I would disagree. Keeping on eye on their activities is one thing, and is definitely a necessary part of it. Spying, however, means that you're doing so secretly, usually in an underhanded fashion. It leads to a distinct lack of trust, primarily on the side of the children.
When will people learn that spying on your children is not a replacement for good parenting? The fact that there's actually a demand for this sort of thing is depressing.
$11 for an album is the same as an actual CD price? How long has it been since you've looked been in an actual music store, anyway? I feel lucky if I find a CD for $14; $11 is cheap. I don't think you can get any decent CDs for $11 even off of Amazon with its everpresent discounts.
"Moving from a clean interface to a cluttered feature-laden experience"
Where is this cluttered feature-laden experience you speak of, so that I may complain with you?
Google's search pages still look pretty much the same to me. So they added a few relevancy-related search category links and did some very minor reorganization. This is cluttered how?
I know criticizing large companies is everyone's favourite passtime, but think about what you're saying just a little before you start.
"Philosophy can think about what things might be like, or what they should be like, but nothing in it can change how things are."
Until you can present a scientific experiment involving two physically identical people with completely identical enviroments and history to test your statement that they "clearly can't" make different decisions, this statement is entirely irrelevant. That isn't how "things are", because your theories about these hypothetical situations with identical people or possible decisions of a person at any one time are not testable. There are no identical people in identical situations to observe and see if they make the same decisions. There is no way for a single person to make a decision, have that recorded, and then rewind time for that person so they never made the decision and have them redo it exactly the same way. Your statements are just as factually accurate as any free-will proponents you argue against, if not less so.
User created content means more new content (which the developers don't have to spend time/money on) for the userbase to play. How can it not be a good thing to have?
And then there's games like the in-development Pirates of the Burning Sea which actually has an entire system set up for the creation of user created content, run mostly by the users themselves. There's a whole bunch of ships that the users have made that have been put in the official game. The whole idea of the playerbase being connected and involved with multiple aspects of the game is, in my opinion, an awesome idea.
Disclaimer: I am a self-admitted PotBS fan. This post may be slightly biased.
One of the most common fallacies in views on scientific writings that I've seen over and over is that it requires massive amounts of technical jargon in order to explain anything accurately. It's extremely annoying how many scientists seem to either be personally unable or unwilling to explain things using plain English. Or at the very least, give a brief definition of any really technical terms used.
The point of writing about something on Wikipedia, or even in a paper, isn't just to present accurate information. It's to present accurate information that the readers can understand. In Wikipedia's case, that would be the general public. As much care should be put into the readability and clarity of the information as to the informational content itself.
People buy Harry Potter books because they want them. People buy school textbooks because their school tells them they have to. I'm pretty sure people are more willing to pay a lot of money on something that's necessary for getting a college degree than something that they want to be entertained by for a couple days or whatever.
It doesn't help that college bookstores hideously overprice the textbooks. Before selling used books on the internet became as common as it is now, college bookstores effectively had a monopoly on textbooks. They say you need book X and the bookstore is most likely the only place who have it to sell to you (especially new versions), so they can practically set it at whatever price they want.
Hopefully textbook prices will start dropping once everyone starts buying them online instead of in the college bookstores.
Maybe if Microsoft didn't keep trying to dominate every market they see someone else being successful at, they'd be able to do better in the ones that they've been successful at. Such as, I don't know, operating systems? Everything I've heard about Vista is bad; if MS had been focusing on making Vista better (and maybe on time) instead of trying to match everyone else it wouldn't have been such a, well, failure. The attempts to get into said other markets haven't really been a success, either. (Zune, anyone?)
Microsoft needs to let Yahoo alone and realize that it's not possible to do everything.
Sadly, yes. The vast majority of Americans vote strictly within party lines and don't pay all that much attention to the candidates' actual positions. That's part of why I'm a registered Independent. I don't really like aligning myself with a political party, because then people (in general) automatically assume that you agree with every stand or statement that party's politicians make, and that you will be voting for said party in every election.
The division between Republican/"conservative" and Democrat/"liberal" in US society these days is getting worse, what with the mutual demonization of the opposing parties. The far right says that liberals are evil, the far left says conservatives are evil, and they all focus more on making the "other guys" look bad and following party lines than actually trying to take meaningful political stands.
