but it was funny that some fucking moron modded the parent to flamebait. ...If you want flamebait, this is it
Now this is even funnier. Your previous post is currently still labled flamebait. It isn't flamebait, of course somewhat rantish, but we still don't have that rant tag.
This post is more or less flamebait and it's labled insightful.
Note to mods, that link saying "have you read the moderator guidelines" is a must read for a lot of you. Yes, it will also tell you that this post is appropriately labled "offtopic" if you care to waste your points on it.
The religion issue is tougher. I must say, though, that I don't believe in the supernatural, but my children have been to Sunday school. I want them to see both sides of the fence.
I think your willingness to expose your children to both sides is great (like you needed my approval;-). I have no children, but it's a possibility in the future. I've given this one a lot of thought, and would expose them to various different religious beliefs. Aren't Sunday schools basically indoctrination camps though? What sort of things led you to that particular choice (Sunday school and that one in particular)?
It's impossible to educate without expressing an opinion, even if the opinion being expressed is "I believe that 2+2=4".
Your point is true in a lot of circumstances, but your example is poor. It can be *proved* that 2+2=4. Granted, it takes an upper division college algebra class to develop the structures in which to do this.
As a taxpayer, you're entitled to this information: If they won't give it up willingly, then surely it can be acquired via an FOIA request (in the states).
You know, you shouldn't use the F-word so much -- your liberal/socialistic bent is showing.;)
I used it once, for emphasis. People need to realise that with freedom comes responsibility. Having a "free press" doesn't impose any requirement on said press to actually report the truth. Most people seem to think it does.
I am liberal on some issues, conservative on others. I am in no way socialistic.
About the 'illegal stripping of 100,000 voters of the rights...', the supreme court halted the vote...
The stripping of the rights happened months before the election. The supreme court doesn't enter into this issue.
because it did not recount the entire state and thus treated voters in different counties differently.
So rather than have the entire state recounted, they just stopped the recount?
Ironically, that's the one scenario where Gore might have won. [washingtonpost.com]*
So if the court had actually been concerned with voters being treated equally the election result would have been different.
So how come VoterMarch [votermarch.org] hasn't been updated in over a year?
I have no idea. What is the relevance though? The first ammendment (for example) hasn't been updated in longer than that. So it's now wrong? That was just a link I found through a google search. I have found various sources for this information at many different time. I haven't been particularly good at preserving bookmarks through OS/hardware changes, but lots of information is available. Feel free to look and find a source that has been updated more recently if you would care to.
The site is owned by Maybe this is why... [posner.com]. (NOTE- it's from a different Posner than the one who runs VoterMarch.)
This is a little difficult to parse. The article you linked to is irrelevant. A reporter claims that at the time of the scandal he was writing slanted pieces in favor of Gore based on a personal preference for Gore. He apologises since he thinks GW Bush stepped up since the attacks** I am talking about something that came out later detailing how *Jeb* Bush rigged the election months previously.
Oh, yeah, and by the way, see what *this* Brit has to say about about Palast's book. [newstatesman.co.uk]
Does the emphasis on "this" mean that you are Mick Hume, or are you just indicating that you are referring to the referenced article? Irrelvant, it would just be interesting if you were.
He has almost nothing to say about the book. The review is almost entirely a personal attack on Palast's personality rather than on his book or his findings. He even mentions that a different journalist at New Statesman reviewed the book as "fucking brilliant", but uses this merely as an excuse to take a snotty jab at a fellow journalist:
Among the many compliments on the dust jacket, the NS columnist Mark Thomas describes the book as "fucking brilliant". If that doesn't convince you not to buy it, I don't know what will.
I am not familiar with Mark Thomas, but my girlfriend who is from London speaks quite highly of him. Regardless, if this is his compelling reason not to buy the book, I can't put too mach faith in him.
Your sources are biased and have an adgenda. As do all sources.
Nice try. I was actually convinced that there might be some legitimacy to your statements given the various links. Hopefully other readers will bother to follow them and convince themselves that they are all irrelevant and largely content free. So I have to return your "nice try".
*Well, we have the same source for something. The Washington Post actually printed the story about the criminal action of Jeb. Months later on page 8. I suppose "buried" is a better description that printed. Understandable since at the time anything even slightly critical of Bush was treason according to Bush. Note, understandable does not mean acceptable or preserving of journalistic integrity.
