>>Do not be confused... your professer should be considered your EMPLOYEE. You are the one paying, they are the one receiving money.
I agree with you in principle on this, but at the school I went to their attitude was "We already have your money. "Don't like it? Transfer or drop." The school doesn't care because they don't need to. Are you the star QB or the child of a multimillion dollar donor? No? Then f-off.
After five (5) separate cases of e colii in three different kitchens and a security guard punched a girl in the face for trying to meet with the administration when there was a scheduled conference, plus a whole lot of other shit, I don't trust or respect the school I went to (this is not to say that I didn't learn anything while there; rather, that the school was badly managed, problems were not addressed until there was a crisis.)
There's a difference between poor use of power and the abuse of power.
Re:If you are interested in solving math puzzles
on
Prime Obsession
·
· Score: 1
All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.
When I read a page with a white background, I press <Ctrl>-A
Mmmmmm... yellow text in -2 font on orange background.
>>I wonder if you realize that you started out saying "The church teaches . .." without even saying which church. Catholic? Protestant? Christian? Judeo-Christian? Buddhist? Hindu? You're making a lot of assumptions there, buddy.
Yes, that's a good point, one that I thought of when I was writing my post - I didn't have the time or energy (and honestly, the expertise) to write an all inclusive response with regards to the beliefs of every person on earth. I was just hitting back at someone who appeared (to me) to be bashing a scientist on behalf of religion.
>>I think that right there you posited your version of God.
Actually, I don't believe in god. I was speaking in terms of what I guessed the other person was seeing things as, because he pissed me off. You make good points. If I had the time and energy, I'd love to do an exhaustive study of the history and theology of religions so to better separate what I can calmly ignore from what I think is fanciful.
>>I fail to see how a successful cloning experiment completely disproves the idea (of the soul).
The reason that successful cloning sheds light on the idea of the soul is that the soul is supposedly the thing that makes us specially human - it (the soul) derives from the concept of the animus, or "spark of life". The church teaches that a soul can only be created by god, not humans. So, the successful cloning of a human, resulting in a living, thinking person, created by people by human ingenuity instead of the usual way - fscking - means that either people don't need a soul to live and think (which completely undermines the basis for positing a soul in the first place), or the lab techs whipped up a soul in the closet and didn't put it in the report (in which case a soul has been created by other than god, which opens up a whole other can of worms for the church to explain away... eg, whence consciousness, and whence animus)
>>If he had really disproven the soul or God (which is impossible to to the vague nature of their descriptions) then he should by all means spread this proof, but since he hasn't, then he should just STFU.
Ahem. He didn't mention god. And as far as it being impossible to disprove such things, it is equally impossible to PROVE them. =) Also, the reason for that is not that they are "vaguely defined", but instead, exactly because of their descriptions. When you posit something which has infinite capabilities and unknowable motives, anything can be explained as caprice.
The soul is a cultural construct. It has weight as long as people believe in it. When people stop believing, it's over.
As far as STFU goes, he has as much right to speak his mind as anyone else. Including you. Hey, here's an idea, how about YOU STFU? No? Then let him speak.
>>He is making scientific conclusions based on his faith that the soul is not real.
I'm working hard to restrain myself from flaming you. Read it again without your blinders, grandma. He didn't say "I have concluded on the basis of my observations that the soul is not real". What he said was "the existence of a soul[...] frankly is pure imagination". He gave his frank opinion. There is a difference. If you don't know what science is then (redacted) yourself.
That's a good point. Some people do not believe that a child should be kept in a semi-lit fantasy world inhabited by the easter bunny and santa claus until they turn 18, whereupon they magically gain the ability to deal with the world. Kids are dealing with unfair authority figures and violently bullying peers from kindergarden.
I wouldn't give a five year old a Heineken and a joint and my copy of "Apocalypse Now". But I also wouldn't shelter a kid so that he came off like he was raised in a cave when s/he hit high school. Exposing children to the less cuddly elements of reality is a grey zone left to their parents (and random dumb luck). Legislating that grey zone into some lah-dee-dah fantasy isn't going to help the children adjust to anything or keep problems from arising. It's just bread and circus for the elderly and hyperevangelistic.
Right, everything more violent than "Barbie's magic playhouse" results in murder sprees, and bullying has no effect on a child's emotional well being or sense of integration in the community.
Now they'll have to sweep for bugs in the locker rooms. Is that a drop of water or is someone watching us?
I'm sure the paranoid among us will now be able to associate any two conspiracies.
