Seems to me that if he was not a Christian, there would be fewer wars, and fewer countries would be angry at us.
There are people who are really Christian and there are people who pretend they are. The people I know who are the real deal are some of the best people I've ever met (their openness and generosity is intimidating, in a way--it's definitely something I am _not_ used to). The pretenders are just a bunch of freaks--they're the people you see on TV, the people dressed like used car salesmen looking for a deal.
I think this is true for pretty much any religion. If I were to meet a real deal Buddhist, for example, I'm not sure what I would say to someone like that. We would practically have nothing in common.
Those differences concern the very identity of God.
Those are theological nuances. IANAT (I am not a theologian), but I did get to see a few really smart ones at university, and they universally were not literalists but actually were quite scientific in their method. They ask questions, form hypothesis, do research, often do genuine archaelogical research, look at texts that are not part of the standard published Bible, etc. They ask the hard questions and try really hard to find a _rational_ understanding of the material they have.
The Bible is one of the books in the set of books read by Muslims, Mormons, and probably others. They differ in some opinions, but the common history to all these peoples shouldn't be ignored, IMO.
What is Bush's "message" anyway? It's an honest question. A lot of people support him, but can they really make a thorough assertion of why? If a person were to write down this assertion and have someone else read it back to them, would it still sound as appealing?
I wouldn't mind so much if GWB actually were Christian. Then, there would be fewer wars, fewer countries would be pissed at us, and there would be much less corruption. There would also be open dialog with Muslim countries, because a true Christian theologian would recognize that Islam and Christianity follow the same God and are religions that developed in different times at different places for different peoples but with a common history going all the way back to Genesis.
If I choose to buy a program that solves a problem no one else has solved, that is evil? Just because the author wants to get a few bucks for his/her effort, that is evil? If so, then I've been lied to my whole life.
If you look at the hybrid appoaches to open source, such as IBM/Linux or Sun/Linux/OpenSolaris, there are still opportunities for programmers. However, future opportunity is unlikely to be in the domain of major kernel development, for example, but will instead be in writing middleware-type things on top of OSS kernels. There's probably only a few hundred people in the world working hard-core on Linux or Solaris (a job market that does not make) but there are millions working in other fields.
What is dampening the appeal of software, IMO, is the fact that the future jobs will be in consulting/services/etc. A lot of programmers don't like customer-facing jobs like that. Many do, but it's a different world than when doodling on a C-64 could be a job.
If I wanted a hard-core hacker job, perhaps EE would be a better field. But I'm not a EE, so don't take my word for it.
Software should be Open Source as much as possible, but there is no reason at all that _all_ software should be _Free_. Anyone who says so is a hypocrit (don't conform! er, uh, conform to what I say!).
Surviving any mass die-off is a roll of the dice initially through plague and famine, followed by inevitable tribism and warlords, followed by a realization of "this sucks!", followed by a re-start of civilization, followed by the exact same sequence of posts to Slashdot II in a few thousand years.
Humans most certainly can live symbiotically with nature. Our ancestors did it for millions of years, and it's probably only in the past few thousand years that population and cities became problematic.
The question is, do we, with our modern technology, really want to become hunters and gatherers again, living in severely reduced numbers, such that the ambient food supply is always there replenishing itself?
Even in rural areas in developed countries (I live fairly rurally), we have modern grocery stores and a decent hospital. There are even three wal-marts in a 45-minute radius that are accessible. No, it isn't super-convenient, but we get by okay.
I have heard that the fat behind the stereotypical hard beer gut is linked to heart disease. I don't have specific links to research, which is why I said IIRC (if I recall correctly) above. The type of person I'm referring to is someone who has a large belly with normal-sized legs--i.e., the fat is not distributed evenly and is somehow concentrated behind the stomach muscles. That's bascially all I know.
Regardless what people debate on HFCS, just replacing caloric drinks with non-caloric drinks makes a _huge_ difference. Replacing soda with tea, for example, not only elimates hudreds to thousands of calories per week but also adds a very healthy time-tested beverage.
Fat-based soap is man-made, too, but there is a limit to just how much processing is good. Soap is a good example, because fat-based soap works just fine for everyday hygeine, but going too far is where the problems creep in. Wheat flour is another good example, where basic milling is needed to make bread, but going too far makes white bread with its very high Glycemic Index.
People shouldn't be turned off by the term 'fat-based' or 'lard-based', by the way. Good ol' everyday Ivory soap is made from vegetable oil and animal fat (many popular soaps are).
There is nothing wrong with my calculations. I estimated that about 3000 excess calories equals one pound weight gained. What you are doing is substituting potential nutritive calories in your diet with those from the soda, providing fewer excess calories but a larger proportion of your calories are 'empty.'
