My understanding is that a sentor only gets one opportunity to speak in a debate, so while they can speak for as long as they'd like they can't take a break (other than adjournments, which the majority can in theory not grant - and the majority doesn't have to all be in the room at the same time).
Not quite. First, it's "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate" (according to Senate Rule 19). This allows for multi-day fillibusters by the same Senator. Second, while I'm not 100% sure they're accurate, the West Wing's "Stackhouse Fillibuster" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" both suggest one may yield for a question without yielding the floor; this PDF from the Senate website says the same (although the yielding Senator must remain present and standing, this provides a break for the voice and a pause for a drink). The PDF also notes a filibuster burdens the supporting majority by requiring they maintain enough votes handy to sustain a quorum call if an opponent demands one.
I certainly support the continued existence of the filibuster. It can provide a block to some really stupid legislation wanted by a narrow majority — such as this amnesty. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't object to the majority not settling for "oh, it's a hold; well, we don't want to deal with that, I guess the bill is dead." Make 'em filibuster, dammit.
That they ignored the request of the Congress (the will of the people) and instead chose to hide behind the president and so called state secrets.
There's a succinct article on this from the UPitt Jurist, with links to copies of primary documents. The key is that this was only a request. As far as I can see, there was no subpoena, which would make it a demand. While I agree with your general sentiments, the rant really ought to wait until the Telcos turn down a Congressional subpoena. As is, I(AmNotALawyer) currently think the Telcos were correct to defer to the Executive branch assertion of the States Secrets Privilege as much as I loathe that "privilege" one — in the absence of a Congressional subpoena.
My question for you is why does this committee feel the need to hold a public investigation?
Oh, I'll conceed, it's just political circus, and that discussing it publicly would be bad for our international interests. That's not relevant to my point; that's merely a question of whether or not it's Stupid, not whether or not it's Legal.
You haven't answer my question: on what legal grounds can "State Secrets Privilege" be claimed in the (evidently hypothetical) case of a Subpoena by another branch of the state itself? In order to keep from having to talk to Congress about it, the DOJ would have to be claiming Executive Privilege, which is a much narrower needle's eye to shove the camel through.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
The appeal would be filed before the ink could dry on the (hypothetical, unlikely, and required) veto override, and the law struck down as a bill of attainder by every federal judge who looked at it. Even the current SCOTUS would go 9-0 on it if you could get certiorari; see US v Lovett, the clear precedent.
I am just saying both sides are guilty of doing this. The problem is Bush got caught. Now news is coming out that Clinton did the same thing.
Not quite. It appears both wiretapped without a warrant; however, according to the reports, Clinton's was done via a traditional dirty tricks team, and no-one has claimed it was legal to perform the wiretapping.
Bush did it using the official authority of the President of the United States, using official agencies of the Executive, and claims that it was legal just because he was the one who ordered it done.
One is ordinary corruption and politics-as-usual; the other is an attempt to rape the constitution. And because the Republicans have now shown that they can't be trusted in the same room with the constitution, I'll have to settle for voting for the crooked Democrat if she wins the endorsement.
I don't see how this is related to the Executive branch at all
The DOJ, part of the executive branch, says it's covered by State Secrets and that the Telcos shouldn't talk (possibly "or ELSE"). Thus, the Telcos are in a slight Catch-22.
However, being a congress critter does not automagically give you a high enough security clearance to hear everything.
Ture, but they DOJ aren't claiming that the matter is classified. Instead, they're claiming State Secrets Privilege, a horse of a different color. I repeat: what grounds do they have to assert the State Secrets Privilege against the State itself?
There is a congressional committee that can hear their testimony. The one making the request is not it.
This seems to imply that there is only one such Congressional committee against which the State Secrets Privilege doesn't avail. I would be interested in your legal and constitutional basis for claiming that the State Secrets Privilege may be applied against any committee of elected Federal Legislators.
(Even so, I can count at least four congressional committees with clear authority, so "not it" is clearly sloppy phrasing.)
Think about it, each machine in the network needs to talk to the other machines. The key has to be stored somewhere on the machine.
Not quite correct. Each machine in the network needs to be able to relay messages to the other machines; it therefore only needs the Public Key half, to verify that the messages it receives should be obeyed and/or passed along further (or simply dropped on the floor). The Private Key need only reside in the hands of the owner; in theory (if they're Diabolical), it could be kept on a high-end calculator, and the encrypted instructions only put onto the internet by 10-finger interface.
