Why would an all powerful all knowing god need lesser beings to believe in him and worship him? Does than not entail that he is not all powerful since he couldn't simply just rise above the simple emotions of boredom and lonliness?
By all logic, this would make god a sadist for bringing sentient creatures into being just for his plan or purpose. The majority of people that have lived have suffered untold pain and anguish (you know the billions of people who live in poverty and die in wars) and by most of Christianities definition will go to hell.
Or does this mean that he is not all powerful and does indeed need followers because without them there is a chance he may indeed loose the war?
So is god a sadist or is he not all powerful?
Secondly why is there no mention of hell in the old testament, just the discussion of separation from god. If god loved his chosen people so much why didn't he warn them of this years before Jesus arrived on the earth.
And if he was all powerful and wanted us to behave and follow him then why wasn't he less vague with the whole ordeal. An all knowing being would obviously know that humans aren't very good at inferring things. The only thing in the bible that god directly communicated with in writing was the 10 commandments and even then they are very open to language interpretation. Why couldn't he just have wrote the whole bible himself in stone somewhere with infinite amount of clauses and explanations.
Personally, I do believe in a God but not as a being that is human like and is all things good and evil, but more along the lines of a being that transcends these things and has nothing to with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism which totally misinterpreted what they believed to be god. Perhaps the only logical religion is Buddhism, but there are some things I disagree with that. At least they try to explain everything logically and tend to not be militant about their beliefs.
Sadly enough, I came to these views on my own and I didn't even study aetheism or live in anti-religeous environment. Mostly I just questioned what was given to me by those around me as I grew up and I still haven't had any logical answers other than someone quoting a vague bible passage which I ask if they could speak the hebrew or at least greek version of it so we can really determine the nature of the passage rather than a bad English translation.
If you're an established company, and you don't pay a premium for voice talent, you should be able to make a top-notch game of any type for less than $20 mil. $20 million is a *lot* of money.
This sounds like fun. Buying a used Revolution? Uh-oh. What if someone locked it? Sounds like a fun prank to do before trading in a system. Speaking of pranks, letting your friend play your system?
I'm sure this could be easily solved by removing the cast plate and draining the battery on the mother board with a paper clip like we used to erase bios passwords with... Easy enough any 9 year old could... oh wait...
Personally, when I was 10 I wouldn't have tried to get my parents to buy me a rated-M game (if they had the rating system back then). In fact, I'd probably be happy that I could blame my parents and their parental controls if my friend came over with a rated-M game and was unable to play it.
I dunno... I was exposed to allot of x-rated material and violent media as a kid (playing Doom and watching the spice channel etc) but it didn't harm me one bit as turning out to be a psycho.
Actually, I tend to be more adjusted with the opposite sex than most people that were sheltered as kids.
However, I do recall my parents were blunt and upfront to me about sex and breaking the law so I was fairly educated of what not to do.
Your kids will do things you don't want them to do. They will probaly see things you don't want them to see, but its more important that you educate them so that they can deal with situations when the "real life" crisis errupts.
Teen pregnancy, drug use, and violence will affect a teen way more than any movie or video game will if they don't know how to handle themselves when faced with a critical choice that will affec them for the rest of their lives.
I don't know about everyone else, but I really don't see most of these great works of literature as something to put on a pedelstal.
I mean there were developed as entertainment and phillosophical points of view, but they don't really have much to teach us other than the authors point of view and perhaps a perspective of the world they lived in.
Take Shakespear from example... I mean his works were specifically devolped to entertain an live audience of his era with comeday and tragedy and frankly the only reason we study him because he was most likely the only one to do it at his time.
Unless of course there were other play writers that just wrote heaping mounds of dog poo and English Parliment locked them up in the tower and burned their plays that we don't know about...
As far as works that people should read as something they should get value of... I'd recommend Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, Dante, Friedrich Nietzsche, or some other off the wall phillosopher rather than these people who wrote for entertainment value.
People on here seem to think that by adding the word "open source" to something it will automagically be able to singlehandedly cure cancer, solve world hunger, and make Julian fries.
Well, chances are that the supercomputer that crunches the numbers to give the data that the scientists will use to cure cancer will run on Linux.
But you got me beat on the world hunger and the Julian fries... Unless we make self replicating sentient robots that run on linux that feed starving people by making Julian fries.
They could buy tons of trout. They could attempt to maximize profits at all costs. Monetarily successful corporations chose the last option. Trout salesmen probably chose the last 2.
Ah, but you missed the fatal flaw...