** Bush did step up quite a bit didn't he? It's almost as if he knew they were coming
Now I know you will jump all over this source (world socialist web site), but again, this was the result of a google search. If you were actually to read the article you would notice that it has references to various other sources including major European newspaper articles printed before the attacks about how their governments told us the attacks were going to happen, what the targets would be and the fact that commercial airliners would be used.
As someone else pointed out, those might be the post numbers. It did remiond me of something curious that happened the other day. I clicked on one of those "see this previous/. story" links to a story about the discovery of element 118 being debunked. I didn't remember seeing it originally, and don't remember when it happened. So I'm reading through the article and noticed that all of the posts were from people with 3 and 4 digit UID's. So I thought, that it must be a really old story. I checked the date, but it doesn't list the year, just day month and time. As I continued reading I noticed the UID's were creeping up, and the posts were unrelated to nearby ones. Eventually I scrolled through and discovered that the comments had been sorted by UID. Very strange.
I've always used KDE as my desktop with RH, VERY rarely using Gnome, so people claiming RH is Gnome-centric are just plain wrong...
I have also used primarily KDE and very rarely Gnome, but the claims are actually correct. If you install one of the default configurations Gnome is installed and not KDE. If you install both, the default choice for default choice of desktop environment is Gnome. KDE only releases source, and the various distribution manufacturers package them. RedHat doesn't do this. Now technically a RedHat employee actually does the packaging, but I believe it's on his own time and it isn't an "official" RedHat package.
This doesn't mean RedHat is doing anything wrong or evil, they just have a preference. They do nothing at all to prevent KDE from working or even make it difficult to install it, but their distribution *is* Gnome-centric.
My first x86 machine was built for the express purpose of running Linux. Previously I had used the Mac distributions. So I went to the store to pick up a boxed distribution. I knew I could have downloaded, but I wasn't broke and wanted to support Linux. The store I went to (Border's I think, only place I could find that stocked it) had 2 distributions: SuSE 6.1 and whatever RH version was current at the time. RH was 2 cd's at $70 SuSE was 5 cd's at $30. I wasn't totally broke, but still a starving student, so my choice was made. That was my compelling reason.
I had another compelling reason to switch later though. I was using the machine as among other things a gateway for my road runner cable modem. It worked great for quite a while even after buying and upgrading (flawlessly) to SuSE 6.2, but then for no reason I was able to figure out even with help from SuSE and several gurus it stopped getting a DHCP address. No amount of recompiling, tweaking or reinstalling would fix it. Bizarre.
The one place RH probably beats Mandrake is in polish, in the UI
What do you mean by this? The UI in the installer? If you mean in the desktop environment, do you mean like the way KDE/Gnome are set up (start menu, task bar etc.)?
I've used RH, SuSE, MKLinux, LinuxPPC and OpenBSD, but not Mandrake.
If I wanted to rig an election in the US, I would have to rig it ONE COUNTY AT A TIME
Or if you were a little more creative, you could just rig a whole state in one shot.
The Florida election worked exactly as it should have
An election is supposed to work by one citizen, one vote. I know about the electoral college, that isn't the issue. When the brother of one candidate illegally strips 100,000 voters of their most basic (as a citizen of a republic) right, you can *not* say the election worked.
See this link for information. Better yet, do your own research and inform yourself since that is *your fucking responsibility*.
For those who don't know, Greg Palast, who is mentioned on the site as a "BBC investigative reporter" is in fact an American investigative journalist one of the best ever. He can no longer get a job with any major US media outlet. Why? They don't want investigative journalism any more. It's not good for advertising sales.
Have hired a horde of computer scientists to find possible problems with the software being used
Ignoring all the other possible affects on society etc, this would be totally sweet. Every computer scientist in the country working on a few Open Source programs. It wouldn't even be a "mythical man month" issue. It would all be about redundancy in error checking.
Of course, all the computer scientists in the world couldn't prevent the state governor from illegaly disenfranchising 100,000 voters a few months before the election.
but they can't make a web page worth shit. Text sprawled all over other text and images. Bleuch. Yes, I'm using Mozilla, Yes it *is* standards compliant. So yes, it is their code that sucks.
you will probably notice that she is very popular with spammers who do not speak your language.
