He ran twice. The first time (2006), he lost to Hatch in the general election. The second time (2012) he didn't make it out of the Democratic convention to run against Hatch.
I have this running. I have found that a number of GV calls have been marked as 'unavailable' on my call history, even though the CID has never failed to come to the phone. I am not sure if this is because T-Mobile recognizes the call pattern as always going to/from 1 number or not. It is definitely against their Terms and Conditions: "*Your five numbers must be US domestic numbers and must not include 411, voicemail, toll-free, 900, calling card, and customers' own numbers; and single numbers allowing access to 500 or more persons." I'm willing to take the risk, but I don't use GV exclusively, that way I mix it up with regular usage.
Out bound calls are free too, since the call is registered with GV and rings you back. You can also dial your GV number, press 2, and make an actual "outbound" free call. This isn't very convenient though, since its used like a calling card. Maybe this new Google Voice app will change that.
Early in my career I held a 'part time, hourly' job as a tech in a smallish company. It quickly became apparent that I was more knowledgeable in systems than their full time admin, who coincidentally was also very lazy (had no intention of increasing his knowledge). During my time there, I implemented a lot of systems which were frankly quite a bit above my pay grade. For a while, I didn't care, because it was good experience for me. However, as time wore on, the laziness of the full time SA, and the micromanagement of our CIO boss really started to wear on me, and I started looking. I had asked for a promotion, citing my skill, the very technical projects I had accomplished, and specified areas where I could augment the existing SA's lack of experience with my own, in a full time capacity. These were denied due to the size of the company, yada yada...
It didn't take me long to find another job, I had a couple of different offers to choose from, but I was really quite young and still bitter about the way things had gone. The denial of promotion after I had done so much, and the SA had done so little, and knew so little. I didn't send a nasty email my boss, the company or its owners, although the thought had crossed my mind several times. I sent a thank you note to the CEO, and received a gracious reply. However, I couldn't let it go, it kept grinding on me. It was fresh in my mind. So, when I learned that my re-hire was about to be hired, I acquired his email address from a friend still with the company, and sent him a very detailed email, outlining (and probably exaggerating) all of the personal and professional deficiencies of the CIO. Trust me, there were many to choose from, it was a long email. It was unprofessional and mean spirited.
What I didn't ponder at the time is what trouble this could get my friend who was still with the company into. I felt horrible after sending it, I worried about his job (since he gave me the contact info, etc). As it turns out, the new prospect forwarded the email to his future employer, which is not really what I anticipated. He was able to use the email as leverage to negotiate a higher wage (good for him), and decided to take the job anyway. (For what its worth, I had lunch with my replacement less than a year after he had taken the job, and was moving on to another. He confirmed that everything I had said was true...)
All said, it was a very stupid thing for me to do, and I certainly will not do anything like that in the future. Now I am hesitant to even list that company on my resume, as I'm certain that CIO will not give me a good reference or even a stable reference. I certainly wouldn't if I were him. So rather than having a good solid reference employer, where I had accomplished a lot of good things, and left in a reasonably gracious fashion, now I have a past that I have to stay clear of and basically throw away that experience.
My advice is to just leave graciously. All of the annoyances you suffer currently, will seem increasingly less as time goes on. Especially if you find a company (as I did) which recognizes your talent and advances you quickly.
No, don't bitch about cameras and its invasion of privacy. You missed the point entirely WHILE agreeing with it.
Bitch about the unaccountable government and law enforcement agencies and lobby for regulation to control the access and use of data.
Cameras don't hurt anybody, just like taking a photo doesn't actually steal your soul.
While I agree with your point that it is unaccountable government which would be the problem, I still disagree that installation of such a system will have a harmless outcome.
All analogies break down somewhere, but here is an extreme one that comes to mind. To me this would be like putting a gun in the hand of all local felons (for whatever 'altruistic' reason), and then bitching about the criminals when they start robbing/raping/pillaging at record rates. Guns by themselves can't hurt anyone, but with that combination most reasonable people would say that the potential for abuse is extremely high.
Sure, the probability of the government abusing such a tool is lower than the example I give, but the fact remains: if you limit or take away the opportunity, you limit the abuse potential. Without some mechanism to ward off potential LE/Govt abuse, I say its better to do without the toy in the first place.
You might think this was a fluke, and could never happen in our 'enlightened' society, but I see more and more similarities/parallels between the current U.S. Republic and the Weimar Republic every day. I especially love the printing of money (inflation) that is going on by the Fed in order to save us from a depression. In addition, only time will tell if Obama will relinquish all of those executive powers that Bush gathered to himself, I have little hope that he will. In a country where a trillions of dollars of monetization can be rammed down the throat of Congress, with little opportunity for "the People" to react, under the guise of an economic emergency, I can see plenty of other rights taken away in a similar fashion all in the name of safety and transparency.
