I am the only software developer at the start-up I work at. Development is slow because it is only me; but it is also cheap, because it is only me. Hiring another 5 devs would increase velocity and cost.
I'm still not sure that science and God are mutually exclusive. Being a scientist does not mean that one cannot be religious. Being religious does not mean that one cannot be a scientist. Holes in scientific knowledge do not prove science wrong. Holes in religious knowledge do not prove religion wrong. Sometimes science and religion agree, sometimes they contradict one another.
I disagree that creationism needs to "generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis". That would be dragging religion into the realm of science, where it doesn't belong; just as ID tries to drag religion into the science classroom, where it doesn't belong.
Science has an advantage over religion. Science proved by one person is available to everyone. Religion proved by one person is only available to that person, it cannot be given. I believe in God and have proved Him for myself. No scientific fact has affected that proof. If you really want to know for yourself, you'll have to search. It isn't for the lazy, and it definatly isn't for those who *want* it to be false.
The arguement that anything we cannot explain must be wrong is just ignorant. How many things could we not explain 100 years ago that we can explain now? Does that mean those things were false then but true now? I think anyone employing this argument can be safely ignored. By the same token, anything religion cannot explain is also not false. It's all just unknown. I'm ok with it. That's what the future is for.
As long as we are on the topic of not making sense, what other things can you ask someone else to do that will get you charged with a felony? Sure he had malicious intent, and I'm no lawyer, but come on! As far as the 'malicious browser refreshing', shouldn't he only be held liable for the refreshing he did himself?
I feel less a man for even saying that last sentance. Can't you just see the court proceedings, "The defendant is charged with refreshing his browser, many, MANY, times! Many more times, in fact, than a good, honost citizen would think of doing.. The refreshing went on far beyond decency!
For once I am glad there will be plenty of liberals in the court room to say, "WTF?"
We have so many doctrinal disputes, I don't think a discussion is even possible. All I'm saying is this. On earth, you choose; after you die, you receive your reward. If you are not allowed to choose on earth (state sanctioned socialism vs. willing charity) what reward can you be given? I don't think arguing that one paid one's taxes will hold much water. Who gave you or anyone the responsibility of forcing every rich person into heaven? If you're trying to help by redistribution wealth for other people, you're not accomplishing anything. The rich are no better off. Sure the recipient would be better off, but you have become a theif in doing it. I suppose you believe the end justifies the means. But as long as we are forcing our morals on the rich, who else should we force our morals on?
Jesus will condemn the rich to burn in hell forever. Alas the churches were not doing enough and a govt socialism had to be put in place. You would think that if everybody in Utah who called themselves a christian actually acted like a christian and gave 10% of their salary to the poor then poverty would not exist in Utah. Err are we reading the same bible?. Reading the same bible? I don't even think we are living on the same planet.
The sermon on the mount is the most important socialist document in history.
Good! I wish I could agree with you 100%, but I do admire your point of view. I've never heard this one either; calling the sermon on the mount a socialist document. Maybe I live in a plastic bubble, I do post on slashdot. The socialism Jesus taught is sort of like OSS - people giving because they want to, people accepting if they want to. I call it "opt-in socialism", though someone may have already coined the phrase and I just never heard it before. (Turns out that's a common thing.) If socialism is government sanctioned, than one cannot simply choose to not take part. Choice is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. That's why you see Christian conservative's wanting lower taxes, then donating to churches and charitys. Charitys are much more efficient with donations than the government will ever be; churches are even more so. But, efficiency isn't the point, it's just a lucky side effect. The real point is choice. There is much to be gained by the giver, if the giver does so willingly. Forcing one to give is just plain theft. Jesus demonstrated the power to raise the dead and kill with a touch (the barren fig tree), yet he didn't force the young rich man to give all he had to the poor and come follow him. Jesus asked him to, and grieved when he didn't - but never sought to force the issue. I'm for opt-in socialism. I don't have a problem with opt-in communism. If a group of people want to live together with all things in common, letting people come and go as they wish, good for them! I just don't think such things should be government sanctioned.