This is odd. I have heard about this quite a bit, yet I have yet to receive a single spam that wasn't in english. I get a fair amount, not a huge amount. Although in the last week or two I've been getting about 10 a day from red hot deals. If Roadrunner does start charging based on bandwidth I'm going to get really pissed.
I suppose theres RedHat Network. I didn't feel like dishing out the cash for it though.
So don't dish out the cash. It doesn't stop you from using it. You get one free system at a time per email address.
So if you have 2 or more machines and one email address, just update whichever machine is currently entitled. Then go to rhn.redhat.com log in, click on "entitlements", change the updated system from "basic" to none. Change the next system from "none" to "basic" run up2date. Repeat until done.
Add to that the assumption of God always doing perfect justice (you couldn't have defended yourself better than he would do for you), and of his perfect compassion, and you'll see there's indeed little ground for such statements from the church. I reject them just as you do.
This sounds like a very radical stance for a christian. No, I'm sorry, bad apples spoiling the bunch and all that. Your statements are actually quite in line with what I have heard that Jesus said. I'm amazed at the things some self-described christians say usually quoting some obscure passage in the old testament and ignoring the fact that the new testament trumps that (at least that is my understanding). The whole godhatesfags thing and all that sort of thing. Couldn't you trademark "Christian" and sue those jackasses who claim to be and clearly aren't;-)
You are right, the assumption that God exists adds no information to the mathematical model, because its only requirement is describing measurements consistency, not describing life, truth, love, freedom, and so forth.
I wasn't really clear on what I meant here. I wasn't referring the mathematical model when I spoke of adding information. What I meant was that When you ask the question, "Where did we/the universe/ come from?". My answer is, "I don't know". Your answer is "God made it". At this point I am done answering, but your answer creates a new question, "Where did god come from?" Now, the only completely true answer is "I don't know". This is the sense in which I meant that god adds no new information. Any other answer is more or less equivalent to "I don't know". The most common one given that I am aware of is, "He's always been here", or something to that affect. This also adds no new information since that answer could just as easily been applied to the previous question. It just seems to me that the only real purpose it serves (besides the evil purposes of bad people we've already discussed) is to push back the ignorance of origins a level.
I've just chosen to think that there's life outside the mathematical model, as that purposedly stops at questions that are outside of its domain, such as what the reason of the universe's existence is, what life is, why we are here, and what our purpose is.
I am not saying that there aren't things that science will never be able to understand. Then again, I'm not saying that I have the answer either. You are apparently satisfied that you do. Your answer doesn't work for me because of all the holes I see in it.
But the same statement holds if you *do* assume that God exists. It also doesn't say a thing about his nature, only about ours.
I would say that the whole "man was created in god's image" thing would indicate that it *does* say something about his nature.
I see the concept as being able to realize that you can effortlessly choose to do differently tomorrow, if you truly realize what your current actions mean. It's very empowering; it does away with you having to justify yourself to yourself, finding reasons why it was inevitable that you did those things. Because *that* is slavery my friend, to nothing but fate.
I completely agree with you here. What I don't see, is why a god is required for this.
Christ goes against fate, and says that you have choice. God went against fate when he created things, if he hadn't, the big bang wouldn't have occurred,according to the scientific models we derive from what we see in our universe today. The model sees no reason for Gods existance, but it sees no reason for the universe to exist either.
But faith sees no reason for god's existence either. It takes, "There is a god", as the only axiom. Different faiths add different axioms based on the particulars of that faith. To use the mathematical example, Axioms restrict freedom. Once you have chosen your axioms, you have created a framework in which to work and many beautiful things can be done within it. Without these restrictions, anything could be shown as true, so they are necessary in this context. There has been a lot of thought given to the question of whether we are using the "right" axioms leading to some real mind blowers like Godel's incompleteness theorem. Going back to the "real" world, your one axiom, creates restrictions. I can't give you a specific such as, "Think about 'x'. That's right you can't, but I can". I fail to see how it adds anything beautiful either. Sure, I can see how it might be nice to believe that once you die you'll be eternally happy, or whatever. But what I also see is that this is also the ideal construction to enslave people. "Sure I'm completely fucking you over in this life, but just be a good little tool and god will make it all up to you later."
