Not at all. I was merely stating that much of religion, especially Christianity, is built upon the belief that if you don't have it, you are lacking. I disagree. Personal improvement is fun.
But if you don't have something, you are lacking it, right? 'Tis the definition of not having something. Little fallacy, there. I agree that personal improvement is fun, and good for you, too! That's something you don't find often.;)
Grace is the lady who walks by and says "Oh, you're o.k., you make it to heaven." right? Is that the same grace that the Catholic church was selling around the first turning of millenia? Maybe you could define it better.
Sort of. Grace is the thing which allows Forgiveness, which must be accepted or denied. The Catholic Church was selling slips of paper (or whatever) that supposedly guaranteed the buyer forgiveness for some number of sins, depending on how much was spent on the indulgence. As a Lutheran (not to mention a human being), I have a big problem with the Catholic Church's history and present.
Forgiveness. An interesting concept, especially how it was taught to me. Basically, Christ paid already for all my sins and all I need to ask him to forgive me for causing him such pain, right? Or is it my fellow man I should be asking forgiveness of?
The best answer I can think of for your questions is that you are accountable to your fellow humans until you die, then you are accountable to God alone. What you have done to your fellow humans applies to your accountance to God. Don't have my Bible handy to point you at a good parable, but the general idea is showing love and kindness to your fellow humans is showing love and kindness to God. Giving pain and hatred to your fellow humans is doing the same to God.
I think polite is the way to go, you get more bees with honey after all. Being nice to people happens to be a tenet of my own beliefs, outside of religion. I've just found that it works better for me, ya'know Karma and all.
Ah, Karma, that wonderful mechanism of accountability. Familiar concept...
Well at least I'll have all the suffering in the world to throw back in his face. I mean he created it, right?
The Creation, initially, was perfect. All the suffering in the world is created by ourselves against ourselves. Free will is a two-edged sword.
Trying not to be cynical here, but c'mon, even your nick pays homage to an earlier mythology. Guardian of the Gates of Hell, the 3-headed dog.
Heh. "Cerberus" is a name I first used as my call-sign in Wing Commander. I'm kinda attatched to it now...*schniff*...Blue Hair...
Don't you see an alarming number of similarities with ancient "mythology" and your own beliefs?
Not alarming at all. Comforting, actually. It shows that all of humanity has been searching for a Universal Truth. Different peoples have found different pieces of that Universal Truth. My personal believe is that Christanity, in its true form, is the closest (so far) to that Universal Truth. Thus, there isn't very much you'll find in Christianity that you won't find in other religions and philosophies.
nope we aren't, but this is the first time I've said it to you, and vice-versa.
I was hoping you'd say that.:)
I doubt a consensus can be reached between us, arguing faith is a joke 'cause it all comes down to what you believe, reality be damned.:-)
Yup. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that faith is a big part of all people, regardless if they recognize it. Was there really a guy named Aristotle in Greece who came up with all sorts of ideas about the nature of the universe? Prove it. At some point, you have to admit because you believe something.
Personally I'd rather live a happy honest life by my own rules rather than those of people whose true motivations I can't know, i.e. if we met, unless you asked, you'd probably think I have the same value set as yourself (outside of religion).
Ah, Universal Truth is a wonderful thing, is it not? "To thine own self be true" is a good motto, but try not to take it too far. In all things, moderation.
Have a nice day!
And you.:)
You're a refreshing breeze, Wah. Most of the people I've encountered in such discussions are zealous butt-munches. It's good to see so much Universal Truth in you. I have hope, yet.:)
It can't really be considered fair that the USA is under/not represented in ICANN. The comment from Thomas Bliley states the case best: "...the United States still has the majority of Internet users and businesses..."
Because of this, it is only fair that the United States have at the very least some say in ICANN, if not a majority position, because the desicions made by ICANN will affect the United States more than any other country.
Off-beat example here: Say you come up with a "Wonderful New Idea" (tm), which brings forth the "Next Big Thing" (tm). You start a company. Your "Next Big Thing" (tm) grows beyond measure and becomes used by people around the world to the point of being taken for granted. You still expect to have the greatest say in what track your "Next Big Thing" takes in its evolution, right? WRONG. The "World Colloquium" (making this up as I go along) decides that there should be an independent body to govern its evolution. OK, we can handle that, it's fair to the users of the "Next Big Thing" to guide its progress. So, you expect to be in this independent governing body, right? No. Well, maybe you can get your best friend on it? No. How about Barney down the street? No. Your invention is now controlled by somebody else, and you have no say in it at all, but sure, you'll still upkeep the infrastructure. You're that nice of a guy, after all.
