While I understand your contrast between science and magic/religion, I don't find it fully accurate. It would be better to say "that's the difference between reality-based thinking and wishful thinking." I know many people who are atheistic, or reject religion in their own way, yet have fanciful views of the world like pacifism - as if that's going to solve the worlds problems. They completely ignore the reality of our world. Even some people who believe in science don't parlay that objectivity to the real world. On the other hand, I know religious people who are very science and reality based. In fact, I personally feel that any good, "true" religion MUST be reality-based. This artificial distinction between "science and religion" is one of the worst-used contrasts of modern-day thinking (especially considering science arose from religious thinkers).
I don't like labels, but I would say I lean Liberal, in most matters. I approve of the SC decision, and here's why -
Individual LIBERTY (the freedom to do as we please) can only be restricted insofar as, when enacted, they restrict the RIGHTS (an individual entitlement) of other individuals (ie, I have the RIGHT to life, thus, you DO NOT have the LIBERTY to take my life).
It is much easier to take away LIBERTIES than it is to grant them; thus, LIBERTY must only be infringed upon with extreme caution and prejudice.
My owning of a gun in no way restricts another individual's rights, therefore there is no basis of justification to take that liberty away from me.
Liberty is what allows us to protect our rights. Example: my liberty of owning a gun allows me to protect my right to life. Thus, anything that limits our liberties also inherently limits our rights. However, rights ALWAYS come before liberties (see murder). Liberties should be restricted to the point of protecting rights, but no further.
I oppose anything that restricts our liberties, except as stated above (in cases where said liberty infringes on another's rights). Therefore, I commend the Supreme Court's decision.
Another matter at hand is the definition of "arms". I believe there are two facets to address when considering this: purpose, and potential.
A rifle has many purposes (hunting, sniping, etc), and the potential of misuse, while detrimental, isn't necessarily severe on a large scale. Same with pistols. Now, nuclear warheads have very limited purpose (last-line defense/deterrent, mass killing), and very serious potential (wipe out human race).
When considering "arms" available to the public, these are the two questions that should be asked and addressed.
As far as I understand, the Neo FreeRunner has true GPS, while the iPhone 3G uses "simulated" GPS by triangulating it's position based on local towers or access points. Just an FYI.
What is your beef with "democrats"? Because every individual who identifies themselves as such is exactly the same, and you can pretend to group them together? Because Republicans have no flaws and are perfectly anointed to run our country? Disclaimer - people can label me however makes them happy, but I don't consider myself to be either democrat or republican, because neither embodies everything I would like. Call me a realist. But arrogant people such as yourself, who think you can paint 150 million people with the same brush while looking down your nose, really annoy me... not to mention, you probably haven't taken the time to remove the plank in your own eye before looking for the sliver in someone else's.
I have for quite some time held the belief that there is no such thing as a "dimension" of time, or a universal time. Time is simply a measure of change. We base time on earth's changes - rotations and seasons. We base earth's history on carbon dating - the change of decay in carbon over time. Even this measure, however, isn't "universal"; we only have a limited window of real-life observation and comparison for carbon-decay (say a couple millennium), extrapolate that over millions or billions of years, and any small error in our understanding of it could throw our entire basis for earth's history way off.
Back to my main point - time is relative to the change we experience. If nothing changed, ever, who is to say time exists? Change, however, is (at least one of) a constant in the universe. Everything changes, constantly, but at different rates. The only true "universal" measure of time would be to base it on something that ALWAYS changed in a consistent and predictable manner. And even then, it's no more a "dimension" than math or language are dimensions... they're simply human constructs which prove to be useful tools in our daily lives.
Time, therefore, on a planet of rapid change, would mean something entirely different than time on a planet with extremely slow change. Change is affected by a multitude of parameters, making it something that is only relative to the location and those who are experiencing the changes in that location. Therefore, it is a completely fluid construct, slowing or accelerating depending on the environment. More accurate would be a dimension for "change" or "motion". I believe gravity comes in here somewhere (accelerating or decelerating change?).
Intriguing is the speed factor. Does speed really alter our perception of time? Does it simply alter the rate of change for those who are experiencing it, as my post postulates?
