Enron's criminal behavior has gone unpunished by regulators while California seeks to get back the overcharges caused by Enron.
Actually, Gray Davis was trying to get back the overcharges. He was making some progress in this endeavor when he was recalled. (Corelation, not necessarily causation) One of Arnie's first moves was to put a stop to it.
Sorry, I was going to go another round with you, but talking political sense with the young farts on Slashdot is like trying to teach a dog how to drive stick-shift.
So what you're actually saying is that be-fan completely destroyed your totally illogical postings with reason and facts so now you're running away like a crying little bitch?
That's the sort of legislation that is very hard to "buy." Everyone wants cheap prescription medicine. Politicians can and do lose elections, especially when they stand up for legislation that is widely unpopular.
Well, Bush stood up and denied us our basic right to buy the same drugs cheaper in Canada and went as far as to prevent collective bargaining for realistic prices. He got re elected.
Apparently we Americans hate gays more than we love our sick relatives.
And saying that a human embryo is not life IS a dogmatic religious belief.
Unless you can prove the exact instant that life begins, then your point makes no sense. What you need to understand is that if somebody doesn't make the conscious decision to believe, without proof, the things that you do that isn't a religious belief. It is merely the lack of one particular one.
Oh yeah, and morality/character made this country great. Not the whole, "If it feels good, it's ok!" attitude.
Many things made this country great, and one of the biggest was the outright banning of religion in the creation of the governemnt. As to morality, well maybe you should ask the slaves about that, or the indians, or the mexicans, or.... Seriously, that comment was flat out ignorant. And a straw man. You're the only one who mentioned "the whole, "If it feels good, it's ok!" attitude."
Armenia is an officially christian nation...they are democratic, though they seem to be having some trouble similar to the Ukrain during their last election.
So you agree with my point?
BTW, I resent your anti-christian views. Perhaps you should get to know one before judging.
Good lord, what an incredible persecution complex you have.
There was not one single hint of an anti-Christian view in my post. If you actually read it without your "poor me" blinders on, you will see that what I said was that Theocracies are bad. Always.
I don't have anything against Christians. I wish more of the people who claimed to be one actually followed Jesus's philosophy rather than merely picking a few passages from the old testament because they agree with their own hatreds, and completely ignore the message.
If you read the responses to the things you quoted, then you will see that they got responses similar to the one you did.
This is about preventing wine users from getting Office updates automatically.
Think for half a second, and you might well realise that the idea of trying to update your windows installation when you are not running windows doesn't even make any sense at all in the first place.
I know I was a dick about it, but I was just getting fed up reading all the crap that was posted without even giving it the most basic sort of sanity check like that.
That said, there is a little check box below the box I'm typing this into, right above the submit button that's labeled "No Karma Bonus"
If you check that box, your posts start out at +1 rather than the +2 that they will by default since you have received enough positive moderation to your posts in the past.
Generally, if you have an important point to make you'll leave it at 2. If you're just posting stupid crap like this post right here (My post that is) you check the box. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.
Your sig doesn't really make sense given how you think: Quit talking about it and move to Canada already!
If my tax dollars can't go toward a religious cause I support, then I don't want them going to another religious cause that I don't support, namely, one that says embryos are not life.
If you want to live under a fundamentalist government, then why don't you move to Iran already rather than trying to fuck up the primary thing that made this country great?
And don't kid yourself that a Christian theocracy would be any better than a Muslim one. If It would, I'm sure you could point to one hmmmm???
That's okay, Clinton did too. But you won't see any left-wingers writing about that.
Typical morally bankrupt response of the right wing nut job.
What Clinton did or did not do has fuck all to do with Bush, his lies, and the rest of his actions. If your guy is such a complete piece of shit that you are unable to defend his actions, then pull your head out of your ass and think through what that means.
Pulling the old straw man Clinton out merely weakens your position.
And how is the rest of my post attacking a straw man? I asked whether or not a person who might agree with the thesis that Bush values an embryo more than, e.g., an Iraqi civilian (arguments about intent again aside) could grasp the concept that the effort might result in the preservation of more Iraqi lives in the future. What does that have to do with a straw man? In fact, it's intensely relevant: both positions inherently value life, and therefore are not logically inconsistent.
The position is totally inconsistent because it has nothing to do with the reasons that we are in Iraq.
We are there because they posed an imminent threat to our survival. Because Saddam could have gassed the US within 45 minutes. Because he had massive supplies of WMDs and we knew exactly where they were.
