"As for the Pope, he may speak "ex cathedra" (something very rarely done) [snip]... but he can't just declare anything he wants. "
He certainly can, and it clearly is heretical. The Book is closed and nothing further will be revealed (Rev 22). The Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallability makes the words of the pope (ex cathedra) equivalent to Scripture. That is the very definition of heresy.
"I've heard stories from countless jesus-freaks who would never consider signing up to be a donar because they think that there's some sort of holy blasphemy in giving up a part of you that will never again be needed post-death to help continue the life of another person."
First let me say this, not everyone who calls themself a Christian is, and I'd go so far as to say 90% aren't. And it is incredibly damaging to Christianity what those people do in the name of Christ.
I'm not as familiar with the old testament as I am the new, but I'm not aware of any kind of admonishment against organ donation specifically, or a general admonishment that would cover something like organ donation. I've heard catholics don't like the idea of cremation, but then catholics take the word of the Pope over the word of God (i.e. the Bible).
That said, the Bible teaches that we will be bodily resurrected sometime around the second coming of Christ. So some people feel we should do all we can to preserve our bodies for that resurrection, but that's just confusion.
In the first place, God created everything. I think He can handle it if you went and got yourself cremated. And in the second place, most people get embalmed... that happens to leave your body in a non-usable state as is. And if you were murdered, your organs are all going to be removed at least temporarily before being tossed back in.
So if a Christian doesn't want to donate their organs because, hey, they are gonna need that heart again after all, then they need to reconsider their theology. God has never said "whoops." He's not going to sit there wondering what to do with you because you seem to be missing a liver.
So as a Christian, I see nothing wrong with organ donation. In fact, if it extends someone's life, they have a greater chance of salvation, so in a sense, it's a Christian duty to be an organ doner.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ...
on
3D Monitor
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"The funny thing is that when I try to explain all this to others (laymen...), they just stare back."
That could be because you are so far behind the curve on self exploration that they just have no response. The whole eye crossing thing and independent eye movement is passe. The big thing now is independent nostril flaring.
"I once posted an analysis of the time required to recount all ballots nationally. It takes less than a day. Canada gets it done in hours. I see no reason to have an electronic system; it's expensive, designed for cheating, and gives you no real benefits RE recounts other than eliminating them."
I totally agree that there is no reason for electronic voting. The potential to 'disenfranchise' voters is only magnified. By the time you finish fixing all the problems with electronic voting, you've found yourself back to the plain old paper ballot.
It wears off pretty quickly, and the worse your vision is, the faster it wears off.
My eye doc gave me some info on it, with my vision (-3.75 and -3.25), I could expect 20/40 for about 2-4 hours after taking the lenses out, and all down hill from there.
It's an interesting idea though. Just doesn't seem worth it for me.
I broke into your house, read your journal, and used your bathroom for nefarious reasons. Of course I did this for an article on my blog, so it's journalism at its finest, and I can't wait until I'm lauded by the world at large.
More specifically, they're looking for the sensationalistic propaganda that tells them what they want to hear, or makes them feel 'smart' or 'special' or 'right' or whatever. And when it's sufficiently flattering to their way of thinking, people call that sensationalistic propaganda 'objective journalism' and 'truth'.
Holy cow. A pearl of wisdom on slashdot...I'm amazed.
"Is the whole "Math is Life" concept a bunch of fluff that serves itself or can it really be applied in a *real* sense often? Is math a highly important part of excelling in greater understanding?"
You're not looking for math. You're looking for philosophy. Google "great philosophers", grab some books, and read. After going through a period of ecstatic jubilation at finally having found some answers, you'll look deeper and find that you really haven't answered anything, and are still searching for that greater understanding.
But most people are not actually looking for a greater understanding of anything. They are looking for the most entertaining way to spend their life. For some this is the pursuit of some unattainable goal, like a deeper understanding of the universe. For other's it is spending huge amounts of time on games.
I recommend spending some time at the library reading the MacArthur Study Bible.
This whole idea of making things intuitive is counterproductive and stagnating. Something is only intuitive if it is familiar to the way you already do things. How can you make something new if it needs to be just like something old?
"I wonder how this can be the ideal programming environment for children"
Children, up a certain age, have a far greater capacity for learning than we do as adults. The more people learn, the more they are boxed in by what they know. To young children, everything is new. Even language. There is no need of things to be intuitive, because they are working on a clean slate.
Maus (which won the PULITZER prize) is one of the most powerful books EVER written about history's worst crime, The Holocaust.
Just because it's a "comic-book" does not mean it is "dumbed-down" or any less than a novel. Is "The Godfather," "Gone with the Wind," "Lord of the Rings" or "Shrek" any less of an art form because it is in motion picture form as opposed to the written word?
You forget that for something to be considered art, it must be completely devoid of meaning and purpose.
"The newest and latest technology results in the most beautiful image you will ever see*!
(*since reflected laser light will blind you and/or permanently burn the image into your retinas.)"
There is nothing special about laser light in itself that causes blindness, it's just that most lasers are very directed and focused putting a lot of energy into a small spot.