Sorry guys and gals... no time travel for us humans!
I have for quite some time held the belief that there is no such thing as a "dimension" of time, or a universal time. Time is simply a measure of change. We base time on earth's changes - rotations and seasons. We base earth's history on carbon dating - the change of decay in carbon over time. Even this measure, however, isn't "universal"; we only have a limited window of real-life observation and comparison for carbon-decay (say a couple millennium), extrapolate that over millions or billions of years, and any small error in our understanding of it could throw our entire basis for earth's history way off.
Back to my main point - time is relative to the change we experience. If nothing changed, ever, who is to say time exists? Change, however, is (at least one of) a constant in the universe. Everything changes, constantly, but at different rates. The only true "universal" measure of time would be to base it on something that ALWAYS changed in a consistent and predictable manner. And even then, it's no more a "dimension" than math or language are dimensions... they're simply human constructs which prove to be useful tools in our daily lives.
Time, therefore, on a planet of rapid change, would mean something entirely different than time on a planet with extremely slow change. Change is affected by a multitude of parameters, making it something that is only relative to the location and those who are experiencing the changes in that location. Therefore, it is a completely fluid construct, slowing or accelerating depending on the environment. More accurate would be a dimension for "change" or "motion". I believe gravity comes in here somewhere (accelerating or decelerating change?).
Intriguing is the speed factor. Does speed really alter our perception of time? Does it simply alter the rate of change for those who are experiencing it, as my post postulates?
i thought the whole basis of science was an openness to questioning and critique. is this any less true for science itself (as a field of study within society), than it is for the hypotheses it produces? i don't see the cause for uproar... if science is as good as it claims (and i believe that, for the most part, it is), than it should easily stand up to widespread critique.
I understand the universe to be made of matter and energy and the laws that govern them. I believe in cause and effect. I do not think matter and energy just "came to be" one day... I think they always existed, and are part of God. I believe that matter and energy came together using the laws of the universe to form life (perhaps with the addition of other forces we don't fully understand). God encompasses this entire framework. I don't believe it happened in a split second, but I also don't believe it would have happened without Him (aka, without matter, energy, laws, etc). I believe it happened how it was supposed to, in the perfect manner, in perhaps the ONLY manner, and I don't pretend to hold exclusive knowledge to that process.
My own quote: "We are nothing, but our will to survive." I look at the world, and through all the chaos and beauty, the perfection and the unexplained, the similarity coupled perfectly with diversity, I see one common theme, one common direction everything moves in - survival. We are simply a combination of energy and matter, with our will to survive. Those three things make us what we are, and I see no contradiction in that between science and God (or, as some like to call Him, Energy, or Nature, or Buda, or Alah, or the Universe... anything that encompasses all that is).
Some might say "you're reducing him to components, to a purposeless, thoughtless entity". Really? I have will, and purpose, and thought, yet I am not all that is... I can only assume that if God is everything I am and more, than he too has will, purpose, thought... He just does way more with it than I could ever accomplish.
People like to think of themselves as God... the be-all, end-all. But I can't see how any rational person can think that way when they look outside, look at the earth, the universe, and realize that as one individual, how insignificant we are in this grand display of ingenuity. We can't even come close to replicating ourselves from scratch... how could we posture to be greater than all that exists?
People who follow science and consider it incompatible with religion, as well as people who are religious and consider it incompatible with science, simply have a view of life that's too limited. The two aren't antithetical; in fact, I think they are perfectly complementary. Just because there are vast numbers of people who understand things in a limited or incorrect sense and thus give off a misrepresented view of that school of thought does not mean that the school of thought itself is invalid. No, I don't take everything in the Bible literally, yes I think there could be errors, misinterpretations, etc... but I also think that on a basic level there are some truths and principals within the Bible that have not only contributed enormously to the successful progression of humanity, but are fundamental to our understanding of life and the universe.
In other words: in everything that is scientific truth, there I also find God.
