Christianity assumes the Jewish canon as the first section of its Bible as it holds that it is the completion of the Jewish faith. You could also comment here on the Koran which holds that it is a similar continuation (and purification) of the previous two religion's documents... and the Mormon texts make a similar claim (though this one is more directly falsifiable given the origination of the Book of Abraham as a falsely translated section of an Egyptian Book of the Dead).
While this is written with a "troll" tone, it does present an excellent point on the use of evidence. Religious documents typically present themselves as fact (apart from L. Ron Hubbard's at any rate), and these can be (not speaking of whether they should... that's probably a different argument altogether) tested using legal / historical methods. The Bible as it is written should be evaluated as if it were a legal brief. Does its evidence pass muster? This is completely distinct from the testing of evidence in a scientific sense. We are looking for probabilities, not testable hypotheses.
Written evidence as well as word-of-mouth evidence across many cultures would point towards a fairly recent beginning to civilization. Current scientific methods point towards something older. The situation calls for a reevaluation of the reliability of both methods of evaluation - is historical evidence testable? No. Is scientific evidence subject to human error? Yes. Should we throw out either because one seems to contradict the other? Not necessarily (though we should certainly look towards re-evaluating the bases for our positions). If God created the world in the past 10,000 years, then we should be actively seeking to demonstrate this as fitting with the collected data or not. What we have instead is two completely distinct groups each operating on different originating assumptions. One developed out of 19th century "scientific" assumptions, the other out of particular approaches to reading the text of the Bible / other religious works. Organizations existed in the past to bridge the gap between these two approaches (though they are fewer today).
A problem with a lot of buffalo today is that it is grown on ranches in a similar fashion to cows. Thus, while they are more athletic as animals than the typical cow (and we end up with less fat, more meat), they are not going to be as gamy as a deer or bear.
It would appear that the GP is wanting a mod system that allows for all mods to show (thus someone marked +1 insightful +2 funny would should up as such rather than +3 funny). This strikes me as a great idea, but the system works decently as it is and change is frequently challenging... though considering how well slashdot is rendering for me in Chrome today, maybe some sort of change was made.
I am a bit surprised that there is no reference in the article to the general theme of human sacrifice. This pulls in a significant amount of human history (sacrifices given to the gods to ensure good harvest were part of the practices of a number of ancient peoples - many of these were human in nature). Perhaps this was simply a connection made in my own high school class' approach to the story.
Living in Texas is about like living in most other places, though the streets do seem to be kept cleaner than in most other states I've lived - this is perhaps because everyone drives everywhere (while it is next to impossible to get anywhere in Houston without driving, most other places in Texas have a same citizen-mentality that if you want to go somewhere you drive--though it is usually possible to not).
Gun laws are pretty much on par with other places--Perception of immediate harm to self or those around you or invasion of property (yes, this last is not par for the course if I remember my Minnesota law correctly).
I am not suggesting that we stop all trade immediately (that would be an interesting ethical situation since it would be appropriate to do so because of Chinese labor abuses but cause significant depredations in both countries as a result). Increasing tariffs does lead to escalation on both sides but specific talks can minimize the negative impact - and there will likely be some negative impact on our side. "Punishment" / Deterrence on a global scale will always have negative impacts to all parties involved. At issue is, can we find a solution with a less negative impact than the current one (large US companies worth billions having their infrastructure violated / potentially stolen)?
The trade deficit through China is still in our favor - appears to be over 200 billion if I was looking at the right website. China has a great deal of clout but so do we - restrictions on trade with China would hurt it way more than it would hurt us (even if everything in Walmart seems to come from China, the deficit is still in our favor and maybe we won't even have to deal with cadmium-poisoned kids as a result).
While this isn't going to be a popular suggestion, MS Word's latest incarnations actually have grammar and style checkers that do pretty well (there's now a blue line in addition to green and red). Between the three colors, most mistakes of a contextual use nature are dealt with
If it continues to be a problem, I think google might go a bit beyond pulling out - they've already demonstrated they respond negatively to being ticked off by removing filters - I'd say there's a good chance they might become actively antagonistic.