The military (and others I would guess) is working on a head mounted display that rasters the image directly on your retina with a low power laser.
"Giving something back implies that they took something from the users (?) and are now paying back. So, what did they take?"
If I give you my good will and do a good deed for you, have I lost anything? Not always, and in some cases I might even gain something from it (peace of mind, contentment, etc...). Have you gained something? Yes. And perhaps you would like to return the favor.
Google has gained the good will of the public. We like them, and encourage them, and use their service. They have gainful employment, a mental playground for their employees, and all manner of blessings. I think it shows something of the character of google management that they would want to give something back. Especially since they are at the pinnacle of the search engine market, and could comfortably sit on their laurals if they wanted to and still be at the top.
"But my point was really that if I get 100 messages a day, I want it prioritized so my wife's mail is highlighted or something, then my buddy, then the mail from expedia offering the weekly deals. The star is a binary prioritization. But outlook express, for instance, lets me assign different colors based on sender/subject/... and I wish gmail would let me have the same level of visual distinction."
Send it to the gmail people. They are taking feedback, and they want to make gmail better. The functionality you describe seems pretty simple to implement... just let them know.
I don't have the link offhand, but the gmail help page has it.
That assertion is undeniably true, however it isn't too hard to get a gmail account. I got one yesterday from gmailswap.com which sounds like a porn site, but it is legitimate. The idea of the site is offer something unique or interesting (or interestingly mundane) and some kind soul will pass on an invite to you. Worked for me, and all I did was post a little humor.
Have a look at my journal if you are interested in my methodology.
I think coders are more efficient in assembly because they don't want to have to write 54 lines of code to do something when if they consider the problem they are solving, they could write it in 10 lines.
Slashdot Mirror
"As for the Pope, he may speak "ex cathedra" (something very rarely done) [snip] ... but he can't just declare anything he wants. "
He certainly can, and it clearly is heretical. The Book is closed and nothing further will be revealed (Rev 22). The Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallability makes the words of the pope (ex cathedra) equivalent to Scripture. That is the very definition of heresy.
"I've heard stories from countless jesus-freaks who would never consider signing up to be a donar because they think that there's some sort of holy blasphemy in giving up a part of you that will never again be needed post-death to help continue the life of another person."
First let me say this, not everyone who calls themself a Christian is, and I'd go so far as to say 90% aren't. And it is incredibly damaging to Christianity what those people do in the name of Christ.
I'm not as familiar with the old testament as I am the new, but I'm not aware of any kind of admonishment against organ donation specifically, or a general admonishment that would cover something like organ donation. I've heard catholics don't like the idea of cremation, but then catholics take the word of the Pope over the word of God (i.e. the Bible).
That said, the Bible teaches that we will be bodily resurrected sometime around the second coming of Christ. So some people feel we should do all we can to preserve our bodies for that resurrection, but that's just confusion.
In the first place, God created everything. I think He can handle it if you went and got yourself cremated. And in the second place, most people get embalmed... that happens to leave your body in a non-usable state as is. And if you were murdered, your organs are all going to be removed at least temporarily before being tossed back in.
So if a Christian doesn't want to donate their organs because, hey, they are gonna need that heart again after all, then they need to reconsider their theology. God has never said "whoops." He's not going to sit there wondering what to do with you because you seem to be missing a liver.
So as a Christian, I see nothing wrong with organ donation. In fact, if it extends someone's life, they have a greater chance of salvation, so in a sense, it's a Christian duty to be an organ doner.
"The funny thing is that when I try to explain all this to others (laymen...), they just stare back."
That could be because you are so far behind the curve on self exploration that they just have no response. The whole eye crossing thing and independent eye movement is passe. The big thing now is independent nostril flaring.
doesn't matter if it's a ridiculous claim, yahoo still made it.
"I once posted an analysis of the time required to recount all ballots nationally. It takes less than a day. Canada gets it done in hours. I see no reason to have an electronic system; it's expensive, designed for cheating, and gives you no real benefits RE recounts other than eliminating them."
I totally agree that there is no reason for electronic voting. The potential to 'disenfranchise' voters is only magnified. By the time you finish fixing all the problems with electronic voting, you've found yourself back to the plain old paper ballot.
Not to mention something along the lines of "Vote for Bush and get a free Taco! Just bring your reciept at any of our chain of restaurants and..."
:)
Don't forget the "Vote for Kerry and get a free Waffle! Just bring your receipt to any of our..."
Here [link] is a nice story from the Guardian that might clue you in a little bit.
So is it ironic that the author set out to write an informative article, but it ended up containing no information? Or do I still not get it?
It wears off pretty quickly, and the worse your vision is, the faster it wears off.
My eye doc gave me some info on it, with my vision (-3.75 and -3.25), I could expect 20/40 for about 2-4 hours after taking the lenses out, and all down hill from there.
It's an interesting idea though. Just doesn't seem worth it for me.
IANAES (I am not an eye surgeon)
What's the point of using an acronym if you are just going to type it out anyway?
You're right. I missed that.