Granted, this is over-simplified, and perhaps a bit silly (that's my disclaimer), but it's an approximation of what no American representation in ICANN is akin to.
Giving thanks. Showing appreciation. It's courtesy, after all, to thank somebody who has given you a gift, especially one you truly enjoy. It would be inhuman to do otherwise.
How one does that, exactly, is different for different people. I seem to remember a part in the Bible where it is said that showing love in your life is showing love for God because God is love. But, who among us truly does live a life of love?
That's a big part of what I don't like. It's rather like a repetitive TV commercial, constantly telling you that you are inferior and need something extra to be better, or just good. And by jove, the church can give it to you.
So you disagree that people should constantly strive to be better than they are, knowing that nobody can ever be perfect? "Nobody's perfect" is a common social phrase, yet people are always, religious or not, trying to make themselves better.
The church can't give anything to you beyond a support system, a social entity.
Except that it's not okay, that's the constant teaching, "You are fundamentally bad, you are a sinner, repent and beg for forgiveness."
That's what it would be without Grace. With Grace, it's much different.
You forgot they have to ACCEPT it. I've heard this story before. It's how you can account for condemning (in life) everyone who is not christian (if they don't worship the One True God (tm), they are evil), while at the same time praying for their immortal souls (after life).
"Do not judge, lest ye be judged." That means condemning you or anybody else is against my beliefs. And yes, I will pray for your soul. I will weep if you don't accept Forgiveness. My problem with people of your position is that they're so against accepting a gift, simply saying "thank-you," and moving on from there. Is it really so hard to say "thank-you?" Are you so absorbed in this physical shell that you can't think beyond it?
Worshiping God has nothing to do with being evil or good. I has everything to do with being polite (ohmegoodness I have no right to tell people to be polite).
It's quite obvious to me that you will never be convinced of anything beyond your view. I have no right to force-feed you anything. All I can do is state my case and move on. It's your task to do what you want with it.
Oh, and "BIG BOLD LETTERS" meaning when you're cowering in the presence of the Creator, seeing all the wrong things you've done, the pain you've caused to your fellow humans and God, and have to face the consequences. Fortunately for us, there's Grace and Forgiveness.:)
BTW, neither of us is saying anything that hasn't been said before. Just remember that when you are irrevocably faced with the Truth that you were told beforehand, many many times. That's my "I told you so" warning.;>
It means that humans by nature are bad/evil, and will always be so. Our task is to be better than that, to always try to be better than we are, to be more than we are. Our task is to live a life of love and do our best to forsake evil. We will fail, guaranteed, but that is what things like Grace and Forgiveness are about.
It's all about being the best you can be, but accepting that you can never be perfect and that's okay.
The other way to look at Grace and Forgiveness is to say "since I'm never going to be perfect, I'll just run around killing and raping and accept that there forgiveness when it's offered." That's wrong. The person who says that is not even trying to live a life of love and becomes inelligible for Forgiveness and Grace.
For the non-Christian, who may have deeply-set antipathy towards Christianity or religion in general, can still choose to live a life of love. If they do, at the time of judgement they will be presented with the Truth in BIG BOLD LETTERS, see it for reality, and will be sheltered in Grace and Forgiveness.
Disclaimer: This post is not complete, nor an answer for "Life, the Universe, and Everything." Rather, it is intended to spark something in the reader. For each, it will be different.
The guy seemed like an idiot, so I don't really trust this rumor, but I'll toss it out just in case somebody else has heard it and knows more.
I heard that there's a full port to Linux of the complete Half-Life game, the code being derived from the dedicated-server port. If this has been done, the dependencies on MFCs can't be all that heavy (or lots and lots of people spent all their free time on the project).
I really don't buy this for several reasons, but there ya have it. Rumor mill!
Call me strange, but I was curious, so I roughly calculated the volume of a AA battery and a AAA battery. These are not *perfect* measurements, but they're close enough.
I've never popped open a Palm device, so keep in mind that this is mere conjecture based on external observation.:)
It's a space concern. It may seem like a small deal to up the battery size to AA, but when you look at a Palm Pilot, it's very small. One of their big selling points is size and portability. Increasing the battery size would involve at the very least an increase in thickness, possibly an increase in width and/or height. When you're gunning to have the best size-usability-power ratio in the biz, every millimeter counts.
It's the same deal with CPU marketing. "Yes, that extra $400 is worth 150MHz!"
So, while you may be getting twice as many mWH, that may not necessarily be enough to justify an increase in volume because your target is to produce a product with very low volume.