I'll keep my suppressed AR-15, and 1000's of rounds of ammunition thank you.
But I suspect/.ers don't have that kinda cash on hand.
But they could easily get some. Not legally, but round off a few fractions of a penny to a bank account and if you get caught, the worst they would ever do is they would put you for a couple of months into a white-collar, minimum-security resort! Shit, we should be so lucky! Do you know, they have conjugal visits there?
I'm a married man, and I haven't had a conjugal visit in 6 months.
Exactly what in my post was self-important? Have you ever been to Chicago during the middle of Summer? How about during the middle of Winter? My point was that California has much milder weather, is closer to so many city centers, has a varied geography that is interesting and useful for recreational activities and we have a functional beach. You might want to take some of these into consideration when you choose where to live.
If you've worked in a datacenter as I have and do, you know that the weather is always the same inside the datacenter, as is the lighting, and generally the sound. Day runs to night runs to day. Its always the same. Generally when I make a trip to the datacenter, there is no time for recreation anyway, so none of that matters.
In seriousness, my employer is also going to be moving out of a California datacenter in 2008, likely to Chicago or Dallas. Reasons for/. are probably similar to ours:
1) Cost of power. California's power is lined with platinum or something because they charge 3 arms and 2 legs for it.
2) Chicago is arguably more wired than even the bay area in terms of Tier1 and large Tier2 carriers, translation is (hopefully) less hops to your customer. I'm still not really convinced of this myself.. as most Network Operators know, in the wily world of AS to AS (eBGP) routing, geography means very little.. For example, I route through XO to LA where XO peers w/ Savvis, to get back up to Savvis in Chicago (beta.slashdot.org), even though I know for a fact that XO is peered with Savvis in Chicago too.
3) Perhaps Chicago is less suseptible to natural disasters, etc.
I'm leaning on #1 as being most likely. Better power grid, cheaper power. Lower cost, higher profit. Same reason we are looking..
I find it tiring that when debating theists, it is always a tedious semantic debate trying to bend or extend the meanings of words and never a clear discussion of ideas, but wading through a field traps based on purposeful and/or willful disregard for the actual and intended meaning of what the other has said.
Firstly, as I previously indicated, I am not a theist. I am agnostic: I do not know that there is a god but I also don't deny that a god could exist (I do not know that there is not a god). Frankly who cares if there is? Philosophically, I also don't necessarily subscribe to "right" and "wrong" either (read: sin). I am a ethical person by the traditional sense of the word, I don't steal, I honor my commitments, I teach my children that it is good to be nice to others, and that service is also self-serving etc. To me the existence or non-existence of god isn't going to change my behavior. If there was a god, I doubt god would care what I did anyway.
I'm sorry if you think that I am willfully disregarding your meaning. Ideas do need to be clearly defined, and ideas are expressed through words. In text, you have to be very clear about what you mean because I can't "sense the tone". Generally you are trying to get the opponent to see your point of view, so of course you are going to ask questions which might inspire some thought in your opponent. If you view these as traps, then so be it. If you desire to make an argument based on logic, don't make logical jumps and I won't wonder what your meaning is. Lastly, it must not be too terribly tiring, as you have responded each time:)
This is that stupid debate, "can god create something so heavy he can't lift it?" One presumes that if there were such a thing as a god that created the universe that it would probably be able to change the rules by which it was created.
I am not trying to make this debate. The first paragraph of your last response seemed to loosely resemble a logical (a=b and a=c thus b=c) argument. The assumption that god could change the rules at anytime seemed to be the crux of the argument which has the scientific method and god as opposing ideas, therefore I pointed out the flaw in logic.
Do you "believe that there is no easter bunny" or simply "do not believe in the easter bunny?"
I suppose this is semantics, to me both statements say the same thing. BTW, as long as we are complaining about semantics, it was you who pointed out that you "do not believe in god" which has a "subtle difference" with the statement which I ascribed to you "does not believe god exists".
Let me help you out, any question pertaining to "god" can have the term "god" replaced with "easter bunny" and would make just as much logical sense.
Eh, sort of. I would say the idea of god has more history to it as far as human civilization is concerned, and is also more widely believed. Because of this, I don't think the concept of god and the concept of the easter bunny are really all that interchangeable. I'll go with it though.
I think so, yes. It fits the bill.
One man's opinion I suppose. In your world we would have the majority of people committed to psych wards.
If a person were to fly a plane into a building for the "easter bunny," we'd call that person insane.