US corporations apparently frequently use better than military grade encryption (or I gather that must be the case given that Google has apparently been hacked by the Chinese once versus regular successful intrusions into US military infrastructure several years ago). The problem seems to be that even that isn't good enough against concerted attack
I'm fairly certain, games.slashdot really isn't a part of slashdot for a large number of us, actually (interpreting your comment as sarcastic) as many of us are reading this on lunch / coffee breaks at work and have the games section blocked. It is for me at least and through the years at least some others here.
as long as you consider "professional wrestling" to be the kind where everything is choreographed in advance and they have a side-show soap opera going on "behind the scenes" - yes, I was that bored once. I never will be again.
I took your "evil coffee company" comment to be primarily intended as humorous but felt it might be based on inaccurate information. Starbucks is also a primary proponent of ethical farming (including labor).
With regards to the "minimum wage job" comment--Labor should be paid according to work done and skill required (though I think in an ideal world, the vision of all people receiving all their needs equally would be great--but we don't live there unfortunately). Given that serving coffee is fairly easy (I've done it frequently), I would suggest that working at Starbucks (or any other "fast food" type establishment) makes for a great job for students, people who enjoy talking with others but don't need much money--perhaps as a second job, and for semi-retired folks... who like talking with people.
There are certainly problems with any business involving people (which would be all businesses--making your comment totally accurate but applying to every company) but in terms of ethics, I'd say Starbucks is above par unless they've slipped in recent years. Have they "lost their soul" as is claimed recently in Forbes? Maybe so. What is the basis for their being 'evil'?
Yet, it would appear to have caught on. As such... it's linguistic. evolution. As an adult native speaker of English, what I say that effectively communicates my intended point to my intended audience... is English, particularly so if I am emulated by others. One could even argue that I don't have to be a native speaker, though in this case, it is unlikely that emulation by large audiences would occur, limiting the evolution to a temporary mutation. Yes, I am a fan of descriptive grammars.
Mindless violence? To a modern reader, it may seem like that - but if you live in a society where blood vengeance is sworn by any survivors, you kind of have to wipe out any people group you attack.... and from a purely human perspective (which would appear to be your own perspective), you kind of have to attack someone if you are fleeing THE aggressive super-power of the era and have to go through antagonistic locals to escape the super-power. Compare it to the infighting in Africa within countries... people flee the larger powers and sometimes have to fight through lesser powers to ensure they have safe distance from the main aggressor. It isn't pretty, but it is understandable. You again see this even today in less developed countries (though I recall we recently had a discussion over whether we can actually say 'less developed' given all the stuff the 'developed' world does to others).
The parts of the Uffizi that I am most interested in capturing on "film" are the sculptures (particularly in the maquette section) - the room is fairly well lit and (as far as I know) flashes are unnecessary with proper camera settings and even then... wouldn't hurt the bronze and plaster.
While your experience with Starbucks is apparently different than mine, I fail to see how a company that pays more than minimum wage for essentially minimum wage work... that also offers benefits (for actual Starbucks owned stores) to all employees after only a few months employment, is "evil" because it "underpays" its workers. Or are you talking about a different company?
It seems to me that those of us with vacation pictures to Mexico should start posting them on the internet with a "buy me now" link to shutterfly (or what have you). If Mexico is going to be that overly possessive just to get 250$, then it should probably realize that millions of people a year take pictures and share them with friends... and even sell them if they are good enough at photography / art.
"Civilized" in the case used throughout the postings here is, you are correct, fairly inaccurate. However, for the purposes of most of the posters, the agreed upon definition of "civilized" seems to be "place that is internally stable with a certain level of safety for individuals regardless of social status" - and that would in some parts of Mexico not apply. Given that it would also not apply in some parts of the US or any other country to speak of, the definition must be further extended to include a "level of safety and productivity" in keeping with understood averages across other "civilized" countries - which makes the definition somewhat recursive but still communicates meaning.
apart from the slightly harsh wording, it might be appropriate to respond here that two wrongs don't make a right. On the other hand, I tend to agree with prevailing opinion here that anything that's been around for thousands of years should not be restricted from having its picture taken. This, of course, does put me at odds with the Uffizi and their no cameras policy and opens a whole new can of worms.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not, but I am pretty sure it does mean that somewhere the "writing/reading literacy" rate is dropping.