Those are the reasons we went into Iraq.
Well, at least if you believe that there is a scrap of integrity in Bush, then those and those alone are the reasons that we went in when we did.
Of course, since none of those things are true then that paints a much more accurate picture of Bush nad his utter lack of morals.
Would you do us all a favor and not use your +1 bonus when you are dead wrong and don't even have a clue what the discussion is about?
This isn't about windows, it's about office. This is about the 20th time it's been said but you clearly have no interest in actually paying attention. You just want to pompously spout crap.
stubborn, doting science zealots that believe the current form of science is the end-all be-all of reality. This is equally as bad as the crazy fundamentalists we see all over.
True enough. I think the fundies are worse just because I don't think the others have much of a history of burning people alive for heresy.
My point is that science is gauged by its academic knowledge here on/., while religion is gauged by its layman knowledge.
To a point, perhaps. I think it might be better said that some people get attacked for other people's religious beliefs, but it's close enough to the same point I think.
if you honestly believe that evolution and religion are exclusive to each other, then you are a bull-headed idiot whether on the religious side of the fence or the scientific side.
Definately. Although with the wingnut 6000 year old earth types, it does make them retreat to arguments like "God's testing your faith" which only serves to make their God look like an immature little prankster. I don't really know the percentages, but I really hope it is the majority of those who claim to believe in a God at least who treat him with a little more respect than that.
But That is awefully surprising from such a 'spiritual' administration. I would think they would value what is in someones heart over what is in his head. If he means bad, he will figure out a way to do bad. It does not matter what job you put him in...
Right. Except anybody who spent ten minutes reading up on what Jesus actually said would know that Bush stands firmly against pretty much everything.
Where do you think we get most 'security analysts'?
From a grad school class where they got their first real look at a computer. They were trained in some basic social engineering techniques, given a few automated root kits, put in a nice suit and sent out.
At least that describes the ones I've seen coming into the financial institution I work at to do penetraton testing.
I am trying as hard as I can. So far I'm doing perfectly, but I suspect I haven't collected enough data points yet to accurately predict my eventual success or lack thereof.
Religion = St. Augustine, Auquinas, Bacon (hmm, precursor to science...), Descartes, etc. Religion does not = televangelists, salem witch trials, crusades, etc.
Well, maybe in parts of the world, but this is blatantly false here in the US.
Just look at the exit polls from the last election.
Bush got re elected on one and only one issue. The fact that that Bush's stance on that and similar issues is directly opposed to the teachings that he and the people who voted for him claim to follow has zero impact on the thought processes of these people.
That is far more in line with televangelists and the Salem witch trials than anything resembling rational thought.
I am a Christian, I believe Creation theory is fine. I also believe evolution is fine.
What I think we have is words used to mean 2 different things.
Believing in creation, the idea that some all powerful being created the universe, is one thing. It may be true, it may not be and we'll most likely never know in this life. That's all well and good. Believe what makes you happy and all is well.
That isn't what is generally meant by "Creation Theory" though. In the first place it's a belief. It isn't even generally *called* a theory by people who believe that. "Creation Theory" isn't a real theory either, but those who support it treat it as if it is. It holds that the earth is 6000 years old, all science to the contrary is bogus, and a whole slew of other totally ridiculous things.
So it sounds to me like you are in the first group, but you used terminology which might make some people think that you're in the second.
What you seem to be referring to as Creation Theory would more accurately be called "Judeo Christianity" or something similar since you just seem to be saying that you believe that their god is the one who put us here.
You are, of course, free to refer to it any way you please, but you're likely to run into this type of thing if you use words that have come to have a certain meaning to describe something totally different.
Slashdot Mirror
Enron's criminal behavior has gone unpunished by regulators while California seeks to get back the overcharges caused by Enron.
Actually, Gray Davis was trying to get back the overcharges. He was making some progress in this endeavor when he was recalled. (Corelation, not necessarily causation)
One of Arnie's first moves was to put a stop to it.
Sorry, I was going to go another round with you, but talking political sense with the young farts on Slashdot is like trying to teach a dog how to drive stick-shift.
So what you're actually saying is that be-fan completely destroyed your totally illogical postings with reason and facts so now you're running away like a crying little bitch?
Thought so.
YOU will never succeed in breaking the back of "redneck" America with your vile disparaging hypocrisy.
Nobody really gives a shit.
If you had a scrap of integrity, however, you would quit living off of my subsidies you fucking pathetic leech.