So, the issue I have is why does the Christian Bible contain both parts? The verse I listed was a statement from God, not from one of the mortal characters. So...is the New Testament God a different one, or is Jesus just ignoring all the rules of his father?
I think I mentioned something along these lines earlier, but my memory is awful so I'll assume I didn't.
The Old Testament is included in the Christian Bible because Jesus is the Messiah, the one foretold in the Old Testament. The OT is basically kept as a reference/background for the validity of Jesus' role as the Saviour.
Also, Jesus is believed to be God also, so what he says has equal weight to what was said before. And there's no reason why God couldn't change his mind. He apparently did in the Old Testament several times, so changing it again for Jesus is fairly reasonable.
As for why he would've been so harsh and mean to the Jews, and then changed to being loving and all with Jesus, you can glance over the Creation story for a pretty good explanation. He started out loving and caring for his people, back when He created Adam and Eve and all. Then they went and betrayed His trust, and He got angry. All of His treatment of the Jews can be seen as punishment for the betrayal, which since God is an infinite being and was betrayed, is a pretty big punishment. His temper would have cooled over the millenia, I'm sure, and then Jesus decided to come down and pay fully for the big betrayal. So God always loved us, but he isn't angry at us any more.
I think that was a bit of a tangent. *cough*
Also, how do you explain something like: Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Actually that's part of what I said about the reason for the OT being there at all. He came as a fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament for the coming of the Saviour.
A fairly uncommonly contextual quote, which follows that long list of "things not to do" that everyone loves to quote in the whole the-Bible-is-anti-homosexuality debate:
Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (KJV)
To simplify, those rules were rules he gave them in order to survive in the culture of the land they were moving to. It wasn't an expression of the Will of God or any such thing, it was just practicality for survival of His people.
Not really, it you read Matt 5:17-19. But, if you choose to interpret Luke 16:16, Eph 2:15, & Rom 7:6 literally, then no, you don't have to follow the OT.
There aren't actually any verses or chapters in the Bible that explicitly define Christianity. The generally accepted definition of Christianity, as is indicated in the name, is the worship of Christ. How you go about worshipping Christ and what rules you feel are applicable to it is of course a personal decision of beliefs, and is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
By that logic, as Christ is not present in the Old Testament, there is no requirement to follow it.
Pick any christian sect, and they canonize some part of the bible to fit their tastes. That's just trying to translate personal preferences into divine will - something nearly all christian sects have in common (along with a slew of other religions). That was actually the underlying point.
If that was really your underlying point, which I frankly can't see in the post I originally responded to at all (that may be just me, but I still can't see it), then you should really be specifying which version of the Bible you're taking your quotes from. After all, they're all different translations for different sects.
Looking back at that other post just now from that point, I just want to mention that there isn't really a prevalent belief that the Bible is actually "written by God" in the sense you used it. God didn't come down and have some random Jew take dictation. The Bible is believed, rather, to be the result of direct divine inspiration. Obviously there then has to be taken into account the fact that the "Word of God" was then diffused through the writer's perception. There are a few sects who believe that it's literally the exact Word of God, but I'll refrain from commenting on that.
I'm not the poster you responded to, but I personally believe that as I'm not Jewish, I have no reason to follow laws set by God for the Jews. The Old Testament, as it relates to Christianity, is essentially the background information to explain, glorify, etc. the fact that Jesus is the Saviour. The laws in it don't apply, as (to Christianity) any laws or teachings that Jesus gave us basically trump the older Old Testament laws. As his primary command was essentially "love everybody, including yourself", all of those intolerant and violent laws from the Old Testament are obviously contradictory, and are therefore replaced by the 'updated version'.
Following the law isn't how you get sent to Hell. Hell is, to put it simply, a place where there is an absence of God. As the Christian God is everywhere, and in everything, a place WITHOUT Him is the place designated as "Hell". It was initially described as a place filled with overwhelming sadness and loneliness, but future church officials found that insufficient to motivate their congregation to 'do the right thing', and started making up the whole fire and brimstone story. And the way to go to Hell, the only way to go to Hell, is to completely reject God. Basically, you go to Hell if you CHOOSE to go to Hell, i.e. choose to be entirely separate from God.