Non-Christians can't tell who a real Christian is without knowing the teachings of Christ. Same goes for all other groups. You can't really know them until you know their beliefs. When you know and understand what their beliefs are supposed to be, you have a chance of identifying the "true believers" and the hypocrites.
Televangelists don't know everything. They are, for the most part, and IMHO, the Pharisees and Sadducees of the modern day. People listen to them because they're on television.
"If it's on T.V.....IT MUST BE TRUE!" -Garfield and Friends
The teachings of the Apostles should never supercede the teachings of Christ. A Christian should keep in mind that the non-Gospel books of the NT are, for the most part, letters to a specific group of people. There's good stuff in them, but always try to remember who they were written for originally and keep the focus on Christ.
Anyhow, from personal experience, I believe 5th grade (age 10) is a good place to start for most children, though a child should be given the choice about when and if they begin to learn programming.
In my elementary school, the kids with the 15 highest SAT scores were started in a GT program and a computer class in 2nd grade. The GT class was an english/lit. class, and the computer class was mostly logic games and simple graphics on some old Apples. Once we hit 4th grade, the computer class was no longer available because they wanted to use it for the younger kids. During those two years that I was in that class, though, I spent time on my own learning BASIC. Once that class was not a part of my life anymore, I stopped learning programming and focused more on the things my school was teaching me. I didn't see a line of code again until 11th grade, when the first of 2 programming courses was available to me; a BASIC class. The following year was a PASCAL class.
That's far too late, IMHO, as I look back on it all. They should've been teaching us BASIC in 2nd grade, then PASCAL in 4th grade. We probably would've gotten through C by 7th grade and been able to start doing much more advanced programming with database interraction for that "delinquency tracking system" the high school admins wanted us to write in senior year after only two months of learning PASCAL.
Yes, kids who are really motivated and are willing to devote gobs of spare time to learning programming can do it all on their own. Others of us, though, may be interested in programming, but not enough to give up the other studies we like or sacrifice valuable childhood time (iow, playing, which is very valuable). We need a guiding force as a part of our curriculum.
>>> In so far as "stealing code" I don't see where "stealing" comes into the picture unless you >>> define Linux as "stealing" it as well. >> >> Nothing derogatory was meant by "steal." I'd have a lot less respect for *BSD (or Linux, for that matter) >> if you refused to use the code and instead tried to implement it from the ground up.
> Here's where I take exception to you, Anonymous Coward, that's quite a strong accusation "stealing code", I > expected you to back down when I called you on it.
>>> Hypocrite, if it bothers you so then go closed source. >> >> See above. You totally misunderstood me.
> What do you mean "see above"? You said "stealing code" you didn't apologize for it, you say I misunderstand you? > No, I totally see through you, you are a flame spouting weenie without the courage to put a name behind your weak > accusations.
OK guys, time-out here. This senseless flame-skirmish is based upon poor word choice, inaccurate perception, and bad explaination. Arguments are one thing, but when they go nuts like this for no good reason, I feel a need to step in.
Anonymous Coward is guilty of poor word choice ("stealing code"). When called on it, s/he's guilty of bad explainations; one sentence that didn't quite convey what s/he meant it to, which I perceived as "I'm using this word very lightly with a grin on my face, not in a serious 'criminal theft' sense", which contributed substantially to Alfred Perlstein's inaccurate perception.
Hopefully you two will look at this situation differently now. Or flame me for butting in.;>
> Nothing derogatory meant by "weenie" of course.:)
ROTFL! I just thought that line was very funny in the midst of this mess.:)
I agree, Lucas is a much better moviemaker that sci-fi writer (though he's not all that bad a writer, either, IMHO).
I honestly have never read anything by David Brin besides his article and response. He hasn't impressed me with his arguments, but I'll see about reading one of his books. Do you have any recommendations?
Your view of Lucas's story-telling ability wasn't my problem. My problem with David Brin was that he basically said "this is a horrible story that is a bad influence for children and its story-model has no place in modern society." So, no flames for you.:)
SROTFLMAO! Oh, you're so clever! So funny! Hahahahaha.:P
Alrighty, now. Don't you dare presume to understand me. If you had actually gotten close, I would have been impressed. You're not even in the same galaxy.
Yes, I'm attached to my childhood. Why? Because that was before shit started happening. The best times of my life were my first 7 years. If I value that too much, that's my concern. If you think I should forget the happiest moments of my life, you can go suck a horse's dick. Those memories are what keep me sane.
I value the shit, too. Why? That's what made me out-grow my peers. That's why I'm in a far better position in life than any of them today. I became an adult far earlier than they.