That's the sort of legislation that is very hard to "buy." Everyone wants cheap prescription medicine. Politicians can and do lose elections, especially when they stand up for legislation that is widely unpopular.
Well, Bush stood up and denied us our basic right to buy the same drugs cheaper in Canada and went as far as to prevent collective bargaining for realistic prices. He got re elected.
Apparently we Americans hate gays more than we love our sick relatives.
And saying that a human embryo is not life IS a dogmatic religious belief.
Unless you can prove the exact instant that life begins, then your point makes no sense.
What you need to understand is that if somebody doesn't make the conscious decision to believe, without proof, the things that you do that isn't a religious belief. It is merely the lack of one particular one.
Oh yeah, and morality/character made this country great. Not the whole, "If it feels good, it's ok!" attitude.
Many things made this country great, and one of the biggest was the outright banning of religion in the creation of the governemnt.
As to morality, well maybe you should ask the slaves about that, or the indians, or the mexicans, or....
Seriously, that comment was flat out ignorant.
And a straw man. You're the only one who mentioned "the whole, "If it feels good, it's ok!" attitude."
Armenia is an officially christian nation...they are democratic, though they seem to be having some trouble similar to the Ukrain during their last election.
So you agree with my point?
BTW, I resent your anti-christian views. Perhaps you should get to know one before judging.
Good lord, what an incredible persecution complex you have.
There was not one single hint of an anti-Christian view in my post.
If you actually read it without your "poor me" blinders on, you will see that what I said was that Theocracies are bad. Always.
I don't have anything against Christians. I wish more of the people who claimed to be one actually followed Jesus's philosophy rather than merely picking a few passages from the old testament because they agree with their own hatreds, and completely ignore the message.
Maybe so, maybe not, but it certainly exposes your hypocrisy.
How is it hypocrisy to care about what is happening now rather than what happened 10 years ago?
If you read the responses to the things you quoted, then you will see that they got responses similar to the one you did.
This is about preventing wine users from getting Office updates automatically.
Think for half a second, and you might well realise that the idea of trying to update your windows installation when you are not running windows doesn't even make any sense at all in the first place.
I know I was a dick about it, but I was just getting fed up reading all the crap that was posted without even giving it the most basic sort of sanity check like that.
That said, there is a little check box below the box I'm typing this into, right above the submit button that's labeled "No Karma Bonus"
If you check that box, your posts start out at +1 rather than the +2 that they will by default since you have received enough positive moderation to your posts in the past.
Generally, if you have an important point to make you'll leave it at 2.
If you're just posting stupid crap like this post right here (My post that is) you check the box.
Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.
Your sig doesn't really make sense given how you think:
Quit talking about it and move to Canada already!
If my tax dollars can't go toward a religious cause I support, then I don't want them going to another religious cause that I don't support, namely, one that says embryos are not life.
If you want to live under a fundamentalist government, then why don't you move to Iran already rather than trying to fuck up the primary thing that made this country great?
And don't kid yourself that a Christian theocracy would be any better than a Muslim one. If It would, I'm sure you could point to one hmmmm???
That's okay, Clinton did too. But you won't see any left-wingers writing about that.
Typical morally bankrupt response of the right wing nut job.
What Clinton did or did not do has fuck all to do with Bush, his lies, and the rest of his actions.
If your guy is such a complete piece of shit that you are unable to defend his actions, then pull your head out of your ass and think through what that means.
Pulling the old straw man Clinton out merely weakens your position.
And how is the rest of my post attacking a straw man? I asked whether or not a person who might agree with the thesis that Bush values an embryo more than, e.g., an Iraqi civilian (arguments about intent again aside) could grasp the concept that the effort might result in the preservation of more Iraqi lives in the future. What does that have to do with a straw man? In fact, it's intensely relevant: both positions inherently value life, and therefore are not logically inconsistent.
The position is totally inconsistent because it has nothing to do with the reasons that we are in Iraq.
We are there because they posed an imminent threat to our survival. Because Saddam could have gassed the US within 45 minutes. Because he had massive supplies of WMDs and we knew exactly where they were.
Those are the reasons we went into Iraq.
Well, at least if you believe that there is a scrap of integrity in Bush, then those and those alone are the reasons that we went in when we did.
Of course, since none of those things are true then that paints a much more accurate picture of Bush nad his utter lack of morals.
Would you do us all a favor and not use your +1 bonus when you are dead wrong and don't even have a clue what the discussion is about?
This isn't about windows, it's about office.