Secondly, something that many people forget is that the Old Testament is, quite honestly, a Jewish book. In order to be Christian, you don't have to follow the Old Testament; you have to follow JESUS. Jesus' example and his laws (few that they are) and teachings. One can completely ignore any laws in the Old Testament and still be Christian, as being Christian means you believe that Jesus is God, the Saviour, etc. and you worship and follow him and the God he preached about.
As for claiming that the entire group of Christians has a specific stance on the Bible is particularly naive. Compare, for example, the Catholics to the Fundamentalists. The Catholics follow the precepts presented in the Bible, but only to a point and focusing mainly on the New Testament, and have much external doctrine unrelated to the Bible that is far more important than laws in the Old Testament. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, believes that you should follow what the Bible says by the letter. They tend to be the ones you read about mentioning the anti-homosexuality clauses and the like.
"So, if you're not a member of a church, then you're free?"
I don't get what you mean by that, honestly. If you're not a Christian, why would you follow Christian laws and Christian morality? That's like saying if you live in Australia, you have to follow Chinese law. You aren't a Chinese citizen, so why would you follow their laws?
I never said adversarial and cooperative systems were the same; merely that the tendency towards adversarial is a part of human nature. That, and both the adversarial and the cooperative systems you mentioned for the scientific method STILL involve skepticism, despite you vocalising so strongly against it.
I agree 100% that a cooperative system for the scientific community would work better, but I think it's not likely that the community as a whole can be mature enough to use one, and that either way, there will still be skepticism as a fundamental part of the scientific method.
"Instead of an adversarial system - a cooperative system is the way to do things - with errors gently pointed out instead of with scorn and ridicule as is done today."
That's still skeptism, though. It's just people being nice instead of pricks, and that's more an issue of human nature than the process itself. You're still looking at things skeptically, but instead of saying "You idiot, it's OBVIOUSLY wrong because " or "Your paper is worthless because it ", people would just say "Hey, I've got some bad news, I found a problem with your hypothesis, mind reading my experimental results?"
I hate to say it, but people in general just aren't that nice. And being nice has never had much to do with a persons ability as a scientist.
Also, skeptism doesn't reject things offhand just because there's some evidence that it isn't true. It applies itself to things NOT being true, just as much as it does to things BEING true. If there is any question as to what the 'truth' is, then it doesn't state either option as being 'true' and you continue to test it.
If you use a different process, it just isn't called science. Science IS the process, and skeptism is part of the process - that's in its definition. Taking the skeptism out of science is like taking purple and leeching the blue out of it, and then trying to claim that the red that's left is still purple.
No one is saying "Science is the one and only correct way of determining the truth!" However, if you are following the scientific process, i.e. using science, then you are going to have to use scientific skepticism as an intrinsic part of said process, as the process has been defined by decades or even centuries of development.
Since you seem so adamantly opposed to the scientific method, I'd assume you have a better idea? Why don't you share it with everyone so we can do things the RIGHT way?
As everyone said, it's actually the other way round movie-title wise, but. I personally spent an all-nighter watching NGE, then proceeded to watch End of Eva immediately after it, the whole spree ended at like 7 AM. THAT was a complete mindf*ck. My brain still has that experience etched into it like I saw it last week, and it was almost 3 years ago.
Obviously, the unit being referred to OUTSIDE of the parentheses is not the same as the one INSIDE the parentheses. The one inside is the $10k home unit. The one outside is the more expensive business unit.
Pretty much all PC games I've seen mainly involve clicking with the mouse, and/or either the 4 arrow keys or wasd for directions. Any and all other commands, like the F# keys or just number keys or various other letter keys, are more like extras. You can get to pretty much everything with the mouse and the arrow keys.
It might not be quite as fast, but it's still pretty consistent.
A bunch of people mentioned how you can't copy/paste things off of the site, but there's a simple loophole which doesn't involve scrolling through source code.
Just click and drag with the arrow-cursor, not the text cursor. You can start from any between-paragraphs whitespace, and it works fine. Makes the whole script thing even MORE pointless, though...
A lot like the law being proposed, come to think of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would disagree. Keeping on eye on their activities is one thing, and is definitely a necessary part of it. Spying, however, means that you're doing so secretly, usually in an underhanded fashion. It leads to a distinct lack of trust, primarily on the side of the children.