I think the leading causes of death statistics are concentrated in a relatively small portion of the population. Go to a hospital and see the types of people who are the 'regulars.' Especially the diabetics (400 pounds, already lost both legs, etc.). There are also the druggies on Medicaid (I'd bet hospitals LOVE medicaid due to all the revenue from druggies). Obviously, there are lots of old people, there, too.
It turns out vegetable shortening is bad for us, but eggs and meat are not. (trans fat and cholesterol ratios)
It turns out Scotch is bad for us, but Vodka is not. (urethanes)
Just recently, they're starting to question the safety of Triclosan, a very common ingrediant in soap and toothpaste (chloroform inhalation)
Recently, people are starting to recognize that not all carbohydrates are created equally (e.g. the glycemic index).
The only conclusion is that science is really a long way from catching upto reality. It would be interesting to see how much of the current heart disease "epidemic" was caused by the refined-food revolution of the 20th century (sliced white bread, shortening, etc.).
The BMI is really a terrible public education attempt. It's formula has _only_two_variables_, with the rest simplified and trivialized into some dimensionless coefficient. It doesn't factor in gender, age, and basic body build, for example.
Whoever came up with the BMI gets Score: -1, Retarded Oversimplification.
BTW, I'm not necessarily advocating government intervention, but if the politicians just had to do some sort of 'feel good' legislation to brag about during their next campaign...
Even an advertising/education campaign would work. Anything to get people to consume less soda, on average.
My theory is that the federal government could get tremendous bang/buck if they simply regulated non-diet soft drinks. There are many people who drink one or more cans of soda a day, and each one has 150 or more calories. That's 1050 extra calories per week, translating into 18 pounds gained per year if nothing is done to burn those excess calories.
Even a twinkie has more nutritive value than a soft drink. Sad, but true.
Slashdot Mirror
Whistle while you work!
Hitler is a jerk!
Mussolini bit his weenie
Now it doesn't work!
(this is a song from WWII, sing to the tune from Snow White)
Seems to me that if he was not a Christian, there would be fewer wars, and fewer countries would be angry at us.
There are people who are really Christian and there are people who pretend they are. The people I know who are the real deal are some of the best people I've ever met (their openness and generosity is intimidating, in a way--it's definitely something I am _not_ used to). The pretenders are just a bunch of freaks--they're the people you see on TV, the people dressed like used car salesmen looking for a deal.
I think this is true for pretty much any religion. If I were to meet a real deal Buddhist, for example, I'm not sure what I would say to someone like that. We would practically have nothing in common.
Those differences concern the very identity of God.
Those are theological nuances. IANAT (I am not a theologian), but I did get to see a few really smart ones at university, and they universally were not literalists but actually were quite scientific in their method. They ask questions, form hypothesis, do research, often do genuine archaelogical research, look at texts that are not part of the standard published Bible, etc. They ask the hard questions and try really hard to find a _rational_ understanding of the material they have.
The Bible is one of the books in the set of books read by Muslims, Mormons, and probably others. They differ in some opinions, but the common history to all these peoples shouldn't be ignored, IMO.
What is Bush's "message" anyway? It's an honest question. A lot of people support him, but can they really make a thorough assertion of why? If a person were to write down this assertion and have someone else read it back to them, would it still sound as appealing?
I wouldn't mind so much if GWB actually were Christian. Then, there would be fewer wars, fewer countries would be pissed at us, and there would be much less corruption. There would also be open dialog with Muslim countries, because a true Christian theologian would recognize that Islam and Christianity follow the same God and are religions that developed in different times at different places for different peoples but with a common history going all the way back to Genesis.
A start is to stop voting for Republicans and Democrats entirely.
If I choose to buy a program that solves a problem no one else has solved, that is evil? Just because the author wants to get a few bucks for his/her effort, that is evil? If so, then I've been lied to my whole life.
That will kill me? Destroy my family? Be a crime against humanity that is illegal in all civilized countries?
Companies go belly up all the time, life goes on.
If you look at the hybrid appoaches to open source, such as IBM/Linux or Sun/Linux/OpenSolaris, there are still opportunities for programmers. However, future opportunity is unlikely to be in the domain of major kernel development, for example, but will instead be in writing middleware-type things on top of OSS kernels. There's probably only a few hundred people in the world working hard-core on Linux or Solaris (a job market that does not make) but there are millions working in other fields.
What is dampening the appeal of software, IMO, is the fact that the future jobs will be in consulting/services/etc. A lot of programmers don't like customer-facing jobs like that. Many do, but it's a different world than when doodling on a C-64 could be a job.