I don't think that Star Wars is "the greatest art-work of modern civilisation" (that's a title I'd reserve for something else), but I do think it's a valuable part of our culture, especially for children. It teaches responsibility, love, honesty, patience; all the lessons of the old legends. And it instills a drive within them to learn more about life and what this is all about. I think that it's important to have those lessons presented in new and different ways, otherwise people end up "going through the motions."
I don't see why it's wrong. It may be painful to have your childhood beliefs and ideals criticized but that doesn't may the criticism invalid. By your argument, no one should criticize apartheid or segregation because for some people deeply believed those priniciples as children.
You miss the point deeply. (Reader is assumed to be capable of understanding sub-surface meaning)
BTW, if you can rip Brin's arguments without trying, do so instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks on his character.
Alright, you asked for it. I'll keep this short and just cut/paste out of my rebuttal to his article. Enjoy.
I disagree with your "bill-of-sale" list. Here's why:
"Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow."
Not so. The situation in the original trilogy is one where a tyrant rules the galaxy with an iron fist. There are those who embrace it, those who oppose it, and those who are too scared to. None of the main good-guy characters are in charge of the Rebel Alliance, though some hold influential positions within it. The whole of the trilogy is a story about a farm-boy, a smuggler, and a politician who go beyond their normal existence to do something extraordinary. They're "common citizens" who rise to the occasion to do something good with their talents.
"'Good' elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability."
I don't understand where you got that from. There's plenty of accountability for acting on whim. Luke, when he goes on impulse to try and help Han and Leia, ends up doing nothing for them and loses his hand. If that's not a good example of accountability, I don't know what is. That's actually the only "impulsive" act I can recall in all of the movies at the moment, though I'm sure there are others.
"Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough."
No. Forgiveness can be had if you are genuinely in your heart regretful for your sins, and that still doesn't save you from punishment. Vader, just before his death, casts off the Dark Side from him and again joins the Light. In that moment, he feels all the pain and suffering he caused, and regrets deeply. Then, he dies. That's the price he pays for all his sin. He returns to the Light, to his son, only to die, not having the chance to spend some real time with his children; to know them. Punishment, yes?
"True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited."
Nope. Force-sensitivity is hereditary to a degree, not leadership. Luke serves as a subordinate in a flight group in the first movie, then as a leader of one in the first part of the second, but is off on his own after that. Leia is a Senator, so she's been trained to be a leader. Han and Lando, who's lineages we know nothing about, are leaders (of sorts) from the moment we meet them. If you're referring to Queen Amidala, that's wrong, too. She was elected.
"Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil."
No. Using the Force in anger and hate *can* consume you. Look at Obi-Wan at the end of TPM. He goes practically berserk and almost loses to Darth Maul. When he's hanging on the edge, he calms himself, thinks of what to do, and does it. He didn't use his anger and hate (which are parts of the Dark Side) to kill Darth Maul. This is a mostly Force-user-specific issue, though there is a relevant message here to normals. The message is to think clearly and don't act solely on anger and hate. Doing so is naturally dangerous to yourself and others around you.
Nah, I'll just make my own response to his response and send it to him. This guy was REALLY asking for trouble when he wrote his article (which sucked, IMHO), and seems to be exhibiting masochistic behavior with his response.
Honestly, there's not a single argument of his that I can't rip to shreds without even trying. Is it even worth letting him know how stupid he is? He's the kind of person who is actively trying to hate Star Wars (and succeeding), while trying to convince other people that his opinion is the right one with big fancy literary arguments (which are just opinions wrapped in long words), revealing unforgivable plot holes (which aren't really holes if you think about it for a minute or two), and exposing a horribly flawed moral example (because the idiot just plain didn't get it).
Yes, I like Star Wars. Yes, I liked TPM (because I went into it with a 7-year-old mind-set). No, I didn't really like Jar-Jar, but most characters in the film felt the same way I did about him (because he was SUPPOSED to be annoying, dammit!). I have a problem with morons like this shouting to the mountains how much they dislike (hate/rancor) Star Wars. Why? because it was a big part of my childhood. I grew up with this stuff. It's like they're saying "your childhood was full of shit." That's insulting, and wrong.
Anyhow, I'm off to write my response to a flawed response to flaming letters to a stupid article.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, no! That was almost the perfect joke!
Try this...
The Blur Jpeg Project
So we name it "Skut," the reverse pronunciation of "Tux." It's an anti-homonymn!!!
Write the two names next to each other and you'll blow your writing utencil to the moon as they mutually-annihilate.
Heh.
Not at all. I was merely stating that much of religion, especially Christianity, is built upon the belief that if you don't have it, you are lacking. I disagree. Personal improvement is fun.