I understand the universe to be made of matter and energy and the laws that govern them. I believe in cause and effect. I do not think matter and energy just "came to be" one day... I think they always existed, and are part of God. I believe that matter and energy came together using the laws of the universe to form life (perhaps with other additions... "will", or gravity... it's difficult to ascertain the exact parameters of life). God encompasses this entire framework. I don't believe it happened in a split second, but I also don't believe it would have happened without Him (aka, without matter, energy, laws, etc). I believe it happened how it was supposed to, in the perfect manner, in perhaps the ONLY manner, and I don't pretend to hold exclusive knowledge to that process.
My own quote: "We are nothing, but our will to survive." I look at the world, and through all the chaos and beauty, the perfection and the unexplained, the similarity coupled perfectly with diversity, I see one common theme, one common direction everything moves in - survival. We are simply a combination of energy and matter, with our will to survive. Those three things make us what we are, and I see no contradiction in that between science and God (or, as some like to call Him, Energy, or Nature, or Buda, or Alah, or the Universe... anything that encompasses all that is).
Some might say "you're reducing him to components, to less than a person, to a purposeless, thoughtless entity". Really? I have will, and purpose, and thought, yet I am not all that is... I can only assume that if God is everything I am and more, than he too has will, purpose, thought... He just does way more with it than I could ever accomplish.
People like to think of themselves as God... the be-all, end-all. But I can't see how any rational person can think that way when they look outside, look at the earth, the universe, and realize that as one individual, how insignificant we are in this grand display of ingenuity. We can't even come close to replicating ourselves from scratch... how could we posture to be greater than all that exists?
People who follow science and consider it incompatible with religion, as well as people who are religious and consider it incompatible with science, simply have a view of life that's too limited. The two aren't antithetical; in fact, I think they are perfectly complementary. Just because there are vast numbers of people who understand things in a limited or incorrect sense and thus give off a misrepresented view of that school of thought does not mean that the school of thought itself is invalid. No, I don't take everything in the Bible literally, yes I think there could be errors, misinterpretations, etc... but I also think that on a basic level there are some truths and principals within the Bible that have not only contributed enormously to the successful progression of humanity, but are fundamental to our understanding of life and the universe.
You fail, by yet again performing the same mistake most others do - grouping all religious people together. I'm perfectly happy being a religious person and not taking the Bible literally, word for word. I think that no person is so knowledgeable as to have complete and correct understanding of everything, including that which was written thousands of years ago. To assume you do is audacious to the extreme.
I think about it this way: if God is our source of being (energy, matter, will, what-have-you), then it follows that all of nature, and every process in it, is not only manifested and perpetuated by God, but in a very real sense IS PART of God (God being the entirety of the whole). If you look at life from this perspective, God isn't limited in any way, other than to not contradict himself.
So, you are saying that NATURE and GOD are antithetical?
I would posture that NATURE and GOD are inseparable.
And you're rebuttal to point 2 is irrelevant.... we know from experience that abuse and/or misconception/misinterpretation can happen in any realm of life, and that such is not cause to negate the founding premise/principal.
One of the reasons we have taxes is because we can't rely on a corporation to treat people equitably. Were there no oversight, they would push the bottom line as far down as possible, including their most coveted (yet expensive) resource - people. They would find a way to pay people as little as possible while making the most profits, because that is what corporations do... maximize profits. They have no incentive to treat people with respect and decency, other than to keep them working there... but were it up to them, unemployment would be artificially high so as to drive wages down as much as possible, making people BEG to have substandard wages in horrifying conditions... see third world countries. Heck, they're currently willing to bail on their own country and move to another, all in the name of PROFITS! (note: none of this is necessary [outsourcing, unemployment] when the bottom line isn't your objective.... and people can still be wealthy without focusing on the bottom line... but when it is the priority, everything else, even people, become secondary... and that's scary!)
I don't adhere to any "wing", but I do adhere to common sense. You're argument that "the stock market starts sliding because already regulation-squeezed corporations are being taxed to bankruptcy" is utter non-sense. The reason for the current stock slide is because Lenders were becoming increasingly greedy and risky in their practice, decided to make un-sound loans, then cry foul when people can't pay them back and beg the feds to bail them out, which ultimately falls back on our (middle class) shoulders by increasing inflation. When I make a bad investment, I have to suffer the consequences... big corporations should be no different. The current stock slide is a direct consequence of lax oversight of the fiscal lending practices in the US, and the feds willingness to bend over backwards for corporate America, at the expense of its citizens.