Therapist: Yes, but how could the mafia know about your abduction by the aliens under the instruction of NATO? 'noid: Transparent wireless webcams, man! They're like, freakin' everywhere!
Remember, just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean there isn't an army of invisible psychic ninjas watching your every... (*****) sorry, the army of invisible psychic ninjas has warned me to discontinue this message.
Okay, to be less vague on my part: I expect conservatives and the intellectual property people to hype a need to have every transaction logged and tracked, and every user identified. I feel that if that happened, it would have a chilling effect on free speech, or even make it possible to "turn off" online free speech, or censor certain users.
No, we used to be free. Now we're "defending ourselves from terrorists and spreading democracy". We used to be a jingoistic society, now we're just sheep. Almost anything can be justified with a few words from the proper talking head, and that which can't be justified is denied or scapegoated.
World, America has changed. Drastically, in many ways. Most liberals and some conservatives see what's happening and oppose it. But we've been Rupert Murdoched and Karl Roved and Pat Robertsoned out of the conversation. Believe me, we're trying.
I don't have any good solutions. But there's one thing I can suggest.. kill Rupert Murdoch, and kill anyone who succeeds him. It sucks that the only suggestion I can make is a destructive one. But his death would prevent thousands more, and open a floodgate of american politics.
The problem (as I see it) isn't that Tenet suggested we should have increased security, but rather, that what he said was vague. Sure, it makes sense to raise the security bar for, say, a power plant or chemical factory. I think grandparent is pointing out the obvious, that individual access (IRC, blogging, etc) could be lumped in easily. Who's going to argue for anonymous free speech, when innuendo equates it with terrorism and national security?
Better security for businesses and critical infrastructure? Fine, great! Turning the WHOLE internet into a high security grid? Not helpful, not healthy, but easy to propose and advantageous to entities who don't like free speech to be quite so free.
>>Yes, because CO2 released when burning fossil fuels is magically tagged so that plants know not to use it for photosynthesis ever again.
Do you have a brain? Plants remove X amount of carbon from the air. Putting X+Y amount of carbon into the air results in Y left over. Tagged? Do you have a point, other than the one on your head?
>>What process caused the CO2 to get "stored" in the first place, again?
I am pretty sure most people can probably puzzle out where the carbon in fossil fuels came from. What's your point? That we need to grow animals and chuck them into places where silt is deposited?
The problem with conservative talk is that it's mostly (when not entirely) spiv philosophy. You know what sucks about spiv philosophy? Its the politically expedient masquerading as wisdom.
>> I guess it's very hard to get continued funding for a study that says "Everything's fine, situation normal"
Um, you don't write the conclusion to your study before you seek approval. You write it after you finish the study.
>> either the entire world and every observable natural system is on the brink of an unheard-of disaster, or there is a noticable (and understandable) trend in scientific research to a) follow the herd, and b) doomsay.
Two things here: first, your implication that science = fraud is both blind and offensive. Second, the article doesn't say anything about imminent doom. It says that petrochemicals appear to be contributing to global warming, but that this is not certain. Not only does it not "doomsay", it openly declares the possibility that there is no "smoking gun". You are clearly a rabid ideologue for jumping from the article to what you said.
Finally, as for "the entire world" being "on the brink" of disaster, in geologic terms, "the brink" could be a decade or a millenium.
But hey, f*ck it, let's wait until we're permanently screwed, because it feels good now. If you were a heroin addict, I could understand your attitude.
>>Elections in the U.S. are required to be secret, to prevent vote-selling, among other things.
PKI would allow secrecy...? Maybe I am misunderstanding your post.
>>It's also illegal to force people to present credentials to vote - because, among other things, this was used to prevent black people from voting in the South during the heyday of Jim Crow laws.
I thought I heard about people being required to show not one but *two* forms of ID in the last presidential election
I'd like to see a system where voting is year-round, for the whole term. I want to be able to set my vote on the first day after the election, and change it anytime before the next one.
Before computers, this would have been a tall order. Now it's realistic, if not easy. One national database, one PKI set, and no more chads or impounded ballots or fraud of any kind. Everybody wins, and most importantly, it'll probably drive the cost of holding elections way down.
>>Every bit of material has huge amounts of energy locked away in it.
Not all matter is usable for nuclear reactions. Although making the reactor would be no problem, you still need the elemental uranium or plutonium. We don't have a "Mr fission" from BttF yet:)
BTW, I wanted to say that I appreciate your view about buddhism being superstition, I wrote a journal entry if you want to check it out.. or not, it's all good.