;)
:)
:-)
:)
:)
But if you don't have something, you are lacking it, right? 'Tis the definition of not having something. Little fallacy, there. I agree that personal improvement is fun, and good for you, too! That's something you don't find often.
Grace is the lady who walks by and says "Oh, you're o.k., you make it to heaven." right? Is that the same grace that the Catholic church was selling around the first turning of millenia? Maybe you could define it better.
Sort of. Grace is the thing which allows Forgiveness, which must be accepted or denied. The Catholic Church was selling slips of paper (or whatever) that supposedly guaranteed the buyer forgiveness for some number of sins, depending on how much was spent on the indulgence. As a Lutheran (not to mention a human being), I have a big problem with the Catholic Church's history and present.
Forgiveness. An interesting concept, especially how it was taught to me. Basically, Christ paid already for all my sins and all I need to ask him to forgive me for causing him such pain, right? Or is it my fellow man I should be asking forgiveness of?
The best answer I can think of for your questions is that you are accountable to your fellow humans until you die, then you are accountable to God alone. What you have done to your fellow humans applies to your accountance to God. Don't have my Bible handy to point you at a good parable, but the general idea is showing love and kindness to your fellow humans is showing love and kindness to God. Giving pain and hatred to your fellow humans is doing the same to God.
I think polite is the way to go, you get more bees with honey after all. Being nice to people happens to be a tenet of my own beliefs, outside of religion. I've just found that it works better for me, ya'know Karma and all.
Ah, Karma, that wonderful mechanism of accountability. Familiar concept...
Well at least I'll have all the suffering in the world to throw back in his face. I mean he created it, right?
The Creation, initially, was perfect. All the suffering in the world is created by ourselves against ourselves. Free will is a two-edged sword.
Trying not to be cynical here, but c'mon, even your nick pays homage to an earlier mythology. Guardian of the Gates of Hell, the 3-headed dog.
Heh. "Cerberus" is a name I first used as my call-sign in Wing Commander. I'm kinda attatched to it now...*schniff*...Blue Hair...
Don't you see an alarming number of similarities with ancient "mythology" and your own beliefs?
Not alarming at all. Comforting, actually. It shows that all of humanity has been searching for a Universal Truth. Different peoples have found different pieces of that Universal Truth. My personal believe is that Christanity, in its true form, is the closest (so far) to that Universal Truth. Thus, there isn't very much you'll find in Christianity that you won't find in other religions and philosophies.
nope we aren't, but this is the first time I've said it to you, and vice-versa.
I was hoping you'd say that.
I doubt a consensus can be reached between us, arguing faith is a joke 'cause it all comes down to what you believe, reality be damned.
Yup. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that faith is a big part of all people, regardless if they recognize it. Was there really a guy named Aristotle in Greece who came up with all sorts of ideas about the nature of the universe? Prove it.
At some point, you have to admit because you believe something.
Personally I'd rather live a happy honest life by my own rules rather than those of people whose true motivations I can't know, i.e. if we met, unless you asked, you'd probably think I have the same value set as yourself (outside of religion).
Ah, Universal Truth is a wonderful thing, is it not? "To thine own self be true" is a good motto, but try not to take it too far. In all things, moderation.
Have a nice day!
And you.
You're a refreshing breeze, Wah. Most of the people I've encountered in such discussions are zealous butt-munches. It's good to see so much Universal Truth in you. I have hope, yet.
It can't really be considered fair that the USA is under/not represented in ICANN. The comment from Thomas Bliley states the case best: "...the United States still has the majority of Internet users and businesses..."
Because of this, it is only fair that the United States have at the very least some say in ICANN, if not a majority position, because the desicions made by ICANN will affect the United States more than any other country.
Off-beat example here: Say you come up with a "Wonderful New Idea" (tm), which brings forth the "Next Big Thing" (tm). You start a company. Your "Next Big Thing" (tm) grows beyond measure and becomes used by people around the world to the point of being taken for granted. You still expect to have the greatest say in what track your "Next Big Thing" takes in its evolution, right? WRONG. The "World Colloquium" (making this up as I go along) decides that there should be an independent body to govern its evolution. OK, we can handle that, it's fair to the users of the "Next Big Thing" to guide its progress. So, you expect to be in this independent governing body, right? No. Well, maybe you can get your best friend on it? No. How about Barney down the street? No. Your invention is now controlled by somebody else, and you have no say in it at all, but sure, you'll still upkeep the infrastructure. You're that nice of a guy, after all.
Granted, this is over-simplified, and perhaps a bit silly (that's my disclaimer), but it's an approximation of what no American representation in ICANN is akin to.