When will people learn that spying on your children is not a replacement for good parenting? The fact that there's actually a demand for this sort of thing is depressing.
It's only here so that the people on slashdot can make repeated references to Satanism in the Government, really.
$11 for an album is the same as an actual CD price? How long has it been since you've looked been in an actual music store, anyway? I feel lucky if I find a CD for $14; $11 is cheap. I don't think you can get any decent CDs for $11 even off of Amazon with its everpresent discounts.
"Moving from a clean interface to a cluttered feature-laden experience"
Where is this cluttered feature-laden experience you speak of, so that I may complain with you?
Google's search pages still look pretty much the same to me. So they added a few relevancy-related search category links and did some very minor reorganization. This is cluttered how?
I know criticizing large companies is everyone's favourite passtime, but think about what you're saying just a little before you start.
"Philosophy can think about what things might be like, or what they should be like, but nothing in it can change how things are."
Until you can present a scientific experiment involving two physically identical people with completely identical enviroments and history to test your statement that they "clearly can't" make different decisions, this statement is entirely irrelevant. That isn't how "things are", because your theories about these hypothetical situations with identical people or possible decisions of a person at any one time are not testable. There are no identical people in identical situations to observe and see if they make the same decisions. There is no way for a single person to make a decision, have that recorded, and then rewind time for that person so they never made the decision and have them redo it exactly the same way. Your statements are just as factually accurate as any free-will proponents you argue against, if not less so.
User created content means more new content (which the developers don't have to spend time/money on) for the userbase to play. How can it not be a good thing to have?
And then there's games like the in-development Pirates of the Burning Sea which actually has an entire system set up for the creation of user created content, run mostly by the users themselves. There's a whole bunch of ships that the users have made that have been put in the official game. The whole idea of the playerbase being connected and involved with multiple aspects of the game is, in my opinion, an awesome idea.
Disclaimer: I am a self-admitted PotBS fan. This post may be slightly biased.
"liberal atheistic socialist liberal conspirators"
They're twice as liberal as the normal atheistic socialist liberal conspirators!
One of the most common fallacies in views on scientific writings that I've seen over and over is that it requires massive amounts of technical jargon in order to explain anything accurately. It's extremely annoying how many scientists seem to either be personally unable or unwilling to explain things using plain English. Or at the very least, give a brief definition of any really technical terms used.
The point of writing about something on Wikipedia, or even in a paper, isn't just to present accurate information. It's to present accurate information that the readers can understand. In Wikipedia's case, that would be the general public. As much care should be put into the readability and clarity of the information as to the informational content itself.
People buy Harry Potter books because they want them. People buy school textbooks because their school tells them they have to. I'm pretty sure people are more willing to pay a lot of money on something that's necessary for getting a college degree than something that they want to be entertained by for a couple days or whatever.
It doesn't help that college bookstores hideously overprice the textbooks. Before selling used books on the internet became as common as it is now, college bookstores effectively had a monopoly on textbooks. They say you need book X and the bookstore is most likely the only place who have it to sell to you (especially new versions), so they can practically set it at whatever price they want.
Hopefully textbook prices will start dropping once everyone starts buying them online instead of in the college bookstores.
Maybe if Microsoft didn't keep trying to dominate every market they see someone else being successful at, they'd be able to do better in the ones that they've been successful at. Such as, I don't know, operating systems? Everything I've heard about Vista is bad; if MS had been focusing on making Vista better (and maybe on time) instead of trying to match everyone else it wouldn't have been such a, well, failure. The attempts to get into said other markets haven't really been a success, either. (Zune, anyone?)
Microsoft needs to let Yahoo alone and realize that it's not possible to do everything.
Sadly, yes. The vast majority of Americans vote strictly within party lines and don't pay all that much attention to the candidates' actual positions. That's part of why I'm a registered Independent. I don't really like aligning myself with a political party, because then people (in general) automatically assume that you agree with every stand or statement that party's politicians make, and that you will be voting for said party in every election.
The division between Republican/"conservative" and Democrat/"liberal" in US society these days is getting worse, what with the mutual demonization of the opposing parties. The far right says that liberals are evil, the far left says conservatives are evil, and they all focus more on making the "other guys" look bad and following party lines than actually trying to take meaningful political stands.