If you maximize profits in the extreme, you often canibalize the company by layoffs and short term gains by altering methods of profits and the company slowly goes into a death spiral leaving the long term investors with the short end of the stick when the company just up and folds.
I've driven pretty fast. I once drove a Dodge Viper around a race track and got some pretty wicked speed, hitting about 150mph on the back straight. What didn't I see? Motion blur
I've run into the same problem before when driving. If I notice a lack of motion blurring, I apply a patch using four shots of Tequila.
That usually does the trick. However, the drivers become unstable and you may experience a crash.
My personal experiences and the hearsay of my friends are the only accurate way to measure the world around me. If I personally don't know somebody who has seen a blue whale, they can't possibly exist.
Actually if you look at Quantum Physics in the right light, whales don't exist until you observe them.
but to say you dont have an obligation to your stockholders is bunk, its everything they teach in school and in the real world, its all about keeping your stockholders happy. There the ones that tell you what to do if you screw up and they are the ones that replace you if needed, your more then obligated to keep them happy. At least in a public company situtation.
The problem is that statement is way too over-generalized and doesn't really ecompass what the real nature of a corporation charter.
IANAL or a MBA, but I have looked into creating an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) and know about it than I would like to know. Shareholders can often influence a company if they are the owners with voting stock. If the company does not have voting stock then then it is just monetary sway of keeping the investors money with the company.
People have been told over and over again that the purpose of a corporation was to make a profit and appease the shareholders which is totally unfounded when you look at the nature of a corporate charter in legal terms. A legal charter is nothing more than creating an artificial entity that protects its investors from litigation of their personal assets when someone sues the corporation. You sue the corporation and it runs out of money, but you can't go after the shareholders.
That said... A corporation is only obligated to appease share holders if it wants to. I mean the board member and CEOs could in fact declare all corporate elections null and void and have a revolt of sorts, but they would quickly loose the capital of all the investors unless of course the investors went along with the people still in power.
Corporations do need money to operate to pay its employees and needs an investment base in order to grow, but if someone created a corporation and made it so that they had firm control of the leadership process, they could very well not intend to make any money at all if they so choose to do so.
They may not get investments or capital support from others in the process... So it wouldn't be very long lasted.
But it is a fallacy to assume that corporations are forced by law to make money. They only do so because it benefits those running them, work for them, and those who invest in them.
The only purpose that a corporation has is to make profit.
Wrong. The only purpose or or legal reason a corporation exists is to protect its investors private holdings from being targeted in litigation. That is the nature of the corporate charter set by Federal and State laws. A corporation has no legal or social obligation to its investors to make a profit, but by the nature of investment it is what they prefer them do.
I mean people tend to not invest in corporations that don't make profits, so by default most corporations try to make a profit because that will make a return on the investors investment.
No one usually would invest in a company that didn't make them returns on their investment, but on occasion people do. Take non-profit corporations for example. They have their own legal tax bracket.
People just aren't willing to spend money purely in the name of Science. There needs to be a concrete reason for it.
Maybe we aren't promoting spending large quanities of money into science in the right way or putting the right "spin" on things.
Well I mean there are things like... well um... Manipulation of time and space... Free robot slave labor... Immortality... Technological singularity events... Virtual sex... Little things like that which we could grab people's attention with.
I mean if we told Joe Sixpac that if we spend $200 billion in AI research now that he'll have a robot sex slave wife in 5 years he would be more willing to pay more taxes, right?
Maybe if we told them we are looking for space chicks with the hubble and if we find any that he'll be the first to know!
As a politician instead of a scientist, the first thing that came to mind when I read this story were the faces of the people who made the budget for that robot. They just heard that their spacecraft flung a $20million bag of money into the great unknown. I imagine that feels just about the same as getting kicked square in the nuts.
Moreso than not, because this is the first step in inventing a robot that flings politicians into deep space.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to troll, but...
Why would an all powerful all knowing god need lesser beings to believe in him and worship him? Does than not entail that he is not all powerful since he couldn't simply just rise above the simple emotions of boredom and lonliness?
By all logic, this would make god a sadist for bringing sentient creatures into being just for his plan or purpose. The majority of people that have lived have suffered untold pain and anguish (you know the billions of people who live in poverty and die in wars) and by most of Christianities definition will go to hell.
Or does this mean that he is not all powerful and does indeed need followers because without them there is a chance he may indeed loose the war?
So is god a sadist or is he not all powerful?
Secondly why is there no mention of hell in the old testament, just the discussion of separation from god. If god loved his chosen people so much why didn't he warn them of this years before Jesus arrived on the earth.