Giving thanks. Showing appreciation. It's courtesy, after all, to thank somebody who has given you a gift, especially one you truly enjoy. It would be inhuman to do otherwise.
How one does that, exactly, is different for different people. I seem to remember a part in the Bible where it is said that showing love in your life is showing love for God because God is love. But, who among us truly does live a life of love?
That's a big part of what I don't like. It's rather like a repetitive TV commercial, constantly telling you that you are inferior and need something extra to be better, or just good. And by jove, the church can give it to you.
So you disagree that people should constantly strive to be better than they are, knowing that nobody can ever be perfect? "Nobody's perfect" is a common social phrase, yet people are always, religious or not, trying to make themselves better.
The church can't give anything to you beyond a support system, a social entity.
Except that it's not okay, that's the constant teaching, "You are fundamentally bad, you are a sinner, repent and beg for forgiveness."
That's what it would be without Grace. With Grace, it's much different.You forgot they have to ACCEPT it. I've heard this story before. It's how you can account for condemning (in life) everyone who is not christian (if they don't worship the One True God (tm), they are evil), while at the same time praying for their immortal souls (after life).
"Do not judge, lest ye be judged." That means condemning you or anybody else is against my beliefs. And yes, I will pray for your soul. I will weep if you don't accept Forgiveness. My problem with people of your position is that they're so against accepting a gift, simply saying "thank-you," and moving on from there. Is it really so hard to say "thank-you?" Are you so absorbed in this physical shell that you can't think beyond it?
Worshiping God has nothing to do with being evil or good. I has everything to do with being polite (ohmegoodness I have no right to tell people to be polite).
It's quite obvious to me that you will never be convinced of anything beyond your view. I have no right to force-feed you anything. All I can do is state my case and move on. It's your task to do what you want with it.
Oh, and "BIG BOLD LETTERS" meaning when you're cowering in the presence of the Creator, seeing all the wrong things you've done, the pain you've caused to your fellow humans and God, and have to face the consequences. Fortunately for us, there's Grace and Forgiveness. :)
BTW, neither of us is saying anything that hasn't been said before. Just remember that when you are irrevocably faced with the Truth that you were told beforehand, many many times. That's my "I told you so" warning. ;>
It means that humans by nature are bad/evil, and will always be so. Our task is to be better than that, to always try to be better than we are, to be more than we are. Our task is to live a life of love and do our best to forsake evil. We will fail, guaranteed, but that is what things like Grace and Forgiveness are about.
It's all about being the best you can be, but accepting that you can never be perfect and that's okay.
The other way to look at Grace and Forgiveness is to say "since I'm never going to be perfect, I'll just run around killing and raping and accept that there forgiveness when it's offered." That's wrong. The person who says that is not even trying to live a life of love and becomes inelligible for Forgiveness and Grace.
For the non-Christian, who may have deeply-set antipathy towards Christianity or religion in general, can still choose to live a life of love. If they do, at the time of judgement they will be presented with the Truth in BIG BOLD LETTERS, see it for reality, and will be sheltered in Grace and Forgiveness.
Disclaimer: This post is not complete, nor an answer for "Life, the Universe, and Everything." Rather, it is intended to spark something in the reader. For each, it will be different.
(side note: If anything divided by infinity is zero, shouldn't anything divided by zero be infinity?)
It is. On a cartesian x-y plot, something with a slope y/0 is a vertical line. Called "undefined," it is infinity (well, the slope anyhow).
The guy seemed like an idiot, so I don't really trust this rumor, but I'll toss it out just in case somebody else has heard it and knows more.
I heard that there's a full port to Linux of the complete Half-Life game, the code being derived from the dedicated-server port. If this has been done, the dependencies on MFCs can't be all that heavy (or lots and lots of people spent all their free time on the project).
I really don't buy this for several reasons, but there ya have it. Rumor mill!
I've never popped open a Palm device, so keep in mind that this is mere conjecture based on external observation. :)
:)
It's a space concern. It may seem like a small deal to up the battery size to AA, but when you look at a Palm Pilot, it's very small. One of their big selling points is size and portability. Increasing the battery size would involve at the very least an increase in thickness, possibly an increase in width and/or height. When you're gunning to have the best size-usability-power ratio in the biz, every millimeter counts.
It's the same deal with CPU marketing. "Yes, that extra $400 is worth 150MHz!"
So, while you may be getting twice as many mWH, that may not necessarily be enough to justify an increase in volume because your target is to produce a product with very low volume.