If I wanted a hard-core hacker job, perhaps EE would be a better field. But I'm not a EE, so don't take my word for it.
Software should be Open Source as much as possible, but there is no reason at all that _all_ software should be _Free_. Anyone who says so is a hypocrit (don't conform! er, uh, conform to what I say!).
I won't accept any argument that compares something to slavery. When programmers get thrown overboard for being sick, then you can speak up.
RMS is a visionary in the software industry...just don't let him get into a government role.
Surviving any mass die-off is a roll of the dice initially through plague and famine, followed by inevitable tribism and warlords, followed by a realization of "this sucks!", followed by a re-start of civilization, followed by the exact same sequence of posts to Slashdot II in a few thousand years.
Kudzu is supposedly edible, but I've only seen jelly and tea made out of it. Anyone try it on a salad?
Humans most certainly can live symbiotically with nature. Our ancestors did it for millions of years, and it's probably only in the past few thousand years that population and cities became problematic.
The question is, do we, with our modern technology, really want to become hunters and gatherers again, living in severely reduced numbers, such that the ambient food supply is always there replenishing itself?
Even in rural areas in developed countries (I live fairly rurally), we have modern grocery stores and a decent hospital. There are even three wal-marts in a 45-minute radius that are accessible. No, it isn't super-convenient, but we get by okay.
I have heard that the fat behind the stereotypical hard beer gut is linked to heart disease. I don't have specific links to research, which is why I said IIRC (if I recall correctly) above. The type of person I'm referring to is someone who has a large belly with normal-sized legs--i.e., the fat is not distributed evenly and is somehow concentrated behind the stomach muscles. That's bascially all I know.
What are the annual losses due to flipped bits? Ones that no one notices? Do these losses cost more than the apparent savings of buying cheap PCs?
Regardless what people debate on HFCS, just replacing caloric drinks with non-caloric drinks makes a _huge_ difference. Replacing soda with tea, for example, not only elimates hudreds to thousands of calories per week but also adds a very healthy time-tested beverage.
Fat-based soap is man-made, too, but there is a limit to just how much processing is good. Soap is a good example, because fat-based soap works just fine for everyday hygeine, but going too far is where the problems creep in. Wheat flour is another good example, where basic milling is needed to make bread, but going too far makes white bread with its very high Glycemic Index.
People shouldn't be turned off by the term 'fat-based' or 'lard-based', by the way. Good ol' everyday Ivory soap is made from vegetable oil and animal fat (many popular soaps are).
There is nothing wrong with my calculations. I estimated that about 3000 excess calories equals one pound weight gained. What you are doing is substituting potential nutritive calories in your diet with those from the soda, providing fewer excess calories but a larger proportion of your calories are 'empty.'
I think the leading causes of death statistics are concentrated in a relatively small portion of the population. Go to a hospital and see the types of people who are the 'regulars.' Especially the diabetics (400 pounds, already lost both legs, etc.). There are also the druggies on Medicaid (I'd bet hospitals LOVE medicaid due to all the revenue from druggies). Obviously, there are lots of old people, there, too.
Sitting in front of a computer is far less dangerous.
Really? (I'm so tempted to post a goatse link, right now)
It turns out vegetable shortening is bad for us, but eggs and meat are not. (trans fat and cholesterol ratios)
It turns out Scotch is bad for us, but Vodka is not. (urethanes)
Just recently, they're starting to question the safety of Triclosan, a very common ingrediant in soap and toothpaste (chloroform inhalation)
Recently, people are starting to recognize that not all carbohydrates are created equally (e.g. the glycemic index).
The only conclusion is that science is really a long way from catching upto reality. It would be interesting to see how much of the current heart disease "epidemic" was caused by the refined-food revolution of the 20th century (sliced white bread, shortening, etc.).
The BMI is really a terrible public education attempt. It's formula has _only_two_variables_, with the rest simplified and trivialized into some dimensionless coefficient. It doesn't factor in gender, age, and basic body build, for example.
Whoever came up with the BMI gets Score: -1, Retarded Oversimplification.
BTW, I'm not necessarily advocating government intervention, but if the politicians just had to do some sort of 'feel good' legislation to brag about during their next campaign...
Even an advertising/education campaign would work. Anything to get people to consume less soda, on average.
My theory is that the federal government could get tremendous bang/buck if they simply regulated non-diet soft drinks. There are many people who drink one or more cans of soda a day, and each one has 150 or more calories. That's 1050 extra calories per week, translating into 18 pounds gained per year if nothing is done to burn those excess calories.
Even a twinkie has more nutritive value than a soft drink. Sad, but true.