And if he was all powerful and wanted us to behave and follow him then why wasn't he less vague with the whole ordeal. An all knowing being would obviously know that humans aren't very good at inferring things. The only thing in the bible that god directly communicated with in writing was the 10 commandments and even then they are very open to language interpretation. Why couldn't he just have wrote the whole bible himself in stone somewhere with infinite amount of clauses and explanations.
Personally, I do believe in a God but not as a being that is human like and is all things good and evil, but more along the lines of a being that transcends these things and has nothing to with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism which totally misinterpreted what they believed to be god. Perhaps the only logical religion is Buddhism, but there are some things I disagree with that. At least they try to explain everything logically and tend to not be militant about their beliefs.
Sadly enough, I came to these views on my own and I didn't even study aetheism or live in anti-religeous environment. Mostly I just questioned what was given to me by those around me as I grew up and I still haven't had any logical answers other than someone quoting a vague bible passage which I ask if they could speak the hebrew or at least greek version of it so we can really determine the nature of the passage rather than a bad English translation.
If you're an established company, and you don't pay a premium for voice talent, you should be able to make a top-notch game of any type for less than $20 mil. $20 million is a *lot* of money.
Maybe they needed new hats.
This sounds like fun. Buying a used Revolution? Uh-oh. What if someone locked it? Sounds like a fun prank to do before trading in a system. Speaking of pranks, letting your friend play your system?
I'm sure this could be easily solved by removing the cast plate and draining the battery on the mother board with a paper clip like we used to erase bios passwords with... Easy enough any 9 year old could... oh wait...
but not an "M" for drugs or sexual content.
Whats wrong with drugs and having sex?
Unless your having sex for drugs... Then it tends to be shady.
Personally, when I was 10 I wouldn't have tried to get my parents to buy me a rated-M game (if they had the rating system back then). In fact, I'd probably be happy that I could blame my parents and their parental controls if my friend came over with a rated-M game and was unable to play it.
I dunno... I was exposed to allot of x-rated material and violent media as a kid (playing Doom and watching the spice channel etc) but it didn't harm me one bit as turning out to be a psycho.
Actually, I tend to be more adjusted with the opposite sex than most people that were sheltered as kids.
However, I do recall my parents were blunt and upfront to me about sex and breaking the law so I was fairly educated of what not to do.
Your kids will do things you don't want them to do. They will probaly see things you don't want them to see, but its more important that you educate them so that they can deal with situations when the "real life" crisis errupts.
Teen pregnancy, drug use, and violence will affect a teen way more than any movie or video game will if they don't know how to handle themselves when faced with a critical choice that will affec them for the rest of their lives.
And I suppose the pro-Linux studies are more valid?
Well, let us put it this way... Do you like my hat? It's made of money!
Sadly enough I thought I had copy and pasted this into word and ran a spell check and pasted back.
So are they following in that ridiculous "ubonics" tradition and further degrading the English language or what?
Nay prithee good sir! Thy language skills of ye English Lanugage lack forsooth!
I don't know about everyone else, but I really don't see most of these great works of literature as something to put on a pedelstal.
I mean there were developed as entertainment and phillosophical points of view, but they don't really have much to teach us other than the authors point of view and perhaps a perspective of the world they lived in.
Take Shakespear from example... I mean his works were specifically devolped to entertain an live audience of his era with comeday and tragedy and frankly the only reason we study him because he was most likely the only one to do it at his time.
Unless of course there were other play writers that just wrote heaping mounds of dog poo and English Parliment locked them up in the tower and burned their plays that we don't know about...
As far as works that people should read as something they should get value of... I'd recommend Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, Dante, Friedrich Nietzsche, or some other off the wall phillosopher rather than these people who wrote for entertainment value.
Since the Xbox360 has USB ports do you think the FPS games would support a USB keyboard and mouse?
People on here seem to think that by adding the word "open source" to something it will automagically be able to singlehandedly cure cancer, solve world hunger, and make Julian fries.
Well, chances are that the supercomputer that crunches the numbers to give the data that the scientists will use to cure cancer will run on Linux.
But you got me beat on the world hunger and the Julian fries... Unless we make self replicating sentient robots that run on linux that feed starving people by making Julian fries.
You could legally... Well at least morally download the no-cd crack.
Their servers, their rules.
That doesn't mean you are morally obliged to follow those rules if they violate your well being.
Then again... If they don't know you aren't following the rules, then it is a moot point.
They could buy tons of trout. They could attempt to maximize profits at all costs. Monetarily successful corporations chose the last option. Trout salesmen probably chose the last 2.
Ah, but you missed the fatal flaw...