$.02 in the can
Though considering Madonna's style, that "move their bodies in response" takes on an appropriate meaning..."truth or dare"
Heh
Non-Christians can't tell who a real Christian is without knowing the teachings of Christ. Same goes for all other groups. You can't really know them until you know their beliefs. When you know and understand what their beliefs are supposed to be, you have a chance of identifying the "true believers" and the hypocrites.
;)
Televangelists don't know everything. They are, for the most part, and IMHO, the Pharisees and Sadducees of the modern day. People listen to them because they're on television.
"If it's on T.V.....IT MUST BE TRUE!" -Garfield and Friends
The teachings of the Apostles should never supercede the teachings of Christ. A Christian should keep in mind that the non-Gospel books of the NT are, for the most part, letters to a specific group of people. There's good stuff in them, but always try to remember who they were written for originally and keep the focus on Christ.
Anyhow, I thought we were here for tech news...
Anyhow, from personal experience, I believe 5th grade (age 10) is a good place to start for most children, though a child should be given the choice about when and if they begin to learn programming.
In my elementary school, the kids with the 15 highest SAT scores were started in a GT program and a computer class in 2nd grade. The GT class was an english/lit. class, and the computer class was mostly logic games and simple graphics on some old Apples. Once we hit 4th grade, the computer class was no longer available because they wanted to use it for the younger kids. During those two years that I was in that class, though, I spent time on my own learning BASIC. Once that class was not a part of my life anymore, I stopped learning programming and focused more on the things my school was teaching me. I didn't see a line of code again until 11th grade, when the first of 2 programming courses was available to me; a BASIC class. The following year was a PASCAL class.
That's far too late, IMHO, as I look back on it all. They should've been teaching us BASIC in 2nd grade, then PASCAL in 4th grade. We probably would've gotten through C by 7th grade and been able to start doing much more advanced programming with database interraction for that "delinquency tracking system" the high school admins wanted us to write in senior year after only two months of learning PASCAL.
Yes, kids who are really motivated and are willing to devote gobs of spare time to learning programming can do it all on their own. Others of us, though, may be interested in programming, but not enough to give up the other studies we like or sacrifice valuable childhood time (iow, playing, which is very valuable). We need a guiding force as a part of our curriculum.
>>> In so far as "stealing code" I don't see where "stealing" comes into the picture unless you
;>
:)
:)
>>> define Linux as "stealing" it as well.
>>
>> Nothing derogatory was meant by "steal." I'd have a lot less respect for *BSD (or Linux, for that matter)
>> if you refused to use the code and instead tried to implement it from the ground up.
> Here's where I take exception to you, Anonymous Coward, that's quite a strong accusation "stealing code", I
> expected you to back down when I called you on it.
>>> Hypocrite, if it bothers you so then go closed source.
>>
>> See above. You totally misunderstood me.
> What do you mean "see above"? You said "stealing code" you didn't apologize for it, you say I misunderstand you?
> No, I totally see through you, you are a flame spouting weenie without the courage to put a name behind your weak
> accusations.
OK guys, time-out here. This senseless flame-skirmish is based upon poor word choice, inaccurate perception, and bad explaination. Arguments are one thing, but when they go nuts like this for no good reason, I feel a need to step in.
Anonymous Coward is guilty of poor word choice ("stealing code"). When called on it, s/he's guilty of bad explainations; one sentence that didn't quite convey what s/he meant it to, which I perceived as "I'm using this word very lightly with a grin on my face, not in a serious 'criminal theft' sense", which contributed substantially to Alfred Perlstein's inaccurate perception.
Hopefully you two will look at this situation differently now. Or flame me for butting in.
> Nothing derogatory meant by "weenie" of course.
ROTFL! I just thought that line was very funny in the midst of this mess.
You must have amazing hearing because I can't tell the difference between an audio CD and an MP3 (provided the MP3 is at least 128kbps and 44KHz).
-Cerberus
I agree, Lucas is a much better moviemaker that sci-fi writer (though he's not all that bad a writer, either, IMHO).
:)
I honestly have never read anything by David Brin besides his article and response. He hasn't impressed me with his arguments, but I'll see about reading one of his books. Do you have any recommendations?
Your view of Lucas's story-telling ability wasn't my problem. My problem with David Brin was that he basically said "this is a horrible story that is a bad influence for children and its story-model has no place in modern society." So, no flames for you.
SROTFLMAO! Oh, you're so clever! So funny! Hahahahaha. :P
Alrighty, now. Don't you dare presume to understand me. If you had actually gotten close, I would have been impressed. You're not even in the same galaxy.
Yes, I'm attached to my childhood. Why? Because that was before shit started happening. The best times of my life were my first 7 years. If I value that too much, that's my concern. If you think I should forget the happiest moments of my life, you can go suck a horse's dick. Those memories are what keep me sane.
