that there are no compilers for legal documents, to point out logical defects. Coding a contract is a process driven by human eyeballs which are highly falliable and expensive... especially in a contentious environment.
Even developing a data structure for the law is difficult. I used to have a marginal role in a process of developing XML for the legal realm and one of the biggest problems we had was finding an economic incentive for anyone to co-operate. The courts were happy to have anything that cut costs for them but not many other people had an incentive. I cannot begin to imagine the difficulties with pursuading a legislature to adopt a formal logic approach to its work-product, even though the benefits of parsable and understandable statutes would be immense.
>I guess that lawsuits based on ordinary language would be a disaster
...for much the same reason that software written in natural language can have difficulties.
Documents that describe how something should work out and the reasons for it, whether in the legal or the engineering realms, necessarily require technical jargon and precise structure, if they are to have predictable results. The legal "programming language suffers the grave disadvantage of having been crafted over centuries by thousands of people. Some of them were dickering in court, who were often interested in dealing with their particular case, and others were working in legislatures, who are often interested in something else entirely. The result is a language with the clarity of Assembler and the efficiency of COBOL.
All this effort, and the results may still not be substantively just, but after all engineers too can have difficulty making clear specs conform to what the customer wants. What can ya do?
P.S. your "pro se/prose" observation was delightful!
>the comic was renamed over 2 years ago and BoingBoing's most recent blurb was merely there to announce that Marvel and DC, by sponsoring a science show, got Superhero(TM) included in one of the flyers.
Slashdot Mirror
>The point was not to argue the validity of Scripture; rather I am operting under the assumtion that it is Divinely inspired in the first place. Therefore, according to Scripture, you can't pick and choose
Thanks for clarifying the assumption; but it follows trivially from your assumption (that ALL of scripture is Divinely inspired) that ANY SUBSET of scripture is Divinely inspired.
You don't need to quote Timothy; just use set theory.
IIRC Matthew 23:40 notes that Scripture is massively redundant, and reduces swiftly to two Commanments. No-one's quite sure why God is so prolix.
You are quoting the document's claim for authority as proof of the document's authority. The logic is that, because the document says it is authentic, it is therefore authentic.
Don't you see a little problem with your logic?
> would you rather have a wife that had slept with a dozen men, or one who had never lain with a man in her life. Maybe you would rather have the former, but I'll take the latter.
1. Obviously you've never slept with a virgin. Sex, like everything else, gets better with practice.
2. As for STDs, virginity gaurantee nothing. Kids know many ways to remain a virgin while exercising their hormones; and in fact apparantly kids who take the vow of virginity appear to have similar or worse rates of disease & unintended preganancy, because they tend not to take precautions against disease while engaging in risky behavior. If you're concerned about your fiancee having disease, you should have him/her get tested.... and expect them to want you to get tested too.
3. If you are marrying for love, none of this should be an issue. If you're marrying because you have a fantasy about deflowering a virgin on your wedding night, well, o.k. but that's not the same as love.
If I read the article correctly, it talks about business skills, whereas most of the comments so far relate to management.
They're not the same thing. Many of us would hate to be managers, and/or would suck at it, and that's o.k.
Entrepreneurship is a lot like that part of a MMPORG in which you go out and get the gold from the monsters; management is like keeping track of your inventory of potions & arrows. If you like the former and hate the latter, don't worry .... you're normal. You just need to admit you like being an entrepreneur, even if it's within the confines of your cubicle.
.kids = gauranteed to be kid-friendly (whatever THAT means)
.xxx = gauranteed to be porn-friendly (whatever THAT means)
.com = no garauntees
The only problem is figuring out who backs the garauntees but I suppose that's why you have registration fees
On the plus side: his kids are learning how to hide their googling from Authority.
Fair 'nuf! I too enjoyed the movies, all of them, the same way I enjoy comic books: without shame and without expectations. And definitely not for the words balloons.
It must have been painful for the actors; perhaps they used the pub method as well.
>There are many systems better than plurality voting
Such as ????
> balance to the Force
With respect, I don't think the balance is one of numbers, or of power. What this 'balance' is, is not clearly stated in the movies. Ignoring any official backstory as developed in the books, comics and games (....on the grounds that I haven't read or played them) it seems clear from the movies is that the imbalance is caused by a because feature of the Jedi order: A Jedi Is Forbidden To Love An Individual.
This feature stunts the emotional development, in humans at least. Look at the "Wise" Mace Windu --- he has no idea that he is driving young skywalker to homicidal revolt. Even Yoda, when taken into Skywalkers, partial confidence, can't figure out that the basic problem is that the power and fear of love is wracking young Skywalker, something that any high school guidance counselor would instantly understand.
The Jedi may be swordsmasters, in turn with life and the universe, and generically in love with everything, but they don't understand the love of individuals built into each of us.
This imbalance that has an important 2ndary effect: it's breeding power over the force OUT of the Jedi line. At the end of the series, balance has been replaced as the surviving Jeni Leia is deeply in love Hans and the future Jedi order will have to give up on celebacy. Definitely an improvement, and all due to Anakim's homices.
> The dialog sucks
Worse than sucks; it's unnecessary. If you eliminate the dialogue entirely, not much changes. It's that visual. The dialogue adds ... not much positive.
Every word after Obi-Wan cuts off Skywalker's legs is a negative, e.g. "I loved you man!" is something no actor needs to say; it's evident from the acting. The worst lines in all six movies is when the dying Portman (shades of "Love Story") says, "I think I'll spoil one of the plots points of the next movie by telling the audience that Luke has a sister named Leia on Alderan."
The series is a lot of fun and makes "Lord of the Rings" look pretentious, but really: didn't Lucas ever watch Star Wars?