So, the issue I have is why does the Christian Bible contain both parts? The verse I listed was a statement from God, not from one of the mortal characters. So...is the New Testament God a different one, or is Jesus just ignoring all the rules of his father?
I think I mentioned something along these lines earlier, but my memory is awful so I'll assume I didn't.
The Old Testament is included in the Christian Bible because Jesus is the Messiah, the one foretold in the Old Testament. The OT is basically kept as a reference/background for the validity of Jesus' role as the Saviour.
Also, Jesus is believed to be God also, so what he says has equal weight to what was said before. And there's no reason why God couldn't change his mind. He apparently did in the Old Testament several times, so changing it again for Jesus is fairly reasonable.
As for why he would've been so harsh and mean to the Jews, and then changed to being loving and all with Jesus, you can glance over the Creation story for a pretty good explanation. He started out loving and caring for his people, back when He created Adam and Eve and all. Then they went and betrayed His trust, and He got angry. All of His treatment of the Jews can be seen as punishment for the betrayal, which since God is an infinite being and was betrayed, is a pretty big punishment. His temper would have cooled over the millenia, I'm sure, and then Jesus decided to come down and pay fully for the big betrayal. So God always loved us, but he isn't angry at us any more.
I think that was a bit of a tangent. *cough*
Also, how do you explain something like: Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Actually that's part of what I said about the reason for the OT being there at all. He came as a fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament for the coming of the Saviour.
A fairly uncommonly contextual quote, which follows that long list of "things not to do" that everyone loves to quote in the whole the-Bible-is-anti-homosexuality debate:
Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (KJV)
To simplify, those rules were rules he gave them in order to survive in the culture of the land they were moving to. It wasn't an expression of the Will of God or any such thing, it was just practicality for survival of His people.
Such are the dangers of quoting out of context.
Not really, it you read Matt 5:17-19. But, if you choose to interpret Luke 16:16, Eph 2:15, & Rom 7:6 literally, then no, you don't have to follow the OT.
There aren't actually any verses or chapters in the Bible that explicitly define Christianity. The generally accepted definition of Christianity, as is indicated in the name, is the worship of Christ. How you go about worshipping Christ and what rules you feel are applicable to it is of course a personal decision of beliefs, and is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
By that logic, as Christ is not present in the Old Testament, there is no requirement to follow it.
Pick any christian sect, and they canonize some part of the bible to fit their tastes. That's just trying to translate personal preferences into divine will - something nearly all christian sects have in common (along with a slew of other religions). That was actually the underlying point.
If that was really your underlying point, which I frankly can't see in the post I originally responded to at all (that may be just me, but I still can't see it), then you should really be specifying which version of the Bible you're taking your quotes from. After all, they're all different translations for different sects.
Looking back at that other post just now from that point, I just want to mention that there isn't really a prevalent belief that the Bible is actually "written by God" in the sense you used it. God didn't come down and have some random Jew take dictation. The Bible is believed, rather, to be the result of direct divine inspiration. Obviously there then has to be taken into account the fact that the "Word of God" was then diffused through the writer's perception. There are a few sects who believe that it's literally the exact Word of God, but I'll refrain from commenting on that.
I'm not the poster you responded to, but I personally believe that as I'm not Jewish, I have no reason to follow laws set by God for the Jews. The Old Testament, as it relates to Christianity, is essentially the background information to explain, glorify, etc. the fact that Jesus is the Saviour. The laws in it don't apply, as (to Christianity) any laws or teachings that Jesus gave us basically trump the older Old Testament laws. As his primary command was essentially "love everybody, including yourself", all of those intolerant and violent laws from the Old Testament are obviously contradictory, and are therefore replaced by the 'updated version'.
Following the law isn't how you get sent to Hell. Hell is, to put it simply, a place where there is an absence of God. As the Christian God is everywhere, and in everything, a place WITHOUT Him is the place designated as "Hell". It was initially described as a place filled with overwhelming sadness and loneliness, but future church officials found that insufficient to motivate their congregation to 'do the right thing', and started making up the whole fire and brimstone story. And the way to go to Hell, the only way to go to Hell, is to completely reject God. Basically, you go to Hell if you CHOOSE to go to Hell, i.e. choose to be entirely separate from God.