If you maximize profits in the extreme, you often canibalize the company by layoffs and short term gains by altering methods of profits and the company slowly goes into a death spiral leaving the long term investors with the short end of the stick when the company just up and folds.
Maximized profts != company success.
Nobody said it was a perfect system but it seems to have worked well enough for the last 200 years :)
I bet the last Emperor of Rome said the same thing.
I've driven pretty fast. I once drove a Dodge Viper around a race track and got some pretty wicked speed, hitting about 150mph on the back straight. What didn't I see? Motion blur
I've run into the same problem before when driving. If I notice a lack of motion blurring, I apply a patch using four shots of Tequila.
That usually does the trick. However, the drivers become unstable and you may experience a crash.
My personal experiences and the hearsay of my friends are the only accurate way to measure the world around me. If I personally don't know somebody who has seen a blue whale, they can't possibly exist.
Actually if you look at Quantum Physics in the right light, whales don't exist until you observe them.
Baby boomers and older, however, are far less likely to adopt this.
Baby boomers won't be buying a PS3 nor will be switching over from their DVD collection first either.
That said, they won't be the ones choosing which format that wins, but what their kids/grandkids tell them what to buy.
but to say you dont have an obligation to your stockholders is bunk, its everything they teach in school and in the real world, its all about keeping your stockholders happy. There the ones that tell you what to do if you screw up and they are the ones that replace you if needed, your more then obligated to keep them happy. At least in a public company situtation.
The problem is that statement is way too over-generalized and doesn't really ecompass what the real nature of a corporation charter.
IANAL or a MBA, but I have looked into creating an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) and know about it than I would like to know. Shareholders can often influence a company if they are the owners with voting stock. If the company does not have voting stock then then it is just monetary sway of keeping the investors money with the company.
People have been told over and over again that the purpose of a corporation was to make a profit and appease the shareholders which is totally unfounded when you look at the nature of a corporate charter in legal terms. A legal charter is nothing more than creating an artificial entity that protects its investors from litigation of their personal assets when someone sues the corporation. You sue the corporation and it runs out of money, but you can't go after the shareholders.
That said... A corporation is only obligated to appease share holders if it wants to. I mean the board member and CEOs could in fact declare all corporate elections null and void and have a revolt of sorts, but they would quickly loose the capital of all the investors unless of course the investors went along with the people still in power.
Corporations do need money to operate to pay its employees and needs an investment base in order to grow, but if someone created a corporation and made it so that they had firm control of the leadership process, they could very well not intend to make any money at all if they so choose to do so.
They may not get investments or capital support from others in the process... So it wouldn't be very long lasted.
But it is a fallacy to assume that corporations are forced by law to make money. They only do so because it benefits those running them, work for them, and those who invest in them.
The only purpose that a corporation has is to make profit.
Wrong. The only purpose or or legal reason a corporation exists is to protect its investors private holdings from being targeted in litigation. That is the nature of the corporate charter set by Federal and State laws. A corporation has no legal or social obligation to its investors to make a profit, but by the nature of investment it is what they prefer them do.
I mean people tend to not invest in corporations that don't make profits, so by default most corporations try to make a profit because that will make a return on the investors investment.
No one usually would invest in a company that didn't make them returns on their investment, but on occasion people do. Take non-profit corporations for example. They have their own legal tax bracket.
Just like every other console generation in history, the winner(s) will be system(s) with the best games
So who won last round?
What about the internet needs saving? It seems to be working fine for me thank you very much.
I take it you don't use Comcast.
People just aren't willing to spend money purely in the name of Science. There needs to be a concrete reason for it.
Maybe we aren't promoting spending large quanities of money into science in the right way or putting the right "spin" on things.
Well I mean there are things like... well um... Manipulation of time and space... Free robot slave labor... Immortality... Technological singularity events... Virtual sex... Little things like that which we could grab people's attention with.
I mean if we told Joe Sixpac that if we spend $200 billion in AI research now that he'll have a robot sex slave wife in 5 years he would be more willing to pay more taxes, right?
Maybe if we told them we are looking for space chicks with the hubble and if we find any that he'll be the first to know!
As TFA said; he became depressed and suicidal when he got diagnosis.
Maybe Quantumm immortality was involved... But I'd doubt it because we aren't observing the universe from his perspective.
As a politician instead of a scientist, the first thing that came to mind when I read this story were the faces of the people who made the budget for that robot. They just heard that their spacecraft flung a $20million bag of money into the great unknown. I imagine that feels just about the same as getting kicked square in the nuts.
Moreso than not, because this is the first step in inventing a robot that flings politicians into deep space.