But, under Arrow's impossibility theorem, no voting system is perfectly "fair" - monotonic, non-dictatorial, et cetera ---- so long as there are at least 2 voters and 3 candidates.
If no perfect system is possible, that's sad, but no reason not to go for a system that's better than today's risible mess.
> It's a month past deadline and if I don't finish it by the end of next week, I'm fired
I'm sorry to say that you should spend the next week sending out resumes instead of putting in unpaid overtime.
An organization that abuses you that badly today will do it again tomorrow. Try to get a gig where they abuse you only during regular work hours.
If you have moral objections to that recommendation (after all, when I was in the same position as you, I ignored the same advice...), you should focus your efforts at getting the website to the point where it's a good example of your work, so when you start job hunting in 7+1 days, future employers will be impressed.
>It seems to me that fiber is still to expensive
It seems to me thise thread has come an awefully long way from the original posting, to no good effect. Your argument is that gravity-wave communications are not practical because ... something about fiber optics in your work area ... well, ok. What-ever
Ben Franklin probably heard much the same thing about electricity.
>if your using one frequency nobody else on the planet can use the same frequency.
An interesting problem, to be sure. Frequency assignment (if that means anything to gravity-based communications) would have to be very broadly based indeed. Co-operative means for sharing bandwidth already exist in a variety of communications media (e.g. the internet).
> fiber-optics are an excellent example: you and I may not know how difficult the technology is, but we do know that it's still too expensive to justify using it to meet our personal comm needs.
How do you know that this very communication was not carried out via fiber optics?
>If it's hard to detect, wouldn't that make it hard for submarines, miners, and networks to actually use it?
No.
You would, of course, actually USE the system only if you had equipment that worked. The average user would not need to know how difficult it was to get the technology to work, any more than you or I need to know how difficult it was to get fiber-optics to work. The difficulty is in developing the technology, not using it.
Now I confess that I did mix up several applications: military, safety, and general-purpose networking. Military com would focus on the difficulty of picking out one particular gravity wave out of all the other gravity phenomena; safety (e.g. miners) would focus on the advantages of using gravity waves or gravitons to communicate in extreme environments; and general-purpose networking would have a 3rd set of priorities.
None of these are things that we will see tomorrow or even for a very long time; indeed they may never pay off; or they may be as common as candles some day ... the same may be said for any other exotic technology, such as quantum computing.
Communications may be a more important application than spacecraft. If it is hard but possible to detect artificial gravity sources fluctuating at a particular frequency, we would have a transmitter/receiver pair that is (a) hard to detect; (b) not blocked by much of anything, e.g. usable by submarines, deep-shaft miners, and networks that don't want to either lay cable or launch satellites.
It should be an awefully short video!
It's a little-known Phact that holo-technology was originally developed as a sort of virtual answering machine, e.g.
Wesley: Captain Picard, will you talk to me?
Holo-Picard: Sure, sonny, what do you want?
Real Picard: (Snoozes)
Parent: "ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME?"
Teenager: " Uh, yeah, dad. You're right!"
At the time, I thought: Brilliant; if the game has bugs, no problem, it's just a "feature".
But now I think that actually, exploring the official, authorized, documented limits of a game or other toy to see where it acts in ways that the designer did not intend (...or at least, will not officially admit to intending ...) can be as important a part of its play value as what you are "supposed to do" with it. For example, in AoE, making armies do stupid little dithering dances or carving forests into naughty words may be the same sort of unauthorized fun as dressing GI Joe in Barbie clothes or testing whether Bert or Earnie can fly the farthest.
>Parsing failed: unterminated string
True ... and funny ... and a little more evidence of me point!
> the fallacy of people thinking they can pick up a new language in a few hours, days, or even week
While I agree that part of the problem with trying to understand any technical document, whether engineering or legal, is the need for serious study of the relevant discipline's language, in my experience in the legal profession the prior poster is also correct that bad logic, holes, loose language and so forth is also very common in legal documents.
Part of the problem is that law is, unlike engineering, a contentious process. Compilers don't care whether the code has a trapdoor or not, but the other side in a legal negotiation does.
Another part of the problem is that there are no compilers for legal documents, to point out logical defects. Coding a contract is a process driven by human eyeballs which are highly falliable and expensive ... especially in a contentious environment.
Even developing a data structure for the law is difficult. I used to have a marginal role in a process of developing XML for the legal realm and one of the biggest problems we had was finding an economic incentive for anyone to co-operate. The courts were happy to have anything that cut costs for them but not many other people had an incentive. I cannot begin to imagine the difficulties with pursuading a legislature to adopt a formal logic approach to its work-product, even though the benefits of parsable and understandable statutes would be immense.
>I guess that lawsuits based on ordinary language would be a disaster
...for much the same reason that software written in natural language can have difficulties.
Documents that describe how something should work out and the reasons for it, whether in the legal or the engineering realms, necessarily require technical jargon and precise structure, if they are to have predictable results. The legal "programming language suffers the grave disadvantage of having been crafted over centuries by thousands of people. Some of them were dickering in court, who were often interested in dealing with their particular case, and others were working in legislatures, who are often interested in something else entirely. The result is a language with the clarity of Assembler and the efficiency of COBOL.
All this effort, and the results may still not be substantively just, but after all engineers too can have difficulty making clear specs conform to what the customer wants. What can ya do?
P.S. your "pro se/prose" observation was delightful!
... and noticed something I did not:
>the comic was renamed over 2 years ago and BoingBoing's most recent blurb was merely there to announce that Marvel and DC, by sponsoring a science show, got Superhero(TM) included in one of the flyers.
I *HATE* that!
But, as you say, the article links to a posting dated 01-30-2004 . So why is this news?