I see the concept as being able to realize that you can effortlessly choose to do differently tomorrow, if you truly realize what your current actions mean. It's very empowering; it does away with you having to justify yourself to yourself, finding reasons why it was inevitable that you did those things. Because *that* is slavery my friend, to nothing but fate.
I agree with you completely, but I fail to see why a god is required.
I accept it as words from people. Centuries worth of people thinking about God, experiencing God's proximity, who were inspired by him. How does that enslave my mind?
I don't believe I said it enslaved your mind, I just said that it is not liberation. I think the context in which I said that was in reference to the structures created around it. I am at least as liberated as you in that way, yet I don't share your belief.
That's what my example about gravity was all about. Does he "send" you to the ground, painfully, if you step out of a window, or is that just a natural consequence of the way the universe works?
This is where what I said earlier about it being difficult to discuss this rationally given our different axioms comes in. Gravity is natural (assumes no god) God's laws are an arbitrary decision by him (assumes god).
However, I do assume that he has better sense of justice than we are even capable of. If even we are capable of arguing why this is not doing these people justice, I'm sure God can do even better, as he knows those people more intimately than you and I do.
Presumably, he knows them more intimately than they do themselves since he created them. So he arbitrarily decided on some rules, and then created a given person in such a way as to guarantee they would break them. Omniscience and Omnipotence requires this.
Well, no, not if you assume perfect freedom to choose, then he *wouldn't* know in advance that BJJB would be "condemned" See above, then he isn't all knowing, hence not god (at least according to any definition I have heard.)
I don't assume hell as literally as you seem to do
I don't actually assume hell. I don't, in fact, believe that there is such a place. Nonetheless, your point is taken. It's just that that seems to be the "standard" belief (whatever that means).
How does this relate with the concept that God is eternal, and knows the future, you ask? Well, I say that he encompasses *all possible futures* (I'm sure you know the many worlds theory from quantum mechanics). But that doesn't take away our freedom; it doesn't pre-determine what you and I will do.
This leads to two different outcomes that I can see: 1) Once I reach the end, all possibilities collapse and I'm left with the one path that I chose. In this case god still knew prior to creating the universe which one I would take. 2) There are infinitely many of me in which case the whole concept of choice and freedom is moot since I make all choices.
If that were the case, then God cannot be forgiven for letting the holocaust or Pol Pot happen, to name a few things. I don't think that's the case.
I agree, that if it were the case he couldn't be forgiven. I disagree in that I think it is the case, or would if I believed in him.
We are created free. That's the only way out of it.
That's not the only way out of it. That's the only way to maintain the consistency of your beliefs. We can well be free to make our choices, but that doesn't mean that everything wasn't made in such a way as to ensure things would happen that way. It certainly requires a bizarre definition of free though. If this definition contradicts the one you're using, then the problem lies elsewhere. Since your system only has one axiom, well...
Well, I think you underestimate your possibilities;-)
I certainly hope not, but you never know.
I don't think that God created any religious laws, institutions
Sure.
requirements, "So that he that believes" sure sounds like a requirement to me.
hate, Since there was nothing before he created it this seems strange. Putting it on man or satan or whatever is again just pushing it back a level. The same could be said for the above laws and institutions, but there is a real difference. Those are tangible. Hate exists only within our minds and he created *all* of their ability to function. It's like the joke by I forget which comedian: "Why is it that sports stars always thank Jesus for their good plays but never mention him when things go wrong. I mean can you imagine them interviewing the running back who lost the game in the last seconds, 'Yeah, I was doing pretty well until Jesus made me fumble'".
If he created everything he created *everything*
If the airlines are held liable, then so too are the airports involved, their security, Boeing, the FAA, NORAD, USAF, Microsoft (FS 2000), Germany,
Actually Germany wouldn't be liable since they warned us about it well in advance along with France, Israel, Egypt, and several other countries. Good thing too, otherwise we wouldn't have had time to pull our air defenses prior to the attack and it might not have succeeded.
Slashdot Mirror
but it was funny that some fucking moron modded the parent to flamebait.
...If you want flamebait, this is it
Now this is even funnier. Your previous post is currently still labled flamebait. It isn't flamebait, of course somewhat rantish, but we still don't have that rant tag.
This post is more or less flamebait and it's labled insightful.