Secondly, something that many people forget is that the Old Testament is, quite honestly, a Jewish book. In order to be Christian, you don't have to follow the Old Testament; you have to follow JESUS. Jesus' example and his laws (few that they are) and teachings. One can completely ignore any laws in the Old Testament and still be Christian, as being Christian means you believe that Jesus is God, the Saviour, etc. and you worship and follow him and the God he preached about.
As for claiming that the entire group of Christians has a specific stance on the Bible is particularly naive. Compare, for example, the Catholics to the Fundamentalists. The Catholics follow the precepts presented in the Bible, but only to a point and focusing mainly on the New Testament, and have much external doctrine unrelated to the Bible that is far more important than laws in the Old Testament. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, believes that you should follow what the Bible says by the letter. They tend to be the ones you read about mentioning the anti-homosexuality clauses and the like.
"So, if you're not a member of a church, then you're free?"
I don't get what you mean by that, honestly. If you're not a Christian, why would you follow Christian laws and Christian morality? That's like saying if you live in Australia, you have to follow Chinese law. You aren't a Chinese citizen, so why would you follow their laws?
Made for humans? Bah! Bananas were obviously made for monkeys!
I never said adversarial and cooperative systems were the same; merely that the tendency towards adversarial is a part of human nature. That, and both the adversarial and the cooperative systems you mentioned for the scientific method STILL involve skepticism, despite you vocalising so strongly against it.
I agree 100% that a cooperative system for the scientific community would work better, but I think it's not likely that the community as a whole can be mature enough to use one, and that either way, there will still be skepticism as a fundamental part of the scientific method.
"Instead of an adversarial system - a cooperative system is the way to do things - with errors gently pointed out instead of with scorn and ridicule as is done today."
That's still skeptism, though. It's just people being nice instead of pricks, and that's more an issue of human nature than the process itself. You're still looking at things skeptically, but instead of saying "You idiot, it's OBVIOUSLY wrong because " or "Your paper is worthless because it ", people would just say "Hey, I've got some bad news, I found a problem with your hypothesis, mind reading my experimental results?"
I hate to say it, but people in general just aren't that nice. And being nice has never had much to do with a persons ability as a scientist.
Also, skeptism doesn't reject things offhand just because there's some evidence that it isn't true. It applies itself to things NOT being true, just as much as it does to things BEING true. If there is any question as to what the 'truth' is, then it doesn't state either option as being 'true' and you continue to test it.
If you use a different process, it just isn't called science. Science IS the process, and skeptism is part of the process - that's in its definition. Taking the skeptism out of science is like taking purple and leeching the blue out of it, and then trying to claim that the red that's left is still purple. No one is saying "Science is the one and only correct way of determining the truth!" However, if you are following the scientific process, i.e. using science, then you are going to have to use scientific skepticism as an intrinsic part of said process, as the process has been defined by decades or even centuries of development. Since you seem so adamantly opposed to the scientific method, I'd assume you have a better idea? Why don't you share it with everyone so we can do things the RIGHT way?
As everyone said, it's actually the other way round movie-title wise, but. I personally spent an all-nighter watching NGE, then proceeded to watch End of Eva immediately after it, the whole spree ended at like 7 AM. THAT was a complete mindf*ck. My brain still has that experience etched into it like I saw it last week, and it was almost 3 years ago.
$2,500*12*4 = $120,000
$120,000 != $10,000
Obviously, the unit being referred to OUTSIDE of the parentheses is not the same as the one INSIDE the parentheses. The one inside is the $10k home unit. The one outside is the more expensive business unit.
Pretty much all PC games I've seen mainly involve clicking with the mouse, and/or either the 4 arrow keys or wasd for directions. Any and all other commands, like the F# keys or just number keys or various other letter keys, are more like extras. You can get to pretty much everything with the mouse and the arrow keys.
It might not be quite as fast, but it's still pretty consistent.
A bunch of people mentioned how you can't copy/paste things off of the site, but there's a simple loophole which doesn't involve scrolling through source code.
Just click and drag with the arrow-cursor, not the text cursor. You can start from any between-paragraphs whitespace, and it works fine. Makes the whole script thing even MORE pointless, though...
A lot like the law being proposed, come to think of it.