I'd say a suicidal+homicidal person is probably insane regardless of their motives or beliefs. Since most religious people do not commit murder, they must not be insane.
If a person attended church services every week for the "easter bunny" we'd call that person insane.
Maybe. Only because they would be an ultra minority. If the majority of people attended worship services each week for the Easter bunny, that would be much more accepted generally.
Neither can the "easter bunny," and I don't see people killing over that.
Evolution is a process which does not require a god or an overruling intelligence. The introduction of any such entity negates the functioning of the mechanism. The introduction of any god into a scientific process means that experimentation, knowledge, and the ability to understand the process is negated because "god" can change the rules at any moment.
You've made the logical jump that god can change the rules at any moment. If god created the rules, is it necessarily true that god can change them?
There is a subtle difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe in god."
What is the difference? If you do not subscribe to the statement "I believe there is no god" then do you concede that god could exist? As to the question of existence, those two statements are the same.
What form of mental illness makes you stronger?
If I'm reading you correctly, that's a fantastic logical jump. A religious person is mentally ill? Who defines what is or is not mentally ill? Is it based on social observations contrasting majority with minority? If so, then you are mentally ill since most people (past and present) believe in some sort of god and you would be the minority. Is it based on the desire to hurt oneself physically? If so, being religious alone hardly applies. Plenty of people have lived "happy" "normal" lives as believers without purposefully injuring themselves.
Would you say that someone who devotes their life to believing in Zeus and doing his work is sane?
I am not a psychologist, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that such a person is necessary insane, weak or stupid.
Your first statement was that religion is a silly obsession for the weak and stupid, are you now implying that stupidity and insanity are synonyms? History has shown that they are more likely closer to antonyms, as the line between insanity and brilliance is often thin.
This is a subjective question.
You can even theorize that green looks differently to other people based on how their brain processes the signals.
Exactly. And so is the question of god. Because god can not possibly be proved/disproved at this point, any question as to its existence is a subjective one.
There could be a place called antarctica, I've seen satellite pictures of it. I've seen maps drawn of it. There is proof of it. Do I believe it exists? I'm pretty confident of the verifiable proof that it exists, I'll accept that it does. If it turns out that there is proof that it does not exist I will evaluate the evidence and draw my own conclusions.
Is evidence the same as proof?
There is no verifiable proof of god. There is no logical argument that can be put forth that any one god is any more likely than any other god. I'll accept there is a god when there is verifiable proof, not one second sooner.
You still have not defined what exactly would constitute verifiable proof. It doesn't matter though, I don't think that anything to you would constitute proof. You have already accepted that god does not exist. It is a belief just the same as any one elses belief. Any possible evidence that anyone brings to you will be promptly dismissed because of your belief. You are as close minded as a theist.
No, you haven't made the point. You have taken a number of misconceptions and failed analogies to try to interject some sort of "reasonable doubt" where there is none.
If there is no reasonable doubt as to gods non-existence, please provide the "verifiable proof" that has lead you to this conclusion.
To accept that anything exists, you need verifiable proof. Period.
To accept that something certainly does not exist, I need the same verifiable proof. Can non-existence of anything be proven? How valuable is proof then?
You offered the subjective view t
This has been an interesting thread, I have enjoyed it thoroughly. Spoiler/qualifier: I am agnostic, not atheist.
I have a few comments (obviously). Evolution is an observable fact, no doubt. But why is it that often people dismiss intelligent design in light of evolution? Are these concepts mutually exclusive? No. Draw me the logic if you believe they are. Do scientists profess to know everything about the universe, where it came from, how it operates and where it will be? Certainly not. Use of the existence of evolution therefore can't be used as proof/disproof of a god. Do the physics which govern the universe themselves evolve? Will we wake up tomorrow and find that the speed of light in a vacuum has increased/decreased or operates in some other fashion? Were the laws created or did they "always exist"? Be sure to include proof with any answers to these questions.
Rather than a belief in god being for the weak and stupid, it is just as likely that such a belief was evolved in humankind, and maybe even essential to its progress and survival. Do we know if primitive animals have a similar belief in a higher power? Perhaps I am missing something, but I fail to see how person A who takes side A of a subjective argument is weak and stupid compared with person B who takes side B . Suppose you enjoy american football but dislike soccer, and I enjoy soccer but dislike football. You could just as easily argue that that everyone who likes soccer is weak and stupid. What proof could you use to validate this statement? Conclusions such as this to subjective arguments are themselves necessarily subjective. Why is it that people who claim to hold such high esteem for 'proof' make so many subjective claims?