Note to mods, that link saying "have you read the moderator guidelines" is a must read for a lot of you. Yes, it will also tell you that this post is appropriately labled "offtopic" if you care to waste your points on it.
they're called 'bootlegs' not 'mash-ups'
No, bootlegs are tapes of live concerts made by individuals rather than a "live album" released by the record company.
My 16-month old hasn't figured out how to use the mouse yet, so she's stuck with the Command Line Interface...
ROFL
Luckilly I just finished my tea, or I'd have burned my nose and fried my laptop screen.
The religion issue is tougher. I must say, though, that I don't believe in the supernatural, but my children have been to Sunday school. I want them to see both sides of the fence.
;-).
I think your willingness to expose your children to both sides is great (like you needed my approval
I have no children, but it's a possibility in the future. I've given this one a lot of thought, and would expose them to various different religious beliefs. Aren't Sunday schools basically indoctrination camps though? What sort of things led you to that particular choice (Sunday school and that one in particular)?
It's impossible to educate without expressing an opinion, even if the opinion being expressed is "I believe that 2+2=4".
Your point is true in a lot of circumstances, but your example is poor.
It can be *proved* that 2+2=4.
Granted, it takes an upper division college algebra class to develop the structures in which to do this.
As a taxpayer, you're entitled to this information: If they won't give it up willingly, then surely it can be acquired via an FOIA request (in the states).
Don't be so sure
Funny, this article convinced me to check it out.
In San Diego there is KPLUG
And what do you know, there is a meeting tonight.
Hopefully someone there is keeping a list of potential volunteers.
Follow the rest of the thread posted since. One attempt to discredit it was shot down in flames.
Thanks. Hopefully I'll never need to use your advice, but best to know.
I used it once, for emphasis. People need to realise that with freedom comes responsibility. Having a "free press" doesn't impose any requirement on said press to actually report the truth. Most people seem to think it does.
I am liberal on some issues, conservative on others. I am in no way socialistic.
About the 'illegal stripping of 100,000 voters of the rights...', the supreme court halted the vote...
The stripping of the rights happened months before the election. The supreme court doesn't enter into this issue.
because it did not recount the entire state and thus treated voters in different counties differently.
So rather than have the entire state recounted, they just stopped the recount?
Ironically, that's the one scenario where Gore might have won. [washingtonpost.com]*
So if the court had actually been concerned with voters being treated equally the election result would have been different.
So how come VoterMarch [votermarch.org] hasn't been updated in over a year?
I have no idea. What is the relevance though? The first ammendment (for example) hasn't been updated in longer than that. So it's now wrong?
That was just a link I found through a google search. I have found various sources for this information at many different time. I haven't been particularly good at preserving bookmarks through OS/hardware changes, but lots of information is available. Feel free to look and find a source that has been updated more recently if you would care to.
The site is owned by Maybe this is why... [posner.com]. (NOTE- it's from a different Posner than the one who runs VoterMarch.)
This is a little difficult to parse. The article you linked to is irrelevant. A reporter claims that at the time of the scandal he was writing slanted pieces in favor of Gore based on a personal preference for Gore. He apologises since he thinks GW Bush stepped up since the attacks**
I am talking about something that came out later detailing how *Jeb* Bush rigged the election months previously.
Oh, yeah, and by the way, see what *this* Brit has to say about about Palast's book. [newstatesman.co.uk]
Does the emphasis on "this" mean that you are Mick Hume, or are you just indicating that you are referring to the referenced article? Irrelvant, it would just be interesting if you were.
He has almost nothing to say about the book. The review is almost entirely a personal attack on Palast's personality rather than on his book or his findings. He even mentions that a different journalist at New Statesman reviewed the book as "fucking brilliant", but uses this merely as an excuse to take a snotty jab at a fellow journalist:
I am not familiar with Mark Thomas, but my girlfriend who is from London speaks quite highly of him. Regardless, if this is his compelling reason not to buy the book, I can't put too mach faith in him.
Your sources are biased and have an adgenda.
As do all sources.
Nice try.
I was actually convinced that there might be some legitimacy to your statements given the various links. Hopefully other readers will bother to follow them and convince themselves that they are all irrelevant and largely content free.
So I have to return your "nice try".
*Well, we have the same source for something. The Washington Post actually printed the story about the criminal action of Jeb. Months later on page 8. I suppose "buried" is a better description that printed. Understandable since at the time anything even slightly critical of Bush was treason according to Bush. Note, understandable does not mean acceptable or preserving of journalistic integrity.