THe judicial branch as this time is a neutral 3rd party.
Ding! Or at least, as close to one as can be found in the current circus, and an obvious choice to settle a dispute between the Legislative and the Executive. Of course, presumably if both Congress and the Justice Department come to a sensible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H acceptable^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sane^H^H^H^H compromise that doesn't make everyone grab for their guns, the Judiciary would hand over whatever is asked for at the mutual request... and sit on it in the meanwhile until the question gets determined one way or another. (Or until Congress gets fed up enough to start impeaching judges, which is far less likely over this than impeaching AGs.)
And the Telcos get to say "We gave at the office, go 'way!" and continue to make their ill-gotten gains in peace and quiet.
Since when is it up to a subpoenaed third-party to make claims regarding oversight between branches of government?
The Telcos are relaying the message from the Justice department. A better question: how can the State Secrets Privilege apply against Congress, a branch of the state?
The clever thing for the Telcos to do might be to try getting the Congress' questions in written form, along with the instruction from the Judiciary to shut up, then provide the answers in sealed escrow to the Judiciary, to hand over or not as appropriate. That way, they can get out of the way of the impending constitutional slugfest, and let the real partisans brawl it out. The Telcos just want to be left alone to make some dough.
Of course, that's not so much a tactic of law as of politics. But hey, there's not much difference.
As for Congress, aside from hinting that the above approach might be acceptable, I don't see there's anything clever or subtle left to try. I'd say it's long past time for the old Inherent Contempt rules to be dragged out.
In addition to the monolithic Physics and Chemistry Handbook, CRC makes a more compact handbook for Mathematics; it provides a thumbnail sketch for most math topics, useful as a reminder for what you learned long ago.
Another key: keep your textbooks. The piddling $5 or so apiece you get when selling them back to the college bookstore is, in the long run, worth considerably less than a handy reminder for what you learned way back when. For textbooks you sold back, check Amazon.com for previous editions. Until you get to graduate level math, damn little progress has been made in the nature of the course. Most university professors are willing to recommend good textbooks if you stop by during their office hours, even if you're not in a class. If you look motivated and desperate, it's not unheard of for them to dump extra copies of prior editions onto you.
Check your area for major library or college booksales; there's often a textbooks area. While I mostly focused on getting O'Reilly press titles for my computer needs, I've also found cheap introductory course materials for Group Theory, Spanish, and Trigonometry.
If you're a practical type, see if you can find a good collegiate Physics textbook. (Halliday and Resnick in any edition is the classic.) Physics makes heavy use of Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, and some Trig, too; plus, there's the occasional fun problem involving things that go "POW!"
This just rings of organized crime "moving in". You saw the same thing in the olden days when the rum runners were "consolidated" by guys like Al Calpone.
Probably just in eastern Europe. The American Mafia may be involved in prostitution, illegal waste disposal, drug running, bookmaking, extortion, and (of course) money laundering, but they are still a Family business with some standards.
The hypothetical threat of AT&T censoring someone for criticizing them, or the tangible threat to consumer rights from companies routinely putting in offensive to unconscionable language into boilerplate EULA/TOS contracts? Perhaps some citizen-friendly congresscritter might introduce legislation giving customers standing to sue over such offensive boilerplate, and collect damages if any term is shown in court to be unconscionable. That would compel companies to make such take-it-or-leave-it "agreements" a bit more balanced. Naahhh....
Faith ideally, helps people deal with reality by reminding them that there's more to their existence than what they know as reality.
Change "they know" to "they are certain of" and we may agree. Than "can be known", and we disagree.
"It is the difference between the unknown and the unknowable, between science and fantasy - it is a matter of essence. The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three. I may submit to the unknown, but never to the unknowable. The man who bows in that final direction is either a saint or a fool. I have no use for either."
—Lord Yama in Roger Zelazny's "Lord of Light"
...though I'd heard a story about Pythagoras sacrificing a bull to the gods after proving the existence of irrational numbers. I enjoy a good barbecue as much as the next man, but even I think that was a bit much.
I don't know; that, non-Euclidean geometry, and Goedel's theorem seem to be the three most astonishing realizations in the history of mathematics. I'd say that measures up as a better one-shot excuse for a barbecue than most.
If I found out my Geek Squad geek applied scientific methods to a religious matter, I wouldn't want him replacing my damn toner cartridges.
I wouldn't want a Geek Squad member anywhere my printers regardless.