I'm really asking for it now. I shouldn't reply; but, I was tragically born without the self-preservation gene... So, here goes.
I live in Utah, and I am most definatly one of the people you are refering too. I believe your first paragraph is 99% correct. We do care about technology, but we care about the other things more. I'm as nerd as you can get, but I will be voting for Hatch. Senator Hatch's technical ignorance is a pity, but I am not willing to trade on moral issues. (By the way, you forgot abortion.) Your second paragraph just makes you sound crazy and/or angry. I have never heard the term "demoncrat". I've also never heard of "hitlery". Where are you sending this commentary from?
As a side note, I think Jesus has the political clout to make it as an independant.
And finally, I would like to agree with you. Everyone should visit Utah and see for themselves. We could use the tourism money.
Alright. You're serious, and I'm confused. At least we understand one another. Except... I'm confused, and I don't understand you... which is no one's fault, not even the Romans...
If you can't see the good religion has done and continues to do, you are trying not to see it. Just look at the damage the unreligious have done and continue to do. You are supposed to be a geek. You are supposed to look at things without bias (which is impossible, I know). Before you argue with me, take the other side and answer the argument yourself. Embrace your schizophrenia. You're smart, you can do it. If you really can't, maybe someone here can help you. Doesn't it seem a good thing that people meet together often to contemplate and discuss how to be better people? That's what I do at church.
The proof is in the pudding, so they say. The subject of the grandparent's post is "Question to the religious freaks". And as of now, it is modded 70% insightful and 30% troll. Try substituting "religious" with anything else. Try, female, chinese, black, old, crippled, fat, addicted... It's open season on the religious. Kind of like in ancient Rome. Only problem is, the Romans are gone, but the Christians are still here. It's a problem for some people, anyway.
I admit it, I'm off topic. This post isn't about ID and science class. ID isn't science, even I know that. I don't think it should be taught in science class. But the posts about this artical really show the true colors of this community. The judge said everything there is to say about the matter. Most of what has been posted is just hate. Slashdot is biggoted. I don't care about your answers to me, just answer to yourself, is this what you want?
You are right, but you used the wrong scripture. Try this one.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)
Go ahead. Flamebait me. Believers have about as much place at slashdot as ID has in a science classroom.
On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got to vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Isn't it funny that ~every conservative radio talk show host claims to NOT be a republican? I'm sure they vote for them though. Can't let the wrong lizard win.
As for calling the government corrupt.. that's a big shade of grey. I really just don't like the lobbying system. I know lobbyists are important. Polititions can't keep up and all issues. But in this case, I think the telcos and the like are given a huge advantage with their wining and dining.
The main point of my post was "Choose Wireless". Go check, it's even the subject. Wireless brings down entry barriors, which naturally resolves this kind of thing.
I'm just hoping wireless can save us. I'm currently dependant upon an infrastructure owned by a single entity and protected by polititions who just happen to be for sale. It's just a matter of time. If you have a choice between wireless and wired, choose wireless. If we keep pumping money to wireless providers, the technology will only get better; and wireless has much lower entry barriors, so we can count on competition. Adam Smith would be proud.
Wow! I don't know if care, but as a conservative, I didn't vote for Kerry because he was against the war in Iraq! So he was trying to be both for and against the war to get elected, but it went reverse; people for the war heard his anti-war speaches, and those against the war thought he was for it! Ouch! Just goes to show you, if you aren't clear and up front in politics, you will lose. President Bush didn't win because he was the most well spoken of the crowd! I still have not been able to bear listening to an entire Dubya speech. It's just painful.
That's funny, I always wondered what the dems thought of Lieberman, the only dem I have any respect for. They hate him! That completes the circle, doesn't it? But I have one more confusion, do you hate him because he never smoked pot, or because he is for democracy in Iraq? It couldn't be the second, democrats against democracy? That's ridiculous. Just kidding, I know the dems are socialists... And then there is Hillary. You hit this one right on the head. Conservatives will never vote for her. She's a snake. She's trying to play her husband's game of being everything to everybody. And while I disliked him for it, I dispise her for doing the same thing. She just isn't as good at it as Bill was. And while 98% of people within the sound of this post hate President Bush, at least he stands for something and we all know what it is. That's a plus. You see, if you know what someone stands for, and you don't like it, don't vote for them. What do you do when someone's voting record and words contradict each other (sometimes in the same sentence)? Howard Dean, now he stands for something, and I know what it is. I respect him for that. YeeeeeeHaaaawwww!!!!!! So Hillary, do as Anonymous Coward advises. Be cool. The dems are the "cool, progressive party." It's all about "cool", baby!
Don't worry, it is still very fresh in my mind, and I can recall it as clearly now as if I were in the room, anytime I want... lol, oh yeah, there it is. "And we're gonna win in Georga! And we're gonna win in California! And we're gonna win in Utah! (*(under breath)- well, maybe not in Utah)... And we're gonna win in North Dakota! (long awkward pause, coupled with a confused look on Howard Dean's face... and way too much heavy breathing) And we're gonna win in Florida! And we're gonna win in... uhhh... Florida! And we're gonna win in Uzbekistan!...
WARRANT.
No, I don't have a point, but I did notice a trend. Everyone else who used the world WARRANT got modded up. So being the mod whore that I am, will also use the word WARRANT as many times as I can use the word WARRANT, just to try to seperate you from your mod points.
I wonder how many points I could get just by quoting Howard Dean?
It influences my next vote. What's going on, and who is going to do what about it. If you want to vote for someone who will do nothing about it, don't you at least want to know who that is? I want someone in office who agrees with me. How am I to know that if everything is swept under the rug? I like news. Unless your mantra is "no action at all costs", and you are willing to keep your fellow citizens in the dark to get it, you should like the news too.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes, the US has the most sophisticated military hardware in the world. No question. In a military technology contest against China, we would surely win. Unfortunally, there wouldn't be one. China would send soldiers, and we would have to use our technology to slaughter them by the millions in order to win. The US does not have the stomach to carry out that kind of extermination. We feel we have risen above such an act. Once the US anti-war machine got moving, we would lose a war against China from the inside out.
But, we aren't the only ones holding ourselves to such a standard. These numerous reports you speak of, decrying the United States' awful brutality and human rights violations - they are worried about us playing the wrong music to prisoners, or making them wear underwear on their heads. Let's compare that with ripping off fingernails and electric shock. But we can't do that, that would be comparing apples to oranges. We need to stick with US standards here. Even though the world hates us, they sure put us up on a pedestal.
If the US tries to keep up this dual standard nonsense, it will fall into ruin. You can't play hopscotch on the football field, that will get you killed. It's time we played the game the field was set for, just like the rest of the world. This may be the only time you hear me saying the US needs to do what the rest of the world is doing. Ok, I admit it, the US is also the only country in the world becomming more socialist. I think we need to be more like the rest of the world in that respect also.
Please, oh please, I beg of you!! Tell me where you get your information! I really want to know! This is not an attack on you, or anyone! I'm being nice! This isn't a troll. I just really want to know this! This isn't rhetorical! What newspapers do you read? What books? Which newsgroups do you frequent? I need to know it all!
The U.S. doesn't have the stomach to beat China in a war. I disagree that China is dwarfed militarily by the U.S. And saying the U.S. isn't far behind China on human rights... that one was a joke, right?
Boy, am I glad it's a lone voice. Isn't it better that we know what's going on? Isn't that the point in a democracy? I'm all for choosing peace, you know, peace being a good thing and all... On the other hand, I'm all for CHOOSING peace... (Did I just say that?) How is one supposed to choose if one doesn't understand the cosequences? I'll stick with informed choice, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Fast. Cheap. Good.
Pick two.
I had a boss that just didn't get this, so I started saying it as: Slow. Expensive. Bad. Pick one.
I think it would be hard to be slow and cheap.
I am the only software developer at the start-up I work at. Development is slow because it is only me; but it is also cheap, because it is only me. Hiring another 5 devs would increase velocity and cost.
I'm still not sure that science and God are mutually exclusive. Being a scientist does not mean that one cannot be religious. Being religious does not mean that one cannot be a scientist. Holes in scientific knowledge do not prove science wrong. Holes in religious knowledge do not prove religion wrong. Sometimes science and religion agree, sometimes they contradict one another.
I disagree that creationism needs to "generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis". That would be dragging religion into the realm of science, where it doesn't belong; just as ID tries to drag religion into the science classroom, where it doesn't belong.
Science has an advantage over religion. Science proved by one person is available to everyone. Religion proved by one person is only available to that person, it cannot be given. I believe in God and have proved Him for myself. No scientific fact has affected that proof. If you really want to know for yourself, you'll have to search. It isn't for the lazy, and it definatly isn't for those who *want* it to be false.
The arguement that anything we cannot explain must be wrong is just ignorant. How many things could we not explain 100 years ago that we can explain now? Does that mean those things were false then but true now? I think anyone employing this argument can be safely ignored. By the same token, anything religion cannot explain is also not false. It's all just unknown. I'm ok with it. That's what the future is for.
As long as we are on the topic of not making sense, what other things can you ask someone else to do that will get you charged with a felony? Sure he had malicious intent, and I'm no lawyer, but come on! As far as the 'malicious browser refreshing', shouldn't he only be held liable for the refreshing he did himself?
I feel less a man for even saying that last sentance. Can't you just see the court proceedings, "The defendant is charged with refreshing his browser, many, MANY, times! Many more times, in fact, than a good, honost citizen would think of doing.. The refreshing went on far beyond decency!
For once I am glad there will be plenty of liberals in the court room to say, "WTF?"
We have so many doctrinal disputes, I don't think a discussion is even possible. All I'm saying is this. On earth, you choose; after you die, you receive your reward. If you are not allowed to choose on earth (state sanctioned socialism vs. willing charity) what reward can you be given? I don't think arguing that one paid one's taxes will hold much water. Who gave you or anyone the responsibility of forcing every rich person into heaven? If you're trying to help by redistribution wealth for other people, you're not accomplishing anything. The rich are no better off. Sure the recipient would be better off, but you have become a theif in doing it. I suppose you believe the end justifies the means. But as long as we are forcing our morals on the rich, who else should we force our morals on?
Jesus will condemn the rich to burn in hell forever.
Alas the churches were not doing enough and a govt socialism had to be put in place.
You would think that if everybody in Utah who called themselves a christian actually acted like a christian and gave 10% of their salary to the poor then poverty would not exist in Utah.
Err are we reading the same bible?. Reading the same bible? I don't even think we are living on the same planet.
The sermon on the mount is the most important socialist document in history.
Good! I wish I could agree with you 100%, but I do admire your point of view. I've never heard this one either; calling the sermon on the mount a socialist document. Maybe I live in a plastic bubble, I do post on slashdot. The socialism Jesus taught is sort of like OSS - people giving because they want to, people accepting if they want to. I call it "opt-in socialism", though someone may have already coined the phrase and I just never heard it before. (Turns out that's a common thing.) If socialism is government sanctioned, than one cannot simply choose to not take part. Choice is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. That's why you see Christian conservative's wanting lower taxes, then donating to churches and charitys. Charitys are much more efficient with donations than the government will ever be; churches are even more so. But, efficiency isn't the point, it's just a lucky side effect. The real point is choice. There is much to be gained by the giver, if the giver does so willingly. Forcing one to give is just plain theft. Jesus demonstrated the power to raise the dead and kill with a touch (the barren fig tree), yet he didn't force the young rich man to give all he had to the poor and come follow him. Jesus asked him to, and grieved when he didn't - but never sought to force the issue. I'm for opt-in socialism. I don't have a problem with opt-in communism. If a group of people want to live together with all things in common, letting people come and go as they wish, good for them! I just don't think such things should be government sanctioned.
I'm really asking for it now. I shouldn't reply; but, I was tragically born without the self-preservation gene... So, here goes.
I live in Utah, and I am most definatly one of the people you are refering too. I believe your first paragraph is 99% correct. We do care about technology, but we care about the other things more. I'm as nerd as you can get, but I will be voting for Hatch. Senator Hatch's technical ignorance is a pity, but I am not willing to trade on moral issues. (By the way, you forgot abortion.) Your second paragraph just makes you sound crazy and/or angry. I have never heard the term "demoncrat". I've also never heard of "hitlery". Where are you sending this commentary from?
As a side note, I think Jesus has the political clout to make it as an independant.
And finally, I would like to agree with you. Everyone should visit Utah and see for themselves. We could use the tourism money.
Alright. You're serious, and I'm confused. At least we understand one another. Except... I'm confused, and I don't understand you... which is no one's fault, not even the Romans...
Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?
But how are you supposed to ask the question if you are unable to speak?
If you can't see the good religion has done and continues to do, you are trying not to see it. Just look at the damage the unreligious have done and continue to do. You are supposed to be a geek. You are supposed to look at things without bias (which is impossible, I know). Before you argue with me, take the other side and answer the argument yourself. Embrace your schizophrenia. You're smart, you can do it. If you really can't, maybe someone here can help you. Doesn't it seem a good thing that people meet together often to contemplate and discuss how to be better people? That's what I do at church.
addendum:
The proof is in the pudding, so they say. The subject of the grandparent's post is "Question to the religious freaks". And as of now, it is modded 70% insightful and 30% troll. Try substituting "religious" with anything else. Try, female, chinese, black, old, crippled, fat, addicted... It's open season on the religious. Kind of like in ancient Rome. Only problem is, the Romans are gone, but the Christians are still here. It's a problem for some people, anyway.
I admit it, I'm off topic. This post isn't about ID and science class. ID isn't science, even I know that. I don't think it should be taught in science class. But the posts about this artical really show the true colors of this community. The judge said everything there is to say about the matter. Most of what has been posted is just hate. Slashdot is biggoted. I don't care about your answers to me, just answer to yourself, is this what you want?
You are right, but you used the wrong scripture. Try this one.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)
Go ahead. Flamebait me. Believers have about as much place at slashdot as ID has in a science classroom.
As for calling the government corrupt.. that's a big shade of grey. I really just don't like the lobbying system. I know lobbyists are important. Polititions can't keep up and all issues. But in this case, I think the telcos and the like are given a huge advantage with their wining and dining.
The main point of my post was "Choose Wireless". Go check, it's even the subject. Wireless brings down entry barriors, which naturally resolves this kind of thing.
I'm just hoping wireless can save us. I'm currently dependant upon an infrastructure owned by a single entity and protected by polititions who just happen to be for sale. It's just a matter of time. If you have a choice between wireless and wired, choose wireless. If we keep pumping money to wireless providers, the technology will only get better; and wireless has much lower entry barriors, so we can count on competition. Adam Smith would be proud.
Wow! I don't know if care, but as a conservative, I didn't vote for Kerry because he was against the war in Iraq! So he was trying to be both for and against the war to get elected, but it went reverse; people for the war heard his anti-war speaches, and those against the war thought he was for it! Ouch! Just goes to show you, if you aren't clear and up front in politics, you will lose. President Bush didn't win because he was the most well spoken of the crowd! I still have not been able to bear listening to an entire Dubya speech. It's just painful.
That's funny, I always wondered what the dems thought of Lieberman, the only dem I have any respect for. They hate him! That completes the circle, doesn't it? But I have one more confusion, do you hate him because he never smoked pot, or because he is for democracy in Iraq? It couldn't be the second, democrats against democracy? That's ridiculous. Just kidding, I know the dems are socialists... And then there is Hillary. You hit this one right on the head. Conservatives will never vote for her. She's a snake. She's trying to play her husband's game of being everything to everybody. And while I disliked him for it, I dispise her for doing the same thing. She just isn't as good at it as Bill was. And while 98% of people within the sound of this post hate President Bush, at least he stands for something and we all know what it is. That's a plus. You see, if you know what someone stands for, and you don't like it, don't vote for them. What do you do when someone's voting record and words contradict each other (sometimes in the same sentence)? Howard Dean, now he stands for something, and I know what it is. I respect him for that. YeeeeeeHaaaawwww!!!!!! So Hillary, do as Anonymous Coward advises. Be cool. The dems are the "cool, progressive party." It's all about "cool", baby!
Don't worry, it is still very fresh in my mind, and I can recall it as clearly now as if I were in the room, anytime I want... lol, oh yeah, there it is. "And we're gonna win in Georga! And we're gonna win in California! And we're gonna win in Utah! (*(under breath)- well, maybe not in Utah)... And we're gonna win in North Dakota! (long awkward pause, coupled with a confused look on Howard Dean's face... and way too much heavy breathing) And we're gonna win in Florida! And we're gonna win in ... uhhh ... Florida! And we're gonna win in Uzbekistan! ...
Come 2006, Bin Laden's gonna party like its 1999.
WARRANT. No, I don't have a point, but I did notice a trend. Everyone else who used the world WARRANT got modded up. So being the mod whore that I am, will also use the word WARRANT as many times as I can use the word WARRANT, just to try to seperate you from your mod points. I wonder how many points I could get just by quoting Howard Dean?
Hazaaaa.... as in, "commence terrorism on Jan 1, 2006"?
It influences my next vote. What's going on, and who is going to do what about it. If you want to vote for someone who will do nothing about it, don't you at least want to know who that is? I want someone in office who agrees with me. How am I to know that if everything is swept under the rug? I like news. Unless your mantra is "no action at all costs", and you are willing to keep your fellow citizens in the dark to get it, you should like the news too.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes, the US has the most sophisticated military hardware in the world. No question. In a military technology contest against China, we would surely win. Unfortunally, there wouldn't be one. China would send soldiers, and we would have to use our technology to slaughter them by the millions in order to win. The US does not have the stomach to carry out that kind of extermination. We feel we have risen above such an act. Once the US anti-war machine got moving, we would lose a war against China from the inside out. But, we aren't the only ones holding ourselves to such a standard. These numerous reports you speak of, decrying the United States' awful brutality and human rights violations - they are worried about us playing the wrong music to prisoners, or making them wear underwear on their heads. Let's compare that with ripping off fingernails and electric shock. But we can't do that, that would be comparing apples to oranges. We need to stick with US standards here. Even though the world hates us, they sure put us up on a pedestal. If the US tries to keep up this dual standard nonsense, it will fall into ruin. You can't play hopscotch on the football field, that will get you killed. It's time we played the game the field was set for, just like the rest of the world. This may be the only time you hear me saying the US needs to do what the rest of the world is doing. Ok, I admit it, the US is also the only country in the world becomming more socialist. I think we need to be more like the rest of the world in that respect also.
Please, oh please, I beg of you!! Tell me where you get your information! I really want to know! This is not an attack on you, or anyone! I'm being nice! This isn't a troll. I just really want to know this! This isn't rhetorical! What newspapers do you read? What books? Which newsgroups do you frequent? I need to know it all!
The U.S. doesn't have the stomach to beat China in a war. I disagree that China is dwarfed militarily by the U.S. And saying the U.S. isn't far behind China on human rights... that one was a joke, right?
Boy, am I glad it's a lone voice. Isn't it better that we know what's going on? Isn't that the point in a democracy? I'm all for choosing peace, you know, peace being a good thing and all... On the other hand, I'm all for CHOOSING peace... (Did I just say that?) How is one supposed to choose if one doesn't understand the cosequences? I'll stick with informed choice, thank you very much.