** Bush did step up quite a bit didn't he? It's almost as if
he knew they were coming
Now I know you will jump all over this source (world socialist web site), but again, this was the result of a google search. If you were actually to read the article you would notice that it has references to various other sources including major European newspaper articles printed before the attacks about how their governments told us the attacks were going to happen, what the targets would be and the fact that commercial airliners would be used.
why are all the user #'s so close together?
/. story" links to a story about the discovery of element 118 being debunked. I didn't remember seeing it originally, and don't remember when it happened. So I'm reading through the article and noticed that all of the posts were from people with 3 and 4 digit UID's. So I thought, that it must be a really old story. I checked the date, but it doesn't list the year, just day month and time. As I continued reading I noticed the UID's were creeping up, and the posts were unrelated to nearby ones. Eventually I scrolled through and discovered that the comments had been sorted by UID. Very strange.
As someone else pointed out, those might be the post numbers. It did remiond me of something curious that happened the other day. I clicked on one of those "see this previous
I've always used KDE as my desktop with RH, VERY rarely using Gnome, so people claiming RH is Gnome-centric are just plain wrong...
I have also used primarily KDE and very rarely Gnome, but the claims are actually correct.
If you install one of the default configurations Gnome is installed and not KDE. If you install both, the default choice for default choice of desktop environment is Gnome. KDE only releases source, and the various distribution manufacturers package them. RedHat doesn't do this. Now technically a RedHat employee actually does the packaging, but I believe it's on his own time and it isn't an "official" RedHat package.
This doesn't mean RedHat is doing anything wrong or evil, they just have a preference. They do nothing at all to prevent KDE from working or even make it difficult to install it, but their distribution *is* Gnome-centric.
My first x86 machine was built for the express purpose of running Linux. Previously I had used the Mac distributions. So I went to the store to pick up a boxed distribution. I knew I could have downloaded, but I wasn't broke and wanted to support Linux. The store I went to (Border's I think, only place I could find that stocked it) had 2 distributions: SuSE 6.1 and whatever RH version was current at the time. RH was 2 cd's at $70 SuSE was 5 cd's at $30. I wasn't totally broke, but still a starving student, so my choice was made.
That was my compelling reason.
I had another compelling reason to switch later though. I was using the machine as among other things a gateway for my road runner cable modem.
It worked great for quite a while even after buying and upgrading (flawlessly) to SuSE 6.2, but then for no reason I was able to figure out even with help from SuSE and several gurus it stopped getting a DHCP address. No amount of recompiling, tweaking or reinstalling would fix it. Bizarre.
Yes, the exploit is called "single user mode"
Doesn't this still require the root password, or am I just not "1337" enough?
The one place RH probably beats Mandrake is in polish, in the UI
What do you mean by this? The UI in the installer?
If you mean in the desktop environment, do you mean like the way KDE/Gnome are set up (start menu, task bar etc.)?
I've used RH, SuSE, MKLinux, LinuxPPC and OpenBSD, but not Mandrake.
If I wanted to rig an election in the US, I would have to rig it ONE COUNTY AT A TIME
Or if you were a little more creative, you could just rig a whole state in one shot.
The Florida election worked exactly as it should have
An election is supposed to work by one citizen, one vote. I know about the electoral college, that isn't the issue. When the brother of one candidate illegally strips 100,000 voters of their most basic (as a citizen of a republic) right, you can *not* say the election worked.
See this link for information. Better yet, do your own research and inform yourself since that is *your fucking responsibility*.
For those who don't know, Greg Palast, who is mentioned on the site as a "BBC investigative reporter" is in fact an American investigative journalist one of the best ever. He can no longer get a job with any major US media outlet. Why? They don't want investigative journalism any more. It's not good for advertising sales.
Have hired a horde of computer scientists to find possible problems with the software being used
Ignoring all the other possible affects on society etc, this would be totally sweet. Every computer scientist in the country working on a few Open Source programs. It wouldn't even be a "mythical man month" issue. It would all be about redundancy in error checking.
Of course, all the computer scientists in the world couldn't prevent the state governor from illegaly disenfranchising 100,000 voters a few months before the election.
Is "Statisches" a word? If so, does it make the sentence funny? Or better yet utterly ridiculous?