It is interesting to me. Humankind has only advanced its knowledge of science significantly and in a rapid pace in the past couple of hundred years. In addition, all observations were made on a very tiny planet, near by that tiny planet or through ludicrously small lenses peering astronomical distances relative to "known" size of the universe. How can we conclude to know anything at all about the universe? How do you know that the laws of physics do not act in variation of the ones we observed on/around earth?
My point is this. We know so infinitesimally little about how the universe operates, that its just silly to conclude with certainty that there is or is not a god, and whether or not one is needed.
You require proof of a god before you will believe, but you believe there is no god without proof of such. I submit that you have as much faith that god does not exist as a person who believes has. Have you simultaneously checked every corner of the universe and found no god? Suppose that I am god. What exactly would you require as proof that I am god. Performance of some "miracles"? Creation of a planet? I could certainly perform a few "miracles" for my ancestors, if I could but travel to the past. What if future generations have this ability? The idea of proof itself has evolved! As have 'facts' which have been 'proven'. Things which were once 'known' to be 'scientifically factual' are now known otherwise. What of that past proof?
Are you a stronger/smarter person because your subjective faith of no god is different than another persons subjective faith? How can you dismiss the feelings of a person who has had a religious experience based on 5 senses alone? I am color blind, will you please explain to me what the color "green" looks like? If not, should I conclude that no such thing exists? Can such a thing be described? There are certainly many things in existence which can not be measured or explained (yet). This fact does not make the experience or existence of such ideas less 'real'. There is supposedly a place called Antarctica. Have you seen, smelled, touched, tasted or heard it first hand? You've seen it on T.V? Was it real? You heard about it from a friend who's been there? I heard about god from a person who was visited by her. So what? I
My company has a cage next to a large google installation in santa clara. Most of their servers are made with dual socket commodity motherboards. Yes they have on board video/serial/etc. And yes they have crash carts with small monitors (could be serial terminals actually) and keyboards. And yes they have racks of replacement motherboards, cpu's, disks, etc sitting there waiting.
Oh and in reference to the article, power is an expensive commodity in that datacenter, and we feel it is largely due to google. Their stuff is very dense. I'm sure they pay a lot for their power.
I used to work for a financial services company. The accounting department used Intuit Quickbooks for various things, including keeping several company's books. The user had to be a local administrator to run this program. When we contacted Intuit to see if there was a way around it they simply said 'no', and when asked why a user needs administrative rights to run a piece of book keeping software we were told 'that information is proprietary'.
I no longer do desktop type administration, but I am aware of several corporate applications which require local administrator to run.
Maybe I'm a bit skeptical, but I highly doubt that these many software vendors are going to re-write their applications when all that needs to happen is a simple 'permit' button to be clicked in order that the offending software might run.
Just my $0.02
Actually, my main personal project does pay me, as it involves currency trading systems. So time wasted writing backup scripts, when I can install some extension/script/application to do that job for me, is time not spent trying to make more $$$ in the currency markets;)
Lately I've seen an increasing number of comercials put out by verizon and comcast centering around thier network's. Verizon's says something to the tune of 'its our network' repeated by what seems to be several different Verizon employees.
Could this be an initial attempt to enlist public support for these new trends? The more I think about it, the more it all starts to make sense.
I work at a small internet based ASP, its a fast growing company, but something like this could certainly stifle its growth. So for me, its not just my personal internet participation that I'm worried about as much as my livelihood. Will the internet die to the point that I will need to look for another line of work? Or will my already post bubble salary shrink even more, requiring me to take on a second job to feed my kids?
Scary stuff...
I just hope that Ed Whitacre enjoys his new pile of cash, and I hope his kids don't go without shoes...
But seriously, I don't make changes which could in any way impact production without proper clearance, but changes which can have no outcome but good (or at least are not going to effect users) I go ahead and make, that way I can iron out the wrinkles and then I seem to management to be a more "pro-active" employee...
There are places where I am not able to move at the speeds that I would like, that is ok, I simply let those move at thier own pace, and use that extra time to push other initiatives, of which I have more direct control (because I came up with them, etc).
> In my experience, most users of Opera and Firefox won't fall back to IE if the website appears broken.
This was true for me about 5 days ago (and for the most part still is). Then I found a neato extension called ie tab which lets me quickly right click and open a broken page in ie, in a firefox tab. This comes in especially handy for those pesky ActiveX admin control panels (trend micro administration, shoretel phone administration, etc). Also my bank has succesfully broken firefox support very recently, and while I'm confident they will fix it again, in the interim I'm happy to open thier site in an ie tab until the problem is fixed.
I'm sure its been across slashdot before, but Utopia (http://www.utopianet.org/) is currently under construction in Utah cities, and you can already have service installed in some Orem neighborhoods.