I broke into your house, read your journal, and used your bathroom for nefarious reasons. Of course I did this for an article on my blog, so it's journalism at its finest, and I can't wait until I'm lauded by the world at large.
More specifically, they're looking for the sensationalistic propaganda that tells them what they want to hear, or makes them feel 'smart' or 'special' or 'right' or whatever. And when it's sufficiently flattering to their way of thinking, people call that sensationalistic propaganda 'objective journalism' and 'truth'.
Holy cow. A pearl of wisdom on slashdot...I'm amazed.
So would "Scheiss Schiess" be a crap shoot?
No. You are probably thinking of Scheiße. Plus, Schießen is a verb. shoot is a noun when used in the phrase crap shoot.
Babelfish says the phrase crap shoot in german is Misteintragfaden
"Is the whole "Math is Life" concept a bunch of fluff that serves itself or can it really be applied in a *real* sense often? Is math a highly important part of excelling in greater understanding?"
You're not looking for math. You're looking for philosophy. Google "great philosophers", grab some books, and read. After going through a period of ecstatic jubilation at finally having found some answers, you'll look deeper and find that you really haven't answered anything, and are still searching for that greater understanding.
But most people are not actually looking for a greater understanding of anything. They are looking for the most entertaining way to spend their life. For some this is the pursuit of some unattainable goal, like a deeper understanding of the universe. For other's it is spending huge amounts of time on games.
I recommend spending some time at the library reading the MacArthur Study Bible.
"Squeak - Not intuitive"
This whole idea of making things intuitive is counterproductive and stagnating. Something is only intuitive if it is familiar to the way you already do things. How can you make something new if it needs to be just like something old?
"I wonder how this can be the ideal programming environment for children"
Children, up a certain age, have a far greater capacity for learning than we do as adults. The more people learn, the more they are boxed in by what they know. To young children, everything is new. Even language. There is no need of things to be intuitive, because they are working on a clean slate.
Maus (which won the PULITZER prize) is one of the most powerful books EVER written about history's worst crime, The Holocaust.
Just because it's a "comic-book" does not mean it is "dumbed-down" or any less than a novel. Is "The Godfather," "Gone with the Wind," "Lord of the Rings" or "Shrek" any less of an art form because it is in motion picture form as opposed to the written word?
You forget that for something to be considered art, it must be completely devoid of meaning and purpose.
"Have you ever met a "normal" user who could install Windows?"
Pretty good point. However "normal" users install applications all the time, and that is where linux still breaks.
"The newest and latest technology results in the most beautiful image you will ever see*!
(*since reflected laser light will blind you and/or permanently burn the image into your retinas.)"
There is nothing special about laser light in itself that causes blindness, it's just that most lasers are very directed and focused putting a lot of energy into a small spot.
The military (and others I would guess) is working on a head mounted display that rasters the image directly on your retina with a low power laser.
So a "low" power laser would be fine.
"Giving something back implies that they took something from the users (?) and are now paying back. So, what did they take?"
If I give you my good will and do a good deed for you, have I lost anything? Not always, and in some cases I might even gain something from it (peace of mind, contentment, etc...). Have you gained something? Yes. And perhaps you would like to return the favor.
Google has gained the good will of the public. We like them, and encourage them, and use their service. They have gainful employment, a mental playground for their employees, and all manner of blessings. I think it shows something of the character of google management that they would want to give something back. Especially since they are at the pinnacle of the search engine market, and could comfortably sit on their laurals if they wanted to and still be at the top.
btw, I sent you an invite to gmail.
"But my point was really that if I get 100 messages a day, I want it prioritized so my wife's mail is highlighted or something, then my buddy, then the mail from expedia offering the weekly deals. The star is a binary prioritization. But outlook express, for instance, lets me assign different colors based on sender/subject/... and I wish gmail would let me have the same level of visual distinction."
Send it to the gmail people. They are taking feedback, and they want to make gmail better. The functionality you describe seems pretty simple to implement... just let them know.
I don't have the link offhand, but the gmail help page has it.
" The 100 megs is here ~today~, "
That assertion is undeniably true, however it isn't too hard to get a gmail account. I got one yesterday from gmailswap.com which sounds like a porn site, but it is legitimate. The idea of the site is offer something unique or interesting (or interestingly mundane) and some kind soul will pass on an invite to you. Worked for me, and all I did was post a little humor.
Have a look at my journal if you are interested in my methodology.
"But the odds of getting two sixes (or any other particular number) in a row is 1 out of 36."
However, having already rolled one 6, assuming the events are truly independent, the odds of rolling another 6 are just 1 out of 6.
The 1 out of 36 applies only if you haven't rolled a 6 yet.
"But my bullsh*t meter starting going off real loud somewhere around ALL FOUR TIRES"
why does that bother you?
If you had a single voltage source, and 4 resistors in parallel, would you not get current flow through all 4?
What if one was a million times as resistive as the others?
I think coders are more efficient in assembly because they don't want to have to write 54 lines of code to do something when if they consider the problem they are solving, they could write it in 10 lines.