Or best of all really naughty?
but they can't make a web page worth shit.
Text sprawled all over other text and images.
Bleuch.
Yes, I'm using Mozilla,
Yes it *is* standards compliant.
So yes, it is their code that sucks.
you will probably notice that she is very popular with spammers who do not speak your language.
This is odd. I have heard about this quite a bit, yet I have yet to receive a single spam that wasn't in english. I get a fair amount, not a huge amount. Although in the last week or two I've been getting about 10 a day from red hot deals. If Roadrunner does start charging based on bandwidth I'm going to get really pissed.
I suppose theres RedHat Network. I didn't feel like dishing out the cash for it though.
So don't dish out the cash. It doesn't stop you from using it. You get one free system at a time per email address.
So if you have 2 or more machines and one email address, just update whichever machine is currently entitled.
Then go to rhn.redhat.com log in, click on "entitlements", change the updated system from "basic" to none. Change the next system from "none" to "basic" run up2date.
Repeat until done.
Although, truth be known, I want him as a US Senator.
;-)
Unless you're in my district forget it pal. I saw him first
Add to that the assumption of God always doing perfect justice (you couldn't have defended yourself better than he would do for you), and of his perfect compassion, and you'll see there's indeed little ground for such statements from the church. I reject them just as you do.
;-)
;-)
;-)
This sounds like a very radical stance for a christian. No, I'm sorry, bad apples spoiling the bunch and all that. Your statements are actually quite in line with what I have heard that Jesus said. I'm amazed at the things some self-described christians say usually quoting some obscure passage in the old testament and ignoring the fact that the new testament trumps that (at least that is my understanding). The whole godhatesfags thing and all that sort of thing. Couldn't you trademark "Christian" and sue those jackasses who claim to be and clearly aren't
You are right, the assumption that God exists adds no information to the mathematical model, because its only requirement is describing measurements consistency, not describing life, truth, love, freedom, and so forth.
I wasn't really clear on what I meant here. I wasn't referring the mathematical model when I spoke of adding information. What I meant was that When you ask the question, "Where did we/the universe/ come from?". My answer is, "I don't know". Your answer is "God made it". At this point I am done answering, but your answer creates a new question, "Where did god come from?" Now, the only completely true answer is "I don't know". This is the sense in which I meant that god adds no new information. Any other answer is more or less equivalent to "I don't know". The most common one given that I am aware of is, "He's always been here", or something to that affect. This also adds no new information since that answer could just as easily been applied to the previous question. It just seems to me that the only real purpose it serves (besides the evil purposes of bad people we've already discussed) is to push back the ignorance of origins a level.
I've just chosen to think that there's life outside the mathematical model, as that purposedly stops at questions that are outside of its domain, such as what the reason of the universe's existence is, what life is, why we are here, and what our purpose is.
I am not saying that there aren't things that science will never be able to understand. Then again, I'm not saying that I have the answer either. You are apparently satisfied that you do.
Your answer doesn't work for me because of all the holes I see in it.
But the same statement holds if you *do* assume that God exists. It also doesn't say a thing about his nature, only about ours.
I would say that the whole "man was created in god's image" thing would indicate that it *does* say something about his nature.
I see the concept as being able to realize that you can effortlessly choose to do differently tomorrow, if you truly realize what your current actions mean. It's very empowering; it does away with you having to justify yourself to yourself, finding reasons why it was inevitable that you did those things. Because *that* is slavery my friend, to nothing but fate.
I completely agree with you here. What I don't see, is why a god is required for this.
Christ goes against fate, and says that you have choice. God went against fate when he created things, if he hadn't, the big bang wouldn't have occurred,according to the scientific models we derive from what we see in our universe today. The model sees no reason for Gods existance, but it sees no reason for the universe to exist either.
But faith sees no reason for god's existence either. It takes, "There is a god", as the only axiom. Different faiths add different axioms based on the particulars of that faith.
To use the mathematical example, Axioms restrict freedom. Once you have chosen your axioms, you have created a framework in which to work and many beautiful things can be done within it. Without these restrictions, anything could be shown as true, so they are necessary in this context. There has been a lot of thought given to the question of whether we are using the "right" axioms leading to some real mind blowers like Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Going back to the "real" world, your one axiom, creates restrictions. I can't give you a specific such as, "Think about 'x'. That's right you can't, but I can".