According to the FAQ (http://www.utopianet.org/faq/faq3.e.htm) speeds will be asyncronous 100mbps to residential, and 1gbps to businesses. I happen to live in one of the cities which is currently having fiber pulled, and have attended several of the monthly public meetings and it is definitely not "vaporware". I think that this type of metropolitan connectivity will be the norm throughout the civilized world, when other cities see what it will do for them, as far as bringing business and strengthening the local economy.
Slashdot Mirror
He ran twice. The first time (2006), he lost to Hatch in the general election. The second time (2012) he didn't make it out of the Democratic convention to run against Hatch.
This isn't Yemeni! It's Sulawesi! .. And the cup's shaking! I don't want my coffee shaking!
I have this running. I have found that a number of GV calls have been marked as 'unavailable' on my call history, even though the CID has never failed to come to the phone. I am not sure if this is because T-Mobile recognizes the call pattern as always going to/from 1 number or not. It is definitely against their Terms and Conditions: "*Your five numbers must be US domestic numbers and must not include 411, voicemail, toll-free, 900, calling card, and customers' own numbers; and single numbers allowing access to 500 or more persons." I'm willing to take the risk, but I don't use GV exclusively, that way I mix it up with regular usage.
Out bound calls are free too, since the call is registered with GV and rings you back. You can also dial your GV number, press 2, and make an actual "outbound" free call. This isn't very convenient though, since its used like a calling card. Maybe this new Google Voice app will change that.
And if you aren't close to Washington, and find your voltage dropping, simply turn on any major news media outlet for instant charge.
Early in my career I held a 'part time, hourly' job as a tech in a smallish company. It quickly became apparent that I was more knowledgeable in systems than their full time admin, who coincidentally was also very lazy (had no intention of increasing his knowledge). During my time there, I implemented a lot of systems which were frankly quite a bit above my pay grade. For a while, I didn't care, because it was good experience for me. However, as time wore on, the laziness of the full time SA, and the micromanagement of our CIO boss really started to wear on me, and I started looking. I had asked for a promotion, citing my skill, the very technical projects I had accomplished, and specified areas where I could augment the existing SA's lack of experience with my own, in a full time capacity. These were denied due to the size of the company, yada yada...
It didn't take me long to find another job, I had a couple of different offers to choose from, but I was really quite young and still bitter about the way things had gone. The denial of promotion after I had done so much, and the SA had done so little, and knew so little. I didn't send a nasty email my boss, the company or its owners, although the thought had crossed my mind several times. I sent a thank you note to the CEO, and received a gracious reply. However, I couldn't let it go, it kept grinding on me. It was fresh in my mind. So, when I learned that my re-hire was about to be hired, I acquired his email address from a friend still with the company, and sent him a very detailed email, outlining (and probably exaggerating) all of the personal and professional deficiencies of the CIO. Trust me, there were many to choose from, it was a long email. It was unprofessional and mean spirited.
What I didn't ponder at the time is what trouble this could get my friend who was still with the company into. I felt horrible after sending it, I worried about his job (since he gave me the contact info, etc). As it turns out, the new prospect forwarded the email to his future employer, which is not really what I anticipated. He was able to use the email as leverage to negotiate a higher wage (good for him), and decided to take the job anyway. (For what its worth, I had lunch with my replacement less than a year after he had taken the job, and was moving on to another. He confirmed that everything I had said was true...)
All said, it was a very stupid thing for me to do, and I certainly will not do anything like that in the future. Now I am hesitant to even list that company on my resume, as I'm certain that CIO will not give me a good reference or even a stable reference. I certainly wouldn't if I were him. So rather than having a good solid reference employer, where I had accomplished a lot of good things, and left in a reasonably gracious fashion, now I have a past that I have to stay clear of and basically throw away that experience.
My advice is to just leave graciously. All of the annoyances you suffer currently, will seem increasingly less as time goes on. Especially if you find a company (as I did) which recognizes your talent and advances you quickly.
No, don't bitch about cameras and its invasion of privacy. You missed the point entirely WHILE agreeing with it.
Bitch about the unaccountable government and law enforcement agencies and lobby for regulation to control the access and use of data.
Cameras don't hurt anybody, just like taking a photo doesn't actually steal your soul.
While I agree with your point that it is unaccountable government which would be the problem, I still disagree that installation of such a system will have a harmless outcome.
All analogies break down somewhere, but here is an extreme one that comes to mind. To me this would be like putting a gun in the hand of all local felons (for whatever 'altruistic' reason), and then bitching about the criminals when they start robbing/raping/pillaging at record rates. Guns by themselves can't hurt anyone, but with that combination most reasonable people would say that the potential for abuse is extremely high.