This thread is the best I've seen on slashdot "evar":)
>>Who cares if the power bill for production is high, if the power company is wiped out by the resulting nuclear weapon?
If people start sucking megawatts, you can cut off their power and send in the cops. They use less straighforward means for catching people growing marijuana in hydropontic basement setups.
Sorry about the split post, I had to switch computers (at work). BTW, I'm now one of your fans (I'm agnostic/atheistic). Also, you've inspired me to write a new journal entry.
You'd still need to get the uranium from somewhere, it's elemental. But change nuclear weapon to biological weapon, and you are correct that a fabricator would let one person wreak a lot of havoc....because people are vicious creatures.
>>As for the rest, I decline to address your attempt to introduce superstition and mythology into a practical discussion.
That cuts, since I'm usually the one arguing against religious nutcases. Buddhism doesn't posit a god. It's mostly philosophy. However, karma is pretty floaty, and reincarnation is downright superstitious.
Slashdot Mirror
<Get Fuzzy> Bucky: "What?! You can't - NO ONE OWNS ME!" </Get Fuzzy>
I agree with you in principle on this, but at the school I went to their attitude was "We already have your money. "Don't like it? Transfer or drop." The school doesn't care because they don't need to. Are you the star QB or the child of a multimillion dollar donor? No? Then f-off.
After five (5) separate cases of e colii in three different kitchens and a security guard punched a girl in the face for trying to meet with the administration when there was a scheduled conference, plus a whole lot of other shit, I don't trust or respect the school I went to (this is not to say that I didn't learn anything while there; rather, that the school was badly managed, problems were not addressed until there was a crisis.)
There's a difference between poor use of power and the abuse of power.
When I read a page with a white background, I press <Ctrl>-A
Mmmmmm... yellow text in -2 font on orange background.
Yahoo! accounts don't lock you out on invalid password attempts do they?
Yes, that's a good point, one that I thought of when I was writing my post - I didn't have the time or energy (and honestly, the expertise) to write an all inclusive response with regards to the beliefs of every person on earth. I was just hitting back at someone who appeared (to me) to be bashing a scientist on behalf of religion.
>>I think that right there you posited your version of God.
Actually, I don't believe in god. I was speaking in terms of what I guessed the other person was seeing things as, because he pissed me off. You make good points. If I had the time and energy, I'd love to do an exhaustive study of the history and theology of religions so to better separate what I can calmly ignore from what I think is fanciful.
Se la vi.
>>I fail to see how a successful cloning experiment completely disproves the idea (of the soul).
The reason that successful cloning sheds light on the idea of the soul is that the soul is supposedly the thing that makes us specially human - it (the soul) derives from the concept of the animus, or "spark of life". The church teaches that a soul can only be created by god, not humans. So, the successful cloning of a human, resulting in a living, thinking person, created by people by human ingenuity instead of the usual way - fscking - means that either people don't need a soul to live and think (which completely undermines the basis for positing a soul in the first place), or the lab techs whipped up a soul in the closet and didn't put it in the report (in which case a soul has been created by other than god, which opens up a whole other can of worms for the church to explain away... eg, whence consciousness, and whence animus)
>>If he had really disproven the soul or God (which is impossible to to the vague nature of their descriptions) then he should by all means spread this proof, but since he hasn't, then he should just STFU.
Ahem. He didn't mention god. And as far as it being impossible to disprove such things, it is equally impossible to PROVE them. =) Also, the reason for that is not that they are "vaguely defined", but instead, exactly because of their descriptions. When you posit something which has infinite capabilities and unknowable motives, anything can be explained as caprice.
The soul is a cultural construct. It has weight as long as people believe in it. When people stop believing, it's over.
As far as STFU goes, he has as much right to speak his mind as anyone else. Including you. Hey, here's an idea, how about YOU STFU? No? Then let him speak.
>>He is making scientific conclusions based on his faith that the soul is not real.
I'm working hard to restrain myself from flaming you. Read it again without your blinders, grandma. He didn't say "I have concluded on the basis of my observations that the soul is not real". What he said was "the existence of a soul[...] frankly is pure imagination". He gave his frank opinion. There is a difference. If you don't know what science is then (redacted) yourself.
How droll.
I wouldn't give a five year old a Heineken and a joint and my copy of "Apocalypse Now". But I also wouldn't shelter a kid so that he came off like he was raised in a cave when s/he hit high school. Exposing children to the less cuddly elements of reality is a grey zone left to their parents (and random dumb luck). Legislating that grey zone into some lah-dee-dah fantasy isn't going to help the children adjust to anything or keep problems from arising. It's just bread and circus for the elderly and hyperevangelistic.