I value the shit, too. Why? That's what made me out-grow my peers. That's why I'm in a far better position in life than any of them today. I became an adult far earlier than they.
I don't think that Star Wars is "the greatest art-work of modern civilisation" (that's a title I'd reserve for something else), but I do think it's a valuable part of our culture, especially for children. It teaches responsibility, love, honesty, patience; all the lessons of the old legends. And it instills a drive within them to learn more about life and what this is all about. I think that it's important to have those lessons presented in new and different ways, otherwise people end up "going through the motions."
I don't see why it's wrong. It may be painful to have your childhood beliefs and ideals criticized but that doesn't may the criticism invalid. By your argument, no one should criticize apartheid or segregation because for some people deeply believed those priniciples as children.
You miss the point deeply. (Reader is assumed to be capable of understanding sub-surface meaning)
BTW, if you can rip Brin's arguments without trying, do so instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks on his character.
Alright, you asked for it. I'll keep this short and just cut/paste out of my rebuttal to his article. Enjoy.
I disagree with your "bill-of-sale" list. Here's why:
"Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule;
common citizens needn't be consulted. They
may only choose which elite to follow."
Not so. The situation in the original trilogy is one where a tyrant rules the galaxy with an iron fist. There are those who embrace it, those who oppose it, and those who are too scared to. None of the main good-guy characters are in charge of the Rebel Alliance, though some hold influential positions within it. The whole of the trilogy is a story about a farm-boy, a smuggler, and a politician who go beyond their normal existence to do something extraordinary. They're "common citizens" who rise to the occasion to do something good with their talents.
"'Good' elites should act on their subjective
whims, without evidence, argument or
accountability."
I don't understand where you got that from. There's plenty of accountability for acting on whim. Luke, when he goes on impulse to try and help Han and Leia, ends up doing nothing for them and loses his hand. If that's not a good example of accountability, I don't know what is. That's actually the only "impulsive" act I can recall in all of the movies at the moment, though I'm sure there are others.
"Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are
important enough."
No. Forgiveness can be had if you are genuinely in your heart regretful for your sins, and that still doesn't save you from punishment. Vader, just before his death, casts off the Dark Side from him and again joins the Light. In that moment, he feels all the pain and suffering he caused, and regrets deeply. Then, he dies. That's the price he pays for all his sin. He returns to the Light, to his son, only to die, not having the chance to spend some real time with his children; to know them. Punishment, yes?
"True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to
rule is inherited."
Nope. Force-sensitivity is hereditary to a degree, not leadership. Luke serves as a subordinate in a flight group in the first movie, then as a leader of one in the first part of the second, but is off on his own after that. Leia is a Senator, so she's been trained to be a leader. Han and Lando, who's lineages we know nothing about, are leaders (of sorts) from the moment we meet them. If you're referring to Queen Amidala, that's wrong, too. She was elected.
"Justified human emotions can turn a good person
evil."
No. Using the Force in anger and hate *can* consume you. Look at Obi-Wan at the end of TPM. He goes practically berserk and almost loses to Darth Maul. When he's hanging on the edge, he calms himself, thinks of what to do, and does it. He didn't use his anger and hate (which are parts of the Dark Side) to kill Darth Maul. This is a mostly Force-user-specific issue, though there is a relevant message here to normals. The message is to think clearly and don't act solely on anger and hate. Doing so is naturally dangerous to yourself and others around you.
Nah, I'll just make my own response to his response and send it to him. This guy was REALLY asking for trouble when he wrote his article (which sucked, IMHO), and seems to be exhibiting masochistic behavior with his response.
:)
Honestly, there's not a single argument of his that I can't rip to shreds without even trying. Is it even worth letting him know how stupid he is? He's the kind of person who is actively trying to hate Star Wars (and succeeding), while trying to convince other people that his opinion is the right one with big fancy literary arguments (which are just opinions wrapped in long words), revealing unforgivable plot holes (which aren't really holes if you think about it for a minute or two), and exposing a horribly flawed moral example (because the idiot just plain didn't get it).
Yes, I like Star Wars. Yes, I liked TPM (because I went into it with a 7-year-old mind-set). No, I didn't really like Jar-Jar, but most characters in the film felt the same way I did about him (because he was SUPPOSED to be annoying, dammit!). I have a problem with morons like this shouting to the mountains how much they dislike (hate/rancor) Star Wars. Why? because it was a big part of my childhood. I grew up with this stuff. It's like they're saying "your childhood was full of shit." That's insulting, and wrong.
Anyhow, I'm off to write my response to a flawed response to flaming letters to a stupid article.