Sure, the probability of the government abusing such a tool is lower than the example I give, but the fact remains: if you limit or take away the opportunity, you limit the abuse potential. Without some mechanism to ward off potential LE/Govt abuse, I say its better to do without the toy in the first place.
Yeah, because allowing criminalization of gun ownership worked out real good for the Jews during the Hitler years.
First 2 google links:
http://stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.why.jews.must.oppose.gun.control.htm
You might think this was a fluke, and could never happen in our 'enlightened' society, but I see more and more similarities/parallels between the current U.S. Republic and the Weimar Republic every day. I especially love the printing of money (inflation) that is going on by the Fed in order to save us from a depression. In addition, only time will tell if Obama will relinquish all of those executive powers that Bush gathered to himself, I have little hope that he will. In a country where a trillions of dollars of monetization can be rammed down the throat of Congress, with little opportunity for "the People" to react, under the guise of an economic emergency, I can see plenty of other rights taken away in a similar fashion all in the name of safety and transparency.
I'll keep my suppressed AR-15, and 1000's of rounds of ammunition thank you.
But I suspect /.ers don't have that kinda cash on hand.
But they could easily get some. Not legally, but round off a few fractions of a penny to a bank account and if you get caught, the worst they would ever do is they would put you for a couple of months into a white-collar, minimum-security resort! Shit, we should be so lucky! Do you know, they have conjugal visits there?
I'm a married man, and I haven't had a conjugal visit in 6 months.
If you've worked in a datacenter as I have and do, you know that the weather is always the same inside the datacenter, as is the lighting, and generally the sound. Day runs to night runs to day. Its always the same. Generally when I make a trip to the datacenter, there is no time for recreation anyway, so none of that matters.
In seriousness, my employer is also going to be moving out of a California datacenter in 2008, likely to Chicago or Dallas. Reasons for /. are probably similar to ours:
I'm leaning on #1 as being most likely. Better power grid, cheaper power. Lower cost, higher profit. Same reason we are looking..
I find it tiring that when debating theists, it is always a tedious semantic debate trying to bend or extend the meanings of words and never a clear discussion of ideas, but wading through a field traps based on purposeful and/or willful disregard for the actual and intended meaning of what the other has said.
Firstly, as I previously indicated, I am not a theist. I am agnostic: I do not know that there is a god but I also don't deny that a god could exist (I do not know that there is not a god). Frankly who cares if there is? Philosophically, I also don't necessarily subscribe to "right" and "wrong" either (read: sin). I am a ethical person by the traditional sense of the word, I don't steal, I honor my commitments, I teach my children that it is good to be nice to others, and that service is also self-serving etc. To me the existence or non-existence of god isn't going to change my behavior. If there was a god, I doubt god would care what I did anyway.
I'm sorry if you think that I am willfully disregarding your meaning. Ideas do need to be clearly defined, and ideas are expressed through words. In text, you have to be very clear about what you mean because I can't "sense the tone". Generally you are trying to get the opponent to see your point of view, so of course you are going to ask questions which might inspire some thought in your opponent. If you view these as traps, then so be it. If you desire to make an argument based on logic, don't make logical jumps and I won't wonder what your meaning is. Lastly, it must not be too terribly tiring, as you have responded each time :)
This is that stupid debate, "can god create something so heavy he can't lift it?" One presumes that if there were such a thing as a god that created the universe that it would probably be able to change the rules by which it was created.
I am not trying to make this debate. The first paragraph of your last response seemed to loosely resemble a logical (a=b and a=c thus b=c) argument. The assumption that god could change the rules at anytime seemed to be the crux of the argument which has the scientific method and god as opposing ideas, therefore I pointed out the flaw in logic.
Do you "believe that there is no easter bunny" or simply "do not believe in the easter bunny?"
I suppose this is semantics, to me both statements say the same thing. BTW, as long as we are complaining about semantics, it was you who pointed out that you "do not believe in god" which has a "subtle difference" with the statement which I ascribed to you "does not believe god exists".
Let me help you out, any question pertaining to "god" can have the term "god" replaced with "easter bunny" and would make just as much logical sense.
Eh, sort of. I would say the idea of god has more history to it as far as human civilization is concerned, and is also more widely believed. Because of this, I don't think the concept of god and the concept of the easter bunny are really all that interchangeable. I'll go with it though.
I think so, yes. It fits the bill.
One man's opinion I suppose. In your world we would have the majority of people committed to psych wards.
If a person were to fly a plane into a building for the "easter bunny," we'd call that person insane.
I'd say a suicidal+homicidal person is probably insane regardless of their motives or beliefs. Since most religious people do not commit murder, they must not be insane.
If a person attended church services every week for the "easter bunny" we'd call that person insane.