There's more to people than physical appearances, Abb3w.
But as far as I can tell, not a lot more to races... which was one of the points I was addressing. Gender I try to remain open minded about.
those others probably take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
Almost certainly more so. I have enough doubts that I have a well-developed and oft-expressed sense of humor about my ways. This probably says something; I welcome guesses as to what.
add Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel to that list.
I've read it; relatively few flaws that I saw, mostly token, and not impacting the central thesis. A predictive methodology would have been a bonus, but he's generated enough controversy without making one explicit.
Religious organizations run really good schools and hospitals
They run very reliable ones, but generally not very innovative ones. Which one (if either) or the other is "good" depends on the (broadly speaking) environment that they work in.
"The faith-based mindset works reasonably well for keeping that kind agrarian society running; exploration is a waste of effort, if there's nothing in reach to find."
Sometimes it's all they have to work with. Meaningful research is not easy, or cheap.
You're looking at a shorter timeframe than I am; I'm talking about a timescale when discovery and meaningful research may no longer be possible. Or do you believe that human intelligence is potentially without limit, or that there are unending wonders in the universe that we are able to understand? Sorry, I'm too cynical to mistake "incredibly vast" for "infinite"... which brings back "Limits" and "Dynamics" as I mentioned.
[...] it is not the purpose of faith to accurately describe reality.
So, how does that reconcile with your claim, "They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it"? Is the purpose of faith to inaccurately describe reality? =)
More seriously: faith operates in reality. It is only in observable reality that we can assess the usefulness of its operation towards its intended purposes. Ultimately, of course, only the universe of reality can test the effectiveness, but scientific methods facilitate observing the testing process and results.
Does that mean they are diametric opposites?...or even all that opposite at all?
No; however, I don't recall ever claiming they were opposites, per se. Though the dot product in some social metric spaces is probably negative, I suspect they generally have a sizable orthogonal component as well.
Thusly, someone applying a scientific approach to matters of faith or religion might consider a purpose that involves meeting the public and serving them French fries.
IT support to a philosophy department at an engineering school isn't all that different, but pays about 50% better than restaurant work (unless you own the restaurant).
So, you've moved on to politics or those funny little differences between races and genders?
No, humans seem pretty much alike to me; two eyes, so, nose in the middle, mouth under. It's always the same. Now if some had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance — or the mouth at the top — that would be some help.
These days, politics and religion are too closely tied for that to be a discussion option. Mostly we talk about how charming and polite their semi-domesticated little weasels are, how well they're doing in school, and so on. With a minimum of effort you can get almost any parent to blather endlessly about their kids. The aunt is a little harder, since asking her kids results in her complaining about them being assortedly unmarried, de-married, and (in one case) all but unmarriable, which then raises my status. I usually ask her about her health, and if she's come across any interesting new recipes; she's chatty enough that takes a few hours.
Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely.
I did give the quote, though I misspoke; "pronoun" was an extra word left by mistake, as it's the main focus of "Grammar Lesson" (conflated with the classic Daffy Duck line about "Pronoun Trouble"), but other possessive structures are similarly affected. It's almost certainly the latter case, since you seem to be fluent enough in English to think in it; it's a flaw in the language grammar (and that of the other human languages I know enough of to determine). Consider the prior reading pointer repeated.
However, you seem to have a peculiar way of expressing your "gladness".
It takes all kinds to make a world; I didn't say I thought the ratios were right. Also, while I'm quite fond of swamps (they're great for the overall health of the ecology), that doesn't mean I want to have to deal with the Okeefenokee up close and personal on a regular basis.
"I even suspect that the blind-faith mode of operation for society may be a mode of operation that offers better odds of long-term survival for our species than the rational/scientific/technological worldview."
Wow. How do you figure that?
I'm not convinced the latter view is sustainable. You may find The Limits to Growth is an easier read, but the technical report Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World is more comprehensive and harder to dismiss. The technological/scientific wor
Well there again, you're talking about findings which involved applying a scientific approach to a matter of faith....an act which is neither reasonable, rational, nor logical, because faith doesn't require the sort of evidence or proof that science does. You yourself posted words to that effect earlier in this thread.
Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely; but I suspect one of the two. My intended nuance you seem to omit is that while faith does not require the same kind of proof, it also doesn't present a description of reality that is probably accurate; it merely presents one that may sometimes be useful. The two things aren't the same; descriptions may be accurate, useful, neither, or both. Approximation algorithms show that. (See "Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity" by Wallace and Dowe, and the closely-related "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity" by Vitányi and Li, by the way.) The selection of ultimate values is, I agree, not a scientific question; however, once selected, the methods help in determining choices that will increase the benefit observed... and, incidentally, suggest that when you don't like the choices suggested, that you re-examine the assumed ultimate values to see if they are correct.
That might depend upon the individuals conducting the study.
Not if you answer the question in a generalized manner, such that it may be applied to specific cases by individuals. Of course, there's also the fun possibility that the generalized expression can be demonstrated to be non-computable, and other subtle possibilities.
Do you know anyone like that, personally?
Yes; one aunt, three cousins (on the other side of the family from her), and those cousins' nine assorted spawn. There are other folk I'm merely socially acquainted with (EG, some friend's neighbors), who I prefer to avoid as civility and politeness allow. Relatives are more difficult to do that with; however, I stopped discussing religion with most of my relatives quite a while back. I simply send occasionally subversive Christmas presents to the rugrats... like a fossil Trilobite to the budding rockhound.
De-humanizing and belittling people for the acts of a few bad seeds and thinking different beliefs and thinking different ways used to be the sort of thing that reasonable folks used to associate with intellectual laziness and disingenuousness.
I think you mistake my belittling the source of their beliefs for belittling the people themselves. Again, there's some difference. (I recommend reading Larry Niven's short story "Grammar Lesson," collected in Tales From the Draco Tavern; it seems you do not mentally distinguish intrinsic, extrinsic, and relational possessive pronouns.) There are a LOT of ways to be human. It's an advantage for our species. I'm quite glad there are a lot of people who think in different ways than me. I even suspect that the blind-faith mode of operation for society may be a mode of operation that offers better odds of long-term survival for our species than the rational/scientific/technological worldview. This does not preclude my disapproving of the current dominant selection of foci for blind-faith literalism; nor does my assessment as "less useful" imply they are completely useless. However, one of the nice things about evolution is that it tends to yield improvements over the tests of time... for some value of "improved" anyway. And evolution affects all manner of information expression over time, be it genes or ideas.
However, I'm also glad I have mostly tolerant, open-minded, and non-nosy neighbors nearby; it increases my short-term survival prospects much higher than I would have in, say, Iran.
I find mis-guided souls who really should know better, trying to apply scientific answers to questions of faith and religion.
Scientific answers, or scientific methods?
Granted, those who conclude social darwinism is Good from the answer of Evolution are idiots. "Answers" in science really aren't; they're just "the best guess available for now", and an answer in one area shouldn't be assumed to be an answer in anything else until tested.
The methods are another matter. And the advantage of the conceptual methods of science is that by answering one question, they can lead you to better questions. For example: suppose science shows there is no sign of God having every been anywhere, and that any "purpose" in life is merely the product of what humans choose to read into and/or impose on the blind uncaring laws of the universe. "You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game." So What? This begs the question: what purpose do we want from our lives, in that case? And how best should we go about seeking it?
I find that one a much more interesting and complicated question than most simple religiously oriented minds can handle... and that, again, scientific and mathematical tools are can be more useful overall than the hallucinations of an epileptic pedophile, or the yarns spun by desert-trapped bullshit artists distracting themselves from the lack of air conditioning.
For the true answer to that question, send me $50; satisfaction assured or double your religious persecution returned back. =)
They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it.
Well, more precisely, science is about discovering the sense; religion merely fabricates it wholesale, then says "shaddap kid" to any remaining questions. It reminds me of the Mysterious Stranger's line from Neil Gaiman's The Books of Magic: "Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible."
That both Science and Religion can be useful, and that both can be abused, I agree.
I am willing to attest under penalty of perjury in written statement to a notary public that darinp is not now, nor has ever been, a sock puppet account of mine, if DarinP or you care to provide snailmail addresses for sending the notarized copies via registered mail.
I'd urge DarinP to inquire of a lawyer whether he/she can pursue a libel case against you; accusing DarinP of being someone as horrible as me strikes me as probably actionable.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that a sentor only gets one opportunity to speak in a debate, so while they can speak for as long as they'd like they can't take a break (other than adjournments, which the majority can in theory not grant - and the majority doesn't have to all be in the room at the same time).