Are you seriously tying to tell me that, with increased taxes, Microsoft, Dell, HP, GE, Universal, News Corp, et al, wouldn't be profitable? Are you really that naive? These companies have fabulous wealth... more taxes would do nothing to stop them... Oh, they might have to sacrifice some multi-million dollar bonuses to their high level execs and upper management, boo-hoo poor them.
As for no taxes and re-investing wealth... I would be all for it if it actually worked. However, more often than not it is used to legitimize greed. Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and corporations have done nothing to ease the national debt, increase jobs and/or spur economic growth, reduce the ever-increasing discrepancy between rich and poor, the disappearance of the middle class, or anything of the like. What HAS happened is the standard of living across the US has lowered, the average wage hasn't been able to keep pace with inflation and the increase in energy and food (conveniently left out of inflation estimates), and we went from a balanced budget to one of trillions of debt. Not to mention a war we can't end that's costing us (the American public) even more. Granted, we didn't want Iran to hold all the cards, but there are better ways of going about things, when you consider the costs.
It sounds like you've bought into the classic argument of "let markets do as they like, everything will work out in the end". Yeah, because corruption doesn't happen, and doesn't need to be watched out for in the corporate world... only the government. We're going right back to our roots... imperial families pooling ever-greater power, paying a pittance to the populace to support their exorbitant lifestyle, all the while making us feel how "lucky" we are to live in such a great place as to allow us to sell our lives away for a promise of a better tomorrow that never comes. Oh wait, they give us "toys" to play with, that we might forget the predicament we're in. Or TV's to pacify us, and show us that life really is a grand script. Or computers to occupy our lives and make us feel as if we can make a difference. And then they "allow" us to reinvest our hard-earned money into their future with the promise of a return, that may or may not be fruitful (hey, it's a risk). Face it, we're pacified slaves, given just enough junk and knowledge and freedom to keep us "content", and you're post is a testimony to that. I'm not saying it's all bad... we have it better than most... but if you think there is anything "equitable" about our economic or legal policy, you have a lot of learning to do.
Thank you Mr Paul McGuinness. As an ardent U2 fan, I now abhor their music and image, and will never, EVER, purchase anything related to their name again. I will also encourage everyone I know to do the same. Unless, of course, they make public amends, which I highly doubt they will. Thank you, for alienating thousands of potential customers over you're obscene control-freak values and lack of respect for those who support you - the FANS.
See, you (and shareholders across the globe) believe money is the end-all. Gates, Allen, Ballmer, et al, understand it is only a medium. That's why they're fabulously wealthy. Corps are simply vehicles, resources (money and people) their fuel, driven to achieve whatever goals their top level execs deem appropriate. The idea of an "innocent corp that has no official agenda other than to provide wealth" is a fallacy gobbled up by far too many Americans.
Actually, they exist to "show" a profit, and in so doing attract investors/revenue/workers. Appearance is a lot more important than reality.... see Enron. What they do with that money (influence: research, litigation, politics, etc) is actually much more important to them than turning the highest profit/making the most money. They declare earnings to make you feel warm and bubbly inside. They use their money to make more money, but ultimately, to maintain or increase market/consumer/governmental control. Money, even for a Corp, is only what it always has been... a means.
I too have occasional downtime. The nature of IT is a lot like being on call - they only need you when there's a problem (aka "request"). If you do your job well, there's few problems, and they're solved quickly, which only leads to increased downtime.
I use this time to improve myself as much as possible. This can be through research, reading, testing, organizing, documenting, standardizing... etc... work related or not. As long as you're achieving some form of progress, and aren't negligent in your duties, there's little for your employer to gripe about. That is, unless he/she's a total headcase.