Right, everything more violent than "Barbie's magic playhouse" results in murder sprees, and bullying has no effect on a child's emotional well being or sense of integration in the community.
Switzerland?
I'm sure the paranoid among us will now be able to associate any two conspiracies.
Therapist: Yes, but how could the mafia know about your abduction by the aliens under the instruction of NATO?
'noid: Transparent wireless webcams, man! They're like, freakin' everywhere!
Remember, just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean there isn't an army of invisible psychic ninjas watching your every... (*****) sorry, the army of invisible psychic ninjas has warned me to discontinue this message.
Where's my lithium...
(iangbihfwa)
Or did I miss your point entirely?
No, we used to be free. Now we're "defending ourselves from terrorists and spreading democracy". We used to be a jingoistic society, now we're just sheep. Almost anything can be justified with a few words from the proper talking head, and that which can't be justified is denied or scapegoated.
World, America has changed. Drastically, in many ways. Most liberals and some conservatives see what's happening and oppose it. But we've been Rupert Murdoched and Karl Roved and Pat Robertsoned out of the conversation. Believe me, we're trying.
I don't have any good solutions. But there's one thing I can suggest.. kill Rupert Murdoch, and kill anyone who succeeds him. It sucks that the only suggestion I can make is a destructive one. But his death would prevent thousands more, and open a floodgate of american politics.
Better security for businesses and critical infrastructure? Fine, great! Turning the WHOLE internet into a high security grid? Not helpful, not healthy, but easy to propose and advantageous to entities who don't like free speech to be quite so free.
Do you have a brain? Plants remove X amount of carbon from the air. Putting X+Y amount of carbon into the air results in Y left over. Tagged? Do you have a point, other than the one on your head?
>>What process caused the CO2 to get "stored" in the first place, again?
I am pretty sure most people can probably puzzle out where the carbon in fossil fuels came from. What's your point? That we need to grow animals and chuck them into places where silt is deposited?
The problem with conservative talk is that it's mostly (when not entirely) spiv philosophy. You know what sucks about spiv philosophy? Its the politically expedient masquerading as wisdom.
Um, you don't write the conclusion to your study before you seek approval. You write it after you finish the study.
>> either the entire world and every observable natural system is on the brink of an unheard-of disaster, or there is a noticable (and understandable) trend in scientific research to a) follow the herd, and b) doomsay.
Two things here: first, your implication that science = fraud is both blind and offensive. Second, the article doesn't say anything about imminent doom. It says that petrochemicals appear to be contributing to global warming, but that this is not certain. Not only does it not "doomsay", it openly declares the possibility that there is no "smoking gun". You are clearly a rabid ideologue for jumping from the article to what you said.
Finally, as for "the entire world" being "on the brink" of disaster, in geologic terms, "the brink" could be a decade or a millenium.
But hey, f*ck it, let's wait until we're permanently screwed, because it feels good now. If you were a heroin addict, I could understand your attitude.
PKI would allow secrecy...? Maybe I am misunderstanding your post.
>>It's also illegal to force people to present credentials to vote - because, among other things, this was used to prevent black people from voting in the South during the heyday of Jim Crow laws.
I thought I heard about people being required to show not one but *two* forms of ID in the last presidential election
jammers are homing beacons for jdams
Before computers, this would have been a tall order. Now it's realistic, if not easy. One national database, one PKI set, and no more chads or impounded ballots or fraud of any kind. Everybody wins, and most importantly, it'll probably drive the cost of holding elections way down.
Glad you told me. :)
Not all matter is usable for nuclear reactions. Although making the reactor would be no problem, you still need the elemental uranium or plutonium. We don't have a "Mr fission" from BttF yet :)
BTW, I wanted to say that I appreciate your view about buddhism being superstition, I wrote a journal entry if you want to check it out.. or not, it's all good.
This thread is the best I've seen on slashdot "evar" :)
If people start sucking megawatts, you can cut off their power and send in the cops. They use less straighforward means for catching people growing marijuana in hydropontic basement setups.
Sorry about the split post, I had to switch computers (at work). BTW, I'm now one of your fans (I'm agnostic/atheistic). Also, you've inspired me to write a new journal entry.
>>As for the rest, I decline to address your attempt to introduce superstition and mythology into a practical discussion.
That cuts, since I'm usually the one arguing against religious nutcases. Buddhism doesn't posit a god. It's mostly philosophy. However, karma is pretty floaty, and reincarnation is downright superstitious.
Remind me again... what does the "T" in TCO stand for?