Maybe. Only because they would be an ultra minority. If the majority of people attended worship services each week for the Easter bunny, that would be much more accepted generally.
Neither can the "easter bunny," and I don't see people killing over that.
People who k
Evolution is a process which does not require a god or an overruling intelligence. The introduction of any such entity negates the functioning of the mechanism. The introduction of any god into a scientific process means that experimentation, knowledge, and the ability to understand the process is negated because "god" can change the rules at any moment.
You've made the logical jump that god can change the rules at any moment. If god created the rules, is it necessarily true that god can change them?
There is a subtle difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe in god."
What is the difference? If you do not subscribe to the statement "I believe there is no god" then do you concede that god could exist? As to the question of existence, those two statements are the same.
What form of mental illness makes you stronger?
If I'm reading you correctly, that's a fantastic logical jump. A religious person is mentally ill? Who defines what is or is not mentally ill? Is it based on social observations contrasting majority with minority? If so, then you are mentally ill since most people (past and present) believe in some sort of god and you would be the minority. Is it based on the desire to hurt oneself physically? If so, being religious alone hardly applies. Plenty of people have lived "happy" "normal" lives as believers without purposefully injuring themselves.
Would you say that someone who devotes their life to believing in Zeus and doing his work is sane?
I am not a psychologist, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that such a person is necessary insane, weak or stupid. Your first statement was that religion is a silly obsession for the weak and stupid, are you now implying that stupidity and insanity are synonyms? History has shown that they are more likely closer to antonyms, as the line between insanity and brilliance is often thin.
This is a subjective question. You can even theorize that green looks differently to other people based on how their brain processes the signals.
Exactly. And so is the question of god. Because god can not possibly be proved/disproved at this point, any question as to its existence is a subjective one.
There could be a place called antarctica, I've seen satellite pictures of it. I've seen maps drawn of it. There is proof of it. Do I believe it exists? I'm pretty confident of the verifiable proof that it exists, I'll accept that it does. If it turns out that there is proof that it does not exist I will evaluate the evidence and draw my own conclusions.
Is evidence the same as proof?
There is no verifiable proof of god. There is no logical argument that can be put forth that any one god is any more likely than any other god. I'll accept there is a god when there is verifiable proof, not one second sooner.
You still have not defined what exactly would constitute verifiable proof. It doesn't matter though, I don't think that anything to you would constitute proof. You have already accepted that god does not exist. It is a belief just the same as any one elses belief. Any possible evidence that anyone brings to you will be promptly dismissed because of your belief. You are as close minded as a theist.
No, you haven't made the point. You have taken a number of misconceptions and failed analogies to try to interject some sort of "reasonable doubt" where there is none.
If there is no reasonable doubt as to gods non-existence, please provide the "verifiable proof" that has lead you to this conclusion.
To accept that anything exists, you need verifiable proof. Period.
To accept that something certainly does not exist, I need the same verifiable proof. Can non-existence of anything be proven? How valuable is proof then? You offered the subjective view t
This has been an interesting thread, I have enjoyed it thoroughly. Spoiler/qualifier: I am agnostic, not atheist.
I have a few comments (obviously). Evolution is an observable fact, no doubt. But why is it that often people dismiss intelligent design in light of evolution? Are these concepts mutually exclusive? No. Draw me the logic if you believe they are. Do scientists profess to know everything about the universe, where it came from, how it operates and where it will be? Certainly not. Use of the existence of evolution therefore can't be used as proof/disproof of a god. Do the physics which govern the universe themselves evolve? Will we wake up tomorrow and find that the speed of light in a vacuum has increased/decreased or operates in some other fashion? Were the laws created or did they "always exist"? Be sure to include proof with any answers to these questions.
Rather than a belief in god being for the weak and stupid, it is just as likely that such a belief was evolved in humankind, and maybe even essential to its progress and survival. Do we know if primitive animals have a similar belief in a higher power? Perhaps I am missing something, but I fail to see how person A who takes side A of a subjective argument is weak and stupid compared with person B who takes side B . Suppose you enjoy american football but dislike soccer, and I enjoy soccer but dislike football. You could just as easily argue that that everyone who likes soccer is weak and stupid. What proof could you use to validate this statement? Conclusions such as this to subjective arguments are themselves necessarily subjective. Why is it that people who claim to hold such high esteem for 'proof' make so many subjective claims?
It is interesting to me. Humankind has only advanced its knowledge of science significantly and in a rapid pace in the past couple of hundred years. In addition, all observations were made on a very tiny planet, near by that tiny planet or through ludicrously small lenses peering astronomical distances relative to "known" size of the universe. How can we conclude to know anything at all about the universe? How do you know that the laws of physics do not act in variation of the ones we observed on/around earth?