On a side note, it has always amazed me how, as an employee, there is little incentive to be your best. The more you do, and the quicker and better you do it, the more they give you. Now, SUPPOSEDLY, such people should be promoted/compensated. But there are only so many positions to be promoted to, and lots of eager people waiting for them. Few who work in such a fashion actually receive just compensation; this results in resentfulness and laziness. If everyone were payed on a performance basis, that would be great... but too often hard workers are taken advantage of by our broken form of hourly wage/salaried work.
ok, so most of this fault lies with the ISPs for claiming to provide something they can't, and wasting monetary incentives besides. but for the life of me, i can't understand why so many intelligent individuals here can't grasp the concept of pay-per-use in a service. i know it challenges and, indeed, infringes upon most internet users here who think they deserve to gobble up as much bandwidth as possible and pay exactly the same as someone who uses very little... but come on slashdotters, i really have higher expectations... put aside you're biases and see this issue for what it is - an attempt at some form of fairness.
Is the same problem you have here. If they pass this law, do they really expect REAL terrorists to continue using a medium they KNOW is monitored? Exactly the same as the handgun problem.... you can outlaw them, but criminals find a way around it, while good citizens are unjustly penalized.
You are saying two things. First, we can prove nothing absolutely. That, I (mostly) agree with. Second, you're a reductionist, and consider reality filtered through our neural mass to be nothing more than interpretation which has nothing to do with said reality (in any provable sense). Since you deduced this through your neural mass, it has no more validity than the Pythagorean theorem (at least to you).
Since there is something to be filtered (reality), as opposed to nothing, reality exists, and since we can observe in it consistency, and furthermore understand and deduce that consistency, there must be principals enforcing that consistency (outside of our minds).
Now, you can continue to follow post-modernism to the point that "we can't prove there is a reality" and that "everything exists only in our minds", but that is impossible to prove. Furthermore, if there is no reality, then what are we, how did we get here, what is it we are actually "perceiving" if not something real, and how are we able to communicate that with any form of reliability and mutual understanding? You see, your path raises more questions than it answers, and such paths usually take us nowhere. It is the ultimate form of doubt, which debilitates more than it facilitates.
Slashdot Mirror
While I understand your contrast between science and magic/religion, I don't find it fully accurate. It would be better to say "that's the difference between reality-based thinking and wishful thinking." I know many people who are atheistic, or reject religion in their own way, yet have fanciful views of the world like pacifism - as if that's going to solve the worlds problems. They completely ignore the reality of our world. Even some people who believe in science don't parlay that objectivity to the real world. On the other hand, I know religious people who are very science and reality based. In fact, I personally feel that any good, "true" religion MUST be reality-based. This artificial distinction between "science and religion" is one of the worst-used contrasts of modern-day thinking (especially considering science arose from religious thinkers).
Yes, but do you live in the South? Urban or rural? Because it does matter.
I don't like labels, but I would say I lean Liberal, in most matters. I approve of the SC decision, and here's why -
Individual LIBERTY (the freedom to do as we please) can only be restricted insofar as, when enacted, they restrict the RIGHTS (an individual entitlement) of other individuals (ie, I have the RIGHT to life, thus, you DO NOT have the LIBERTY to take my life).
It is much easier to take away LIBERTIES than it is to grant them; thus, LIBERTY must only be infringed upon with extreme caution and prejudice.
My owning of a gun in no way restricts another individual's rights, therefore there is no basis of justification to take that liberty away from me.
Liberty is what allows us to protect our rights. Example: my liberty of owning a gun allows me to protect my right to life. Thus, anything that limits our liberties also inherently limits our rights. However, rights ALWAYS come before liberties (see murder). Liberties should be restricted to the point of protecting rights, but no further.
I oppose anything that restricts our liberties, except as stated above (in cases where said liberty infringes on another's rights). Therefore, I commend the Supreme Court's decision.
Another matter at hand is the definition of "arms". I believe there are two facets to address when considering this: purpose, and potential.
A rifle has many purposes (hunting, sniping, etc), and the potential of misuse, while detrimental, isn't necessarily severe on a large scale. Same with pistols. Now, nuclear warheads have very limited purpose (last-line defense/deterrent, mass killing), and very serious potential (wipe out human race).
When considering "arms" available to the public, these are the two questions that should be asked and addressed.
As far as I understand, the Neo FreeRunner has true GPS, while the iPhone 3G uses "simulated" GPS by triangulating it's position based on local towers or access points. Just an FYI.