Not quite. First, it's "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate" (according to Senate Rule 19). This allows for multi-day fillibusters by the same Senator. Second, while I'm not 100% sure they're accurate, the West Wing's "Stackhouse Fillibuster" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" both suggest one may yield for a question without yielding the floor; this PDF from the Senate website says the same (although the yielding Senator must remain present and standing, this provides a break for the voice and a pause for a drink). The PDF also notes a filibuster burdens the supporting majority by requiring they maintain enough votes handy to sustain a quorum call if an opponent demands one.
I certainly support the continued existence of the filibuster. It can provide a block to some really stupid legislation wanted by a narrow majority — such as this amnesty. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't object to the majority not settling for "oh, it's a hold; well, we don't want to deal with that, I guess the bill is dead." Make 'em filibuster, dammit.
Johnny Blue Jeans: "Hey Mister Laupin, can I say pig[BEEP!]er?"
Mr. Laupin: "No, Johnny, you can't say pig[BEEP!]er. Even on cable."
For myself, my main objection to swearing usually hasn't been the vulgarity, but the limited imagingation too often demonstrated.
That they ignored the request of the Congress (the will of the people) and instead chose to hide behind the president and so called state secrets.
There's a succinct article on this from the UPitt Jurist , with links to copies of primary documents. The key is that this was only a request. As far as I can see, there was no subpoena, which would make it a demand. While I agree with your general sentiments, the rant really ought to wait until the Telcos turn down a Congressional subpoena. As is, I(AmNotALawyer) currently think the Telcos were correct to defer to the Executive branch assertion of the States Secrets Privilege as much as I loathe that "privilege" one — in the absence of a Congressional subpoena.
My question for you is why does this committee feel the need to hold a public investigation?
Oh, I'll conceed, it's just political circus, and that discussing it publicly would be bad for our international interests. That's not relevant to my point; that's merely a question of whether or not it's Stupid, not whether or not it's Legal.
You haven't answer my question: on what legal grounds can "State Secrets Privilege" be claimed in the (evidently hypothetical) case of a Subpoena by another branch of the state itself? In order to keep from having to talk to Congress about it, the DOJ would have to be claiming Executive Privilege, which is a much narrower needle's eye to shove the camel through.
A law that revokes their FCC licenses.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
The appeal would be filed before the ink could dry on the (hypothetical, unlikely, and required) veto override, and the law struck down as a bill of attainder by every federal judge who looked at it. Even the current SCOTUS would go 9-0 on it if you could get certiorari; see US v Lovett, the clear precedent.
I am just saying both sides are guilty of doing this. The problem is Bush got caught. Now news is coming out that Clinton did the same thing.
Not quite. It appears both wiretapped without a warrant; however, according to the reports, Clinton's was done via a traditional dirty tricks team, and no-one has claimed it was legal to perform the wiretapping. Bush did it using the official authority of the President of the United States, using official agencies of the Executive, and claims that it was legal just because he was the one who ordered it done.
One is ordinary corruption and politics-as-usual; the other is an attempt to rape the constitution. And because the Republicans have now shown that they can't be trusted in the same room with the constitution, I'll have to settle for voting for the crooked Democrat if she wins the endorsement.
I don't see how this is related to the Executive branch at all
The DOJ, part of the executive branch, says it's covered by State Secrets and that the Telcos shouldn't talk (possibly "or ELSE"). Thus, the Telcos are in a slight Catch-22.
However, being a congress critter does not automagically give you a high enough security clearance to hear everything.
Ture, but they DOJ aren't claiming that the matter is classified. Instead, they're claiming State Secrets Privilege, a horse of a different color. I repeat: what grounds do they have to assert the State Secrets Privilege against the State itself?
There is a congressional committee that can hear their testimony. The one making the request is not it.
This seems to imply that there is only one such Congressional committee against which the State Secrets Privilege doesn't avail. I would be interested in your legal and constitutional basis for claiming that the State Secrets Privilege may be applied against any committee of elected Federal Legislators.
(Even so, I can count at least four congressional committees with clear authority, so "not it" is clearly sloppy phrasing.)
Think about it, each machine in the network needs to talk to the other machines. The key has to be stored somewhere on the machine.
Not quite correct. Each machine in the network needs to be able to relay messages to the other machines; it therefore only needs the Public Key half, to verify that the messages it receives should be obeyed and/or passed along further (or simply dropped on the floor). The Private Key need only reside in the hands of the owner; in theory (if they're Diabolical), it could be kept on a high-end calculator, and the encrypted instructions only put onto the internet by 10-finger interface.
ortva 644 RIVY.GKG
Z22=-($R.(%52($R.5$523Q546@U@2$%+24K@55(@6Q]-0QR%6@U@("!.3GG@
(3Q]-($L/30V2
`
raq
Tedious, but possible. Can I haz Patent now?