My point is this. We know so infinitesimally little about how the universe operates, that its just silly to conclude with certainty that there is or is not a god, and whether or not one is needed.
You require proof of a god before you will believe, but you believe there is no god without proof of such. I submit that you have as much faith that god does not exist as a person who believes has. Have you simultaneously checked every corner of the universe and found no god? Suppose that I am god. What exactly would you require as proof that I am god. Performance of some "miracles"? Creation of a planet? I could certainly perform a few "miracles" for my ancestors, if I could but travel to the past. What if future generations have this ability? The idea of proof itself has evolved! As have 'facts' which have been 'proven'. Things which were once 'known' to be 'scientifically factual' are now known otherwise. What of that past proof?
Are you a stronger/smarter person because your subjective faith of no god is different than another persons subjective faith? How can you dismiss the feelings of a person who has had a religious experience based on 5 senses alone? I am color blind, will you please explain to me what the color "green" looks like? If not, should I conclude that no such thing exists? Can such a thing be described? There are certainly many things in existence which can not be measured or explained (yet). This fact does not make the experience or existence of such ideas less 'real'. There is supposedly a place called Antarctica. Have you seen, smelled, touched, tasted or heard it first hand? You've seen it on T.V? Was it real? You heard about it from a friend who's been there? I heard about god from a person who was visited by her. So what? I
Oh and in reference to the article, power is an expensive commodity in that datacenter, and we feel it is largely due to google. Their stuff is very dense. I'm sure they pay a lot for their power.
I no longer do desktop type administration, but I am aware of several corporate applications which require local administrator to run.
Maybe I'm a bit skeptical, but I highly doubt that these many software vendors are going to re-write their applications when all that needs to happen is a simple 'permit' button to be clicked in order that the offending software might run. Just my $0.02
Actually, my main personal project does pay me, as it involves currency trading systems. So time wasted writing backup scripts, when I can install some extension/script/application to do that job for me, is time not spent trying to make more $$$ in the currency markets ;)
I don't know about you, but I get paid more than $0/hr to code ;)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/ 13/1314233&tid=193
Only if you take both of them... the children that is ;)
Lately I've seen an increasing number of comercials put out by verizon and comcast centering around thier network's. Verizon's says something to the tune of 'its our network' repeated by what seems to be several different Verizon employees.
Could this be an initial attempt to enlist public support for these new trends? The more I think about it, the more it all starts to make sense.
I work at a small internet based ASP, its a fast growing company, but something like this could certainly stifle its growth. So for me, its not just my personal internet participation that I'm worried about as much as my livelihood. Will the internet die to the point that I will need to look for another line of work? Or will my already post bubble salary shrink even more, requiring me to take on a second job to feed my kids?
Scary stuff...
I just hope that Ed Whitacre enjoys his new pile of cash, and I hope his kids don't go without shoes...
Forgiveness is easier than permission ;)
But seriously, I don't make changes which could in any way impact production without proper clearance, but changes which can have no outcome but good (or at least are not going to effect users) I go ahead and make, that way I can iron out the wrinkles and then I seem to management to be a more "pro-active" employee...
There are places where I am not able to move at the speeds that I would like, that is ok, I simply let those move at thier own pace, and use that extra time to push other initiatives, of which I have more direct control (because I came up with them, etc).
Don't know if that helps at all...
This was true for me about 5 days ago (and for the most part still is). Then I found a neato extension called ie tab which lets me quickly right click and open a broken page in ie, in a firefox tab. This comes in especially handy for those pesky ActiveX admin control panels (trend micro administration, shoretel phone administration, etc). Also my bank has succesfully broken firefox support very recently, and while I'm confident they will fix it again, in the interim I'm happy to open thier site in an ie tab until the problem is fixed.
What would Windows be called if didn't display any "windows"?
I'm sure its been across slashdot before, but Utopia (http://www.utopianet.org/) is currently under construction in Utah cities, and you can already have service installed in some Orem neighborhoods. According to the FAQ (http://www.utopianet.org/faq/faq3.e.htm) speeds will be asyncronous 100mbps to residential, and 1gbps to businesses. I happen to live in one of the cities which is currently having fiber pulled, and have attended several of the monthly public meetings and it is definitely not "vaporware". I think that this type of metropolitan connectivity will be the norm throughout the civilized world, when other cities see what it will do for them, as far as bringing business and strengthening the local economy.
Unless of course MSN Search is actually utilizing some "hidden" feature in IIS, in which case, simply changing the header probably wouldn't do much.
Perhaps they should speed up the process reverse engineering bitkeeper ;)