What is your beef with "democrats"? Because every individual who identifies themselves as such is exactly the same, and you can pretend to group them together? Because Republicans have no flaws and are perfectly anointed to run our country? Disclaimer - people can label me however makes them happy, but I don't consider myself to be either democrat or republican, because neither embodies everything I would like. Call me a realist. But arrogant people such as yourself, who think you can paint 150 million people with the same brush while looking down your nose, really annoy me... not to mention, you probably haven't taken the time to remove the plank in your own eye before looking for the sliver in someone else's.
I have for quite some time held the belief that there is no such thing as a "dimension" of time, or a universal time. Time is simply a measure of change. We base time on earth's changes - rotations and seasons. We base earth's history on carbon dating - the change of decay in carbon over time. Even this measure, however, isn't "universal"; we only have a limited window of real-life observation and comparison for carbon-decay (say a couple millennium), extrapolate that over millions or billions of years, and any small error in our understanding of it could throw our entire basis for earth's history way off.
Back to my main point - time is relative to the change we experience. If nothing changed, ever, who is to say time exists? Change, however, is (at least one of) a constant in the universe. Everything changes, constantly, but at different rates. The only true "universal" measure of time would be to base it on something that ALWAYS changed in a consistent and predictable manner. And even then, it's no more a "dimension" than math or language are dimensions... they're simply human constructs which prove to be useful tools in our daily lives.
Time, therefore, on a planet of rapid change, would mean something entirely different than time on a planet with extremely slow change. Change is affected by a multitude of parameters, making it something that is only relative to the location and those who are experiencing the changes in that location. Therefore, it is a completely fluid construct, slowing or accelerating depending on the environment. More accurate would be a dimension for "change" or "motion". I believe gravity comes in here somewhere (accelerating or decelerating change?).
Intriguing is the speed factor. Does speed really alter our perception of time? Does it simply alter the rate of change for those who are experiencing it, as my post postulates?
Sorry guys and gals... no time travel for us humans!
I have for quite some time held the belief that there is no such thing as a "dimension" of time, or a universal time. Time is simply a measure of change. We base time on earth's changes - rotations and seasons. We base earth's history on carbon dating - the change of decay in carbon over time. Even this measure, however, isn't "universal"; we only have a limited window of real-life observation and comparison for carbon-decay (say a couple millennium), extrapolate that over millions or billions of years, and any small error in our understanding of it could throw our entire basis for earth's history way off.
Back to my main point - time is relative to the change we experience. If nothing changed, ever, who is to say time exists? Change, however, is (at least one of) a constant in the universe. Everything changes, constantly, but at different rates. The only true "universal" measure of time would be to base it on something that ALWAYS changed in a consistent and predictable manner. And even then, it's no more a "dimension" than math or language are dimensions... they're simply human constructs which prove to be useful tools in our daily lives.
Time, therefore, on a planet of rapid change, would mean something entirely different than time on a planet with extremely slow change. Change is affected by a multitude of parameters, making it something that is only relative to the location and those who are experiencing the changes in that location. Therefore, it is a completely fluid construct, slowing or accelerating depending on the environment. More accurate would be a dimension for "change" or "motion". I believe gravity comes in here somewhere (accelerating or decelerating change?).
Intriguing is the speed factor. Does speed really alter our perception of time? Does it simply alter the rate of change for those who are experiencing it, as my post postulates?
i thought the whole basis of science was an openness to questioning and critique. is this any less true for science itself (as a field of study within society), than it is for the hypotheses it produces? i don't see the cause for uproar... if science is as good as it claims (and i believe that, for the most part, it is), than it should easily stand up to widespread critique.
You know very little about Obama if you think he is against civil liberties. Do some more homework.
I understand the universe to be made of matter and energy and the laws that govern them. I believe in cause and effect. I do not think matter and energy just "came to be" one day... I think they always existed, and are part of God. I believe that matter and energy came together using the laws of the universe to form life (perhaps with the addition of other forces we don't fully understand). God encompasses this entire framework. I don't believe it happened in a split second, but I also don't believe it would have happened without Him (aka, without matter, energy, laws, etc). I believe it happened how it was supposed to, in the perfect manner, in perhaps the ONLY manner, and I don't pretend to hold exclusive knowledge to that process.
My