THe judicial branch as this time is a neutral 3rd party.
Ding! Or at least, as close to one as can be found in the current circus, and an obvious choice to settle a dispute between the Legislative and the Executive. Of course, presumably if both Congress and the Justice Department come to a sensible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H acceptable^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sane^H^H^H^H compromise that doesn't make everyone grab for their guns, the Judiciary would hand over whatever is asked for at the mutual request... and sit on it in the meanwhile until the question gets determined one way or another. (Or until Congress gets fed up enough to start impeaching judges, which is far less likely over this than impeaching AGs.)
And the Telcos get to say "We gave at the office, go 'way!" and continue to make their ill-gotten gains in peace and quiet.
Since when is it up to a subpoenaed third-party to make claims regarding oversight between branches of government?
The Telcos are relaying the message from the Justice department. A better question: how can the State Secrets Privilege apply against Congress, a branch of the state?
The clever thing for the Telcos to do might be to try getting the Congress' questions in written form, along with the instruction from the Judiciary to shut up, then provide the answers in sealed escrow to the Judiciary, to hand over or not as appropriate. That way, they can get out of the way of the impending constitutional slugfest, and let the real partisans brawl it out. The Telcos just want to be left alone to make some dough.
Of course, that's not so much a tactic of law as of politics. But hey, there's not much difference.
As for Congress, aside from hinting that the above approach might be acceptable, I don't see there's anything clever or subtle left to try. I'd say it's long past time for the old Inherent Contempt rules to be dragged out.
So how, exactly, is this *not* organized crime?
"Hah. Don't kid yourself. It's not that organized."
(KEN'S EARS)
In addition to the monolithic Physics and Chemistry Handbook, CRC makes a more compact handbook for Mathematics; it provides a thumbnail sketch for most math topics, useful as a reminder for what you learned long ago.
Another key: keep your textbooks. The piddling $5 or so apiece you get when selling them back to the college bookstore is, in the long run, worth considerably less than a handy reminder for what you learned way back when. For textbooks you sold back, check Amazon.com for previous editions. Until you get to graduate level math, damn little progress has been made in the nature of the course. Most university professors are willing to recommend good textbooks if you stop by during their office hours, even if you're not in a class. If you look motivated and desperate, it's not unheard of for them to dump extra copies of prior editions onto you.
Check your area for major library or college booksales; there's often a textbooks area. While I mostly focused on getting O'Reilly press titles for my computer needs, I've also found cheap introductory course materials for Group Theory, Spanish, and Trigonometry.
If you're a practical type, see if you can find a good collegiate Physics textbook. (Halliday and Resnick in any edition is the classic.) Physics makes heavy use of Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, and some Trig, too; plus, there's the occasional fun problem involving things that go "POW!"
Yep, G Bush Sr, G Bush Jr, keeping it in the Family alright
Careful. As I said, the Mafia has some standards; you don't want to piss them off by associating them with such scum-sucking lowlifes, even as a joke.
This just rings of organized crime "moving in". You saw the same thing in the olden days when the rum runners were "consolidated" by guys like Al Calpone.
Probably just in eastern Europe. The American Mafia may be involved in prostitution, illegal waste disposal, drug running, bookmaking, extortion, and (of course) money laundering, but they are still a Family business with some standards.
The hypothetical threat of AT&T censoring someone for criticizing them, or the tangible threat to consumer rights from companies routinely putting in offensive to unconscionable language into boilerplate EULA/TOS contracts? Perhaps some citizen-friendly congresscritter might introduce legislation giving customers standing to sue over such offensive boilerplate, and collect damages if any term is shown in court to be unconscionable. That would compel companies to make such take-it-or-leave-it "agreements" a bit more balanced. Naahhh....
where some studio bigwig has "the intellectual capacity of an artichoke", as Harlan Ellison so famously put it.
Faith ideally, helps people deal with reality by reminding them that there's more to their existence than what they know as reality.
Change "they know" to "they are certain of" and we may agree. Than "can be known", and we disagree.
I don't know; that, non-Euclidean geometry, and Goedel's theorem seem to be the three most astonishing realizations in the history of mathematics. I'd say that measures up as a better one-shot excuse for a barbecue than most.