This is about the 20th time it's been said but you clearly have no interest in actually paying attention.
You just want to pompously spout crap.
Please stop it.
k thx bye
Who are you calling, "not a simple organism" ?!?
stubborn, doting science zealots that believe the current form of science is the end-all be-all of reality. This is equally as bad as the crazy fundamentalists we see all over.
/., while religion is gauged by its layman knowledge.
True enough.
I think the fundies are worse just because I don't think the others have much of a history of burning people alive for heresy.
My point is that science is gauged by its academic knowledge here on
To a point, perhaps. I think it might be better said that some people get attacked for other people's religious beliefs, but it's close enough to the same point I think.
if you honestly believe that evolution and religion are exclusive to each other, then you are a bull-headed idiot whether on the religious side of the fence or the scientific side.
Definately. Although with the wingnut 6000 year old earth types, it does make them retreat to arguments like "God's testing your faith" which only serves to make their God look like an immature little prankster. I don't really know the percentages, but I really hope it is the majority of those who claim to believe in a God at least who treat him with a little more respect than that.
Yeah, I read that.
Scary.
Just think what a $250,000 "campaign contribution" could do - if only we could all agree on a "message" ...
I vote for a big fucking bomb that we drop on Washington.
But That is awefully surprising from such a 'spiritual' administration. I would think they would value what is in someones heart over what is in his head. If he means bad, he will figure out a way to do bad. It does not matter what job you put him in...
Right.
Except anybody who spent ten minutes reading up on what Jesus actually said would know that Bush stands firmly against pretty much everything.
Where do you think we get most 'security analysts'?
From a grad school class where they got their first real look at a computer. They were trained in some basic social engineering techniques, given a few automated root kits, put in a nice suit and sent out.
At least that describes the ones I've seen coming into the financial institution I work at to do penetraton testing.
Try being alive for 16 million years!
I am trying as hard as I can. So far I'm doing perfectly, but I suspect I haven't collected enough data points yet to accurately predict my eventual success or lack thereof.
Religion = St. Augustine, Auquinas, Bacon (hmm, precursor to science...), Descartes, etc. Religion does not = televangelists, salem witch trials, crusades, etc.
Well, maybe in parts of the world, but this is blatantly false here in the US.
Just look at the exit polls from the last election.
Bush got re elected on one and only one issue. The fact that that Bush's stance on that and similar issues is directly opposed to the teachings that he and the people who voted for him claim to follow has zero impact on the thought processes of these people.
That is far more in line with televangelists and the Salem witch trials than anything resembling rational thought.
Personally, I'd love to see a ground-based scope on the far side of the moon to replace hubble, but I'm probably just dreaming.
If it were on the far sde of the moon, how would we ever download the pics?
I can think of one reason - they're waiting for the time when printerkind is to rise up and enslave humanity.
Well then all the more reason to patch the driver, I'd say.
I pay for HBO. Why? HBO doesn't suck. I also record HBO and watch it later. Why? HBO doesn't suck.
How much other crap that does suck are you required to pay for before you're even given the option of paying for HBO that doesn't suck, though?
most independent movies suck.
Yeah, they're all about gay cowboys eating pudding and crap.
If an expert gets excited, there's usually a reason.
Except mathematicians often get excited about things that are cool only to mathematicians. If it has any uses, fine, but that's not why they do it.
Occasionally, hundreds of years later it turns out to be just what some physicist is looking for.
As far as I know, the Mersenne primes fall into the category of things which aren't useful in a practical sense.
I am a Christian, I believe Creation theory is fine. I also believe evolution is fine.
What I think we have is words used to mean 2 different things.
Believing in creation, the idea that some all powerful being created the universe, is one thing. It may be true, it may not be and we'll most likely never know in this life.
That's all well and good. Believe what makes you happy and all is well.
That isn't what is generally meant by "Creation Theory" though. In the first place it's a belief. It isn't even generally *called* a theory by people who believe that. "Creation Theory" isn't a real theory either, but those who support it treat it as if it is.
It holds that the earth is 6000 years old, all science to the contrary is bogus, and a whole slew of other totally ridiculous things.
So it sounds to me like you are in the first group, but you used terminology which might make some people think that you're in the second.
What you seem to be referring to as Creation Theory would more accurately be called "Judeo Christianity" or something similar since you just seem to be saying that you believe that their god is the one who put us here.
You are, of course, free to refer to it any way you please, but you're likely to run into this type of thing if you use words that have come to have a certain meaning to describe something totally different.