I fail to see how it adds anything beautiful either. Sure, I can see how it might be nice to believe that once you die you'll be eternally happy, or whatever. But what I also see is that this is also the ideal construction to enslave people. "Sure I'm completely fucking you over in this life, but just be a good little tool and god will make it all up to you later."
I see the concept as being able to realize that you can effortlessly choose to do differently tomorrow, if you truly realize what your current actions mean. It's very empowering; it does away with you having to justify yourself to yourself, finding reasons why it was inevitable that you did those things. Because *that* is slavery my friend, to nothing but fate.
I agree with you completely, but I fail to see why a god is required.
I accept it as words from people. Centuries worth of people thinking about God, experiencing God's proximity, who were inspired by him. How does that enslave my mind?
I don't believe I said it enslaved your mind, I just said that it is not liberation. I think the context in which I said that was in reference to the structures created around it. I am at least as liberated as you in that way, yet I don't share your belief.
That's what my example about gravity was all about. Does he "send" you to the ground, painfully, if you step out of a window, or is that just a natural consequence of the way the universe works?
This is where what I said earlier about it being difficult to discuss this rationally given our different axioms comes in.
Gravity is natural (assumes no god)
God's laws are an arbitrary decision by him (assumes god).
However, I do assume that he has better sense of justice than we are even capable of. If even we are capable of arguing why this is not doing these people justice, I'm sure God can do even better, as he knows those people more intimately than you and I do.
Presumably, he knows them more intimately than they do themselves since he created them. So he arbitrarily decided on some rules, and then created a given person in such a way as to guarantee they would break them. Omniscience and Omnipotence requires this.
Well, no, not if you assume perfect freedom to choose, then he *wouldn't* know in advance that BJJB would be "condemned"
See above, then he isn't all knowing, hence not god (at least according to any definition I have heard.)
I don't assume hell as literally as you seem to do
I don't actually assume hell. I don't, in fact, believe that there is such a place. Nonetheless, your point is taken. It's just that that seems to be the "standard" belief (whatever that means).
How does this relate with the concept that God is eternal, and knows the future, you ask? Well, I say that he encompasses *all possible futures* (I'm sure you know the many worlds theory from quantum mechanics). But that doesn't take away our freedom; it doesn't pre-determine what you and I will do.
This leads to two different outcomes that I can see:
1) Once I reach the end, all possibilities collapse and I'm left with the one path that I chose. In this case god still knew prior to creating the universe which one I would take.
2) There are infinitely many of me in which case the whole concept of choice and freedom is moot since I make all choices.
If that were the case, then God cannot be forgiven for letting the holocaust or Pol Pot happen, to name a few things. I don't think that's the case.
I agree, that if it were the case he couldn't be forgiven. I disagree in that I think it is the case, or would if I believed in him.
We are created free. That's the only way out of it.
That's not the only way out of it. That's the only way to maintain the consistency of your beliefs. We can well be free to make our choices, but that doesn't mean that everything wasn't made in such a way as to ensure things would happen that way. It certainly requires a bizarre definition of free though.
If this definition contradicts the one you're using, then the problem lies elsewhere.
Since your system only has one axiom, well...
Well, I think you underestimate your possibilities
I certainly hope not, but you never know.
I don't think that God created any religious laws, institutions
Sure.
requirements,
"So that he that believes" sure sounds like a requirement to me.
hate,
Since there was nothing before he created it this seems strange. Putting it on man or satan or whatever is again just pushing it back a level.
The same could be said for the above laws and institutions, but there is a real difference. Those are tangible. Hate exists only within our minds and he created *all* of their ability to function.
It's like the joke by I forget which comedian:
"Why is it that sports stars always thank Jesus for their good plays but never mention him when things go wrong. I mean can you imagine them interviewing the running back who lost the game in the last seconds, 'Yeah, I was doing pretty well until Jesus made me fumble'".
If he created everything he created *everything*
whatever.
Well...
If the airlines are held liable, then so too are the airports involved, their security, Boeing, the FAA, NORAD, USAF, Microsoft (FS 2000), Germany,
Actually Germany wouldn't be liable since they warned
us about it well in advance along with France, Israel, Egypt, and several other countries. Good thing too, otherwise we wouldn't have had time to pull our air defenses prior to the attack and it might not have succeeded.
nothing here.