If I found out my Geek Squad geek applied scientific methods to a religious matter, I wouldn't want him replacing my damn toner cartridges.
I wouldn't want a Geek Squad member anywhere my printers regardless.
There's more to people than physical appearances, Abb3w.
But as far as I can tell, not a lot more to races... which was one of the points I was addressing. Gender I try to remain open minded about.
those others probably take their ways as seriously as you do yours.
Almost certainly more so. I have enough doubts that I have a well-developed and oft-expressed sense of humor about my ways. This probably says something; I welcome guesses as to what.
add Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel to that list.
I've read it; relatively few flaws that I saw, mostly token, and not impacting the central thesis. A predictive methodology would have been a bonus, but he's generated enough controversy without making one explicit.
Religious organizations run really good schools and hospitals
They run very reliable ones, but generally not very innovative ones. Which one (if either) or the other is "good" depends on the (broadly speaking) environment that they work in.
Sometimes it's all they have to work with. Meaningful research is not easy, or cheap.
You're looking at a shorter timeframe than I am; I'm talking about a timescale when discovery and meaningful research may no longer be possible. Or do you believe that human intelligence is potentially without limit, or that there are unending wonders in the universe that we are able to understand? Sorry, I'm too cynical to mistake "incredibly vast" for "infinite"... which brings back "Limits" and "Dynamics" as I mentioned.
[...] it is not the purpose of faith to accurately describe reality.
So, how does that reconcile with your claim, "They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it"? Is the purpose of faith to inaccurately describe reality? =)
More seriously: faith operates in reality. It is only in observable reality that we can assess the usefulness of its operation towards its intended purposes. Ultimately, of course, only the universe of reality can test the effectiveness, but scientific methods facilitate observing the testing process and results.
Does that mean they are diametric opposites? ...or even all that opposite at all?
No; however, I don't recall ever claiming they were opposites, per se. Though the dot product in some social metric spaces is probably negative, I suspect they generally have a sizable orthogonal component as well.
Thusly, someone applying a scientific approach to matters of faith or religion might consider a purpose that involves meeting the public and serving them French fries.
IT support to a philosophy department at an engineering school isn't all that different, but pays about 50% better than restaurant work (unless you own the restaurant).
So, you've moved on to politics or those funny little differences between races and genders?
No, humans seem pretty much alike to me; two eyes, so, nose in the middle, mouth under. It's always the same. Now if some had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance — or the mouth at the top — that would be some help.
These days, politics and religion are too closely tied for that to be a discussion option. Mostly we talk about how charming and polite their semi-domesticated little weasels are, how well they're doing in school, and so on. With a minimum of effort you can get almost any parent to blather endlessly about their kids. The aunt is a little harder, since asking her kids results in her complaining about them being assortedly unmarried, de-married, and (in one case) all but unmarriable, which then raises my status. I usually ask her about her health, and if she's come across any interesting new recipes; she's chatty enough that takes a few hours.
Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely.
I did give the quote, though I misspoke; "pronoun" was an extra word left by mistake, as it's the main focus of "Grammar Lesson" (conflated with the classic Daffy Duck line about "Pronoun Trouble"), but other possessive structures are similarly affected. It's almost certainly the latter case, since you seem to be fluent enough in English to think in it; it's a flaw in the language grammar (and that of the other human languages I know enough of to determine). Consider the prior reading pointer repeated.
However, you seem to have a peculiar way of expressing your "gladness".
It takes all kinds to make a world; I didn't say I thought the ratios were right. Also, while I'm quite fond of swamps (they're great for the overall health of the ecology), that doesn't mean I want to have to deal with the Okeefenokee up close and personal on a regular basis.
Wow. How do you figure that?
I'm not convinced the latter view is sustainable. You may find The Limits to Growth is an easier read, but the technical report Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World is more comprehensive and harder to dismiss. The technological/scientific wor
Well there again, you're talking about findings which involved applying a scientific approach to a matter of faith. ...an act which is neither reasonable, rational, nor logical, because faith doesn't require the sort of evidence or proof that science does. You yourself posted words to that effect earlier in this thread.