Christianity assumes the Jewish canon as the first section of its Bible as it holds that it is the completion of the Jewish faith. You could also comment here on the Koran which holds that it is a similar continuation (and purification) of the previous two religion's documents... and the Mormon texts make a similar claim (though this one is more directly falsifiable given the origination of the Book of Abraham as a falsely translated section of an Egyptian Book of the Dead).
While this is written with a "troll" tone, it does present an excellent point on the use of evidence. Religious documents typically present themselves as fact (apart from L. Ron Hubbard's at any rate), and these can be (not speaking of whether they should... that's probably a different argument altogether) tested using legal / historical methods. The Bible as it is written should be evaluated as if it were a legal brief. Does its evidence pass muster? This is completely distinct from the testing of evidence in a scientific sense. We are looking for probabilities, not testable hypotheses.
Written evidence as well as word-of-mouth evidence across many cultures would point towards a fairly recent beginning to civilization. Current scientific methods point towards something older. The situation calls for a reevaluation of the reliability of both methods of evaluation - is historical evidence testable? No. Is scientific evidence subject to human error? Yes. Should we throw out either because one seems to contradict the other? Not necessarily (though we should certainly look towards re-evaluating the bases for our positions). If God created the world in the past 10,000 years, then we should be actively seeking to demonstrate this as fitting with the collected data or not. What we have instead is two completely distinct groups each operating on different originating assumptions. One developed out of 19th century "scientific" assumptions, the other out of particular approaches to reading the text of the Bible / other religious works. Organizations existed in the past to bridge the gap between these two approaches (though they are fewer today).
A problem with a lot of buffalo today is that it is grown on ranches in a similar fashion to cows. Thus, while they are more athletic as animals than the typical cow (and we end up with less fat, more meat), they are not going to be as gamy as a deer or bear.
It would appear that the GP is wanting a mod system that allows for all mods to show (thus someone marked +1 insightful +2 funny would should up as such rather than +3 funny). This strikes me as a great idea, but the system works decently as it is and change is frequently challenging... though considering how well slashdot is rendering for me in Chrome today, maybe some sort of change was made.
I am a bit surprised that there is no reference in the article to the general theme of human sacrifice. This pulls in a significant amount of human history (sacrifices given to the gods to ensure good harvest were part of the practices of a number of ancient peoples - many of these were human in nature). Perhaps this was simply a connection made in my own high school class' approach to the story.
Living in Texas is about like living in most other places, though the streets do seem to be kept cleaner than in most other states I've lived - this is perhaps because everyone drives everywhere (while it is next to impossible to get anywhere in Houston without driving, most other places in Texas have a same citizen-mentality that if you want to go somewhere you drive--though it is usually possible to not).
Gun laws are pretty much on par with other places--Perception of immediate harm to self or those around you or invasion of property (yes, this last is not par for the course if I remember my Minnesota law correctly).
I am not suggesting that we stop all trade immediately (that would be an interesting ethical situation since it would be appropriate to do so because of Chinese labor abuses but cause significant depredations in both countries as a result). Increasing tariffs does lead to escalation on both sides but specific talks can minimize the negative impact - and there will likely be some negative impact on our side. "Punishment" / Deterrence on a global scale will always have negative impacts to all parties involved. At issue is, can we find a solution with a less negative impact than the current one (large US companies worth billions having their infrastructure violated / potentially stolen)?
The trade deficit through China is still in our favor - appears to be over 200 billion if I was looking at the right website. China has a great deal of clout but so do we - restrictions on trade with China would hurt it way more than it would hurt us (even if everything in Walmart seems to come from China, the deficit is still in our favor and maybe we won't even have to deal with cadmium-poisoned kids as a result).
While this isn't going to be a popular suggestion, MS Word's latest incarnations actually have grammar and style checkers that do pretty well (there's now a blue line in addition to green and red). Between the three colors, most mistakes of a contextual use nature are dealt with
thank you - your comments were helpful in developing a better picture of the situation
If it continues to be a problem, I think google might go a bit beyond pulling out - they've already demonstrated they respond negatively to being ticked off by removing filters - I'd say there's a good chance they might become actively antagonistic.
US corporations apparently frequently use better than military grade encryption (or I gather that must be the case given that Google has apparently been hacked by the Chinese once versus regular successful intrusions into US military infrastructure several years ago). The problem seems to be that even that isn't good enough against concerted attack
I'm fairly certain, games.slashdot really isn't a part of slashdot for a large number of us, actually (interpreting your comment as sarcastic) as many of us are reading this on lunch / coffee breaks at work and have the games section blocked. It is for me at least and through the years at least some others here.
as long as you consider "professional wrestling" to be the kind where everything is choreographed in advance and they have a side-show soap opera going on "behind the scenes" - yes, I was that bored once. I never will be again.
I took your "evil coffee company" comment to be primarily intended as humorous but felt it might be based on inaccurate information. Starbucks is also a primary proponent of ethical farming (including labor).
With regards to the "minimum wage job" comment--Labor should be paid according to work done and skill required (though I think in an ideal world, the vision of all people receiving all their needs equally would be great--but we don't live there unfortunately). Given that serving coffee is fairly easy (I've done it frequently), I would suggest that working at Starbucks (or any other "fast food" type establishment) makes for a great job for students, people who enjoy talking with others but don't need much money--perhaps as a second job, and for semi-retired folks... who like talking with people.
There are certainly problems with any business involving people (which would be all businesses--making your comment totally accurate but applying to every company) but in terms of ethics, I'd say Starbucks is above par unless they've slipped in recent years. Have they "lost their soul" as is claimed recently in Forbes? Maybe so. What is the basis for their being 'evil'?
Yet, it would appear to have caught on. As such... it's linguistic. evolution. As an adult native speaker of English, what I say that effectively communicates my intended point to my intended audience... is English, particularly so if I am emulated by others. One could even argue that I don't have to be a native speaker, though in this case, it is unlikely that emulation by large audiences would occur, limiting the evolution to a temporary mutation. Yes, I am a fan of descriptive grammars.
Mindless violence? To a modern reader, it may seem like that - but if you live in a society where blood vengeance is sworn by any survivors, you kind of have to wipe out any people group you attack. ... and from a purely human perspective (which would appear to be your own perspective), you kind of have to attack someone if you are fleeing THE aggressive super-power of the era and have to go through antagonistic locals to escape the super-power. Compare it to the infighting in Africa within countries... people flee the larger powers and sometimes have to fight through lesser powers to ensure they have safe distance from the main aggressor. It isn't pretty, but it is understandable. You again see this even today in less developed countries (though I recall we recently had a discussion over whether we can actually say 'less developed' given all the stuff the 'developed' world does to others).
The parts of the Uffizi that I am most interested in capturing on "film" are the sculptures (particularly in the maquette section) - the room is fairly well lit and (as far as I know) flashes are unnecessary with proper camera settings and even then... wouldn't hurt the bronze and plaster.
but are a unique and original creation (since they merged two distinctive patterns)
While your experience with Starbucks is apparently different than mine, I fail to see how a company that pays more than minimum wage for essentially minimum wage work ... that also offers benefits (for actual Starbucks owned stores) to all employees after only a few months employment, is "evil" because it "underpays" its workers. Or are you talking about a different company?
It seems to me that those of us with vacation pictures to Mexico should start posting them on the internet with a "buy me now" link to shutterfly (or what have you). If Mexico is going to be that overly possessive just to get 250$, then it should probably realize that millions of people a year take pictures and share them with friends... and even sell them if they are good enough at photography / art.
"Civilized" in the case used throughout the postings here is, you are correct, fairly inaccurate. However, for the purposes of most of the posters, the agreed upon definition of "civilized" seems to be "place that is internally stable with a certain level of safety for individuals regardless of social status" - and that would in some parts of Mexico not apply. Given that it would also not apply in some parts of the US or any other country to speak of, the definition must be further extended to include a "level of safety and productivity" in keeping with understood averages across other "civilized" countries - which makes the definition somewhat recursive but still communicates meaning.
Which is why most companies grease palms on both sides of the aisle and back committee heads more than others.
apart from the slightly harsh wording, it might be appropriate to respond here that two wrongs don't make a right. On the other hand, I tend to agree with prevailing opinion here that anything that's been around for thousands of years should not be restricted from having its picture taken. This, of course, does put me at odds with the Uffizi and their no cameras policy and opens a whole new can of worms.