Provide the specific quote, and I can be specific as to whether you're misunderstanding me, or whether I spoke imprecisely; but I suspect one of the two. My intended nuance you seem to omit is that while faith does not require the same kind of proof, it also doesn't present a description of reality that is probably accurate; it merely presents one that may sometimes be useful. The two things aren't the same; descriptions may be accurate, useful, neither, or both. Approximation algorithms show that. (See "Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity" by Wallace and Dowe, and the closely-related "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity" by Vitányi and Li, by the way.) The selection of ultimate values is, I agree, not a scientific question; however, once selected, the methods help in determining choices that will increase the benefit observed... and, incidentally, suggest that when you don't like the choices suggested, that you re-examine the assumed ultimate values to see if they are correct.
That might depend upon the individuals conducting the study.
Not if you answer the question in a generalized manner, such that it may be applied to specific cases by individuals. Of course, there's also the fun possibility that the generalized expression can be demonstrated to be non-computable, and other subtle possibilities.
Do you know anyone like that, personally?
Yes; one aunt, three cousins (on the other side of the family from her), and those cousins' nine assorted spawn. There are other folk I'm merely socially acquainted with (EG, some friend's neighbors), who I prefer to avoid as civility and politeness allow. Relatives are more difficult to do that with; however, I stopped discussing religion with most of my relatives quite a while back. I simply send occasionally subversive Christmas presents to the rugrats... like a fossil Trilobite to the budding rockhound.
De-humanizing and belittling people for the acts of a few bad seeds and thinking different beliefs and thinking different ways used to be the sort of thing that reasonable folks used to associate with intellectual laziness and disingenuousness.
I think you mistake my belittling the source of their beliefs for belittling the people themselves. Again, there's some difference. (I recommend reading Larry Niven's short story "Grammar Lesson," collected in Tales From the Draco Tavern; it seems you do not mentally distinguish intrinsic, extrinsic, and relational possessive pronouns.) There are a LOT of ways to be human. It's an advantage for our species. I'm quite glad there are a lot of people who think in different ways than me. I even suspect that the blind-faith mode of operation for society may be a mode of operation that offers better odds of long-term survival for our species than the rational/scientific/technological worldview. This does not preclude my disapproving of the current dominant selection of foci for blind-faith literalism; nor does my assessment as "less useful" imply they are completely useless. However, one of the nice things about evolution is that it tends to yield improvements over the tests of time... for some value of "improved" anyway. And evolution affects all manner of information expression over time, be it genes or ideas.
However, I'm also glad I have mostly tolerant, open-minded, and non-nosy neighbors nearby; it increases my short-term survival prospects much higher than I would have in, say, Iran.
I find mis-guided souls who really should know better, trying to apply scientific answers to questions of faith and religion.
Scientific answers, or scientific methods?
Granted, those who conclude social darwinism is Good from the answer of Evolution are idiots. "Answers" in science really aren't; they're just "the best guess available for now", and an answer in one area shouldn't be assumed to be an answer in anything else until tested.
The methods are another matter. And the advantage of the conceptual methods of science is that by answering one question, they can lead you to better questions. For example: suppose science shows there is no sign of God having every been anywhere, and that any "purpose" in life is merely the product of what humans choose to read into and/or impose on the blind uncaring laws of the universe. "You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game." So What? This begs the question: what purpose do we want from our lives, in that case? And how best should we go about seeking it?
I find that one a much more interesting and complicated question than most simple religiously oriented minds can handle... and that, again, scientific and mathematical tools are can be more useful overall than the hallucinations of an epileptic pedophile, or the yarns spun by desert-trapped bullshit artists distracting themselves from the lack of air conditioning.
For the true answer to that question, send me $50; satisfaction assured or double your religious persecution returned back. =)
They are both attempts by thinking people to make sense out of life, the world, and everything in it.
Well, more precisely, science is about discovering the sense; religion merely fabricates it wholesale, then says "shaddap kid" to any remaining questions. It reminds me of the Mysterious Stranger's line from Neil Gaiman's The Books of Magic: "Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible."
That both Science and Religion can be useful, and that both can be abused, I agree.
Please don't bring your sock puppets into this.
I am willing to attest under penalty of perjury in written statement to a notary public that darinp is not now, nor has ever been, a sock puppet account of mine, if DarinP or you care to provide snailmail addresses for sending the notarized copies via registered mail.
I'd urge DarinP to inquire of a lawyer whether he/she can pursue a libel case against you; accusing DarinP of being someone as horrible as me strikes me as probably actionable.
Your still fucking sick.
I prefer to think of myself as "sociopathically open-minded"; putting it that way substantially increases my popularity at parties. =)
On the other hand, you have just demonstrated my earlier surmise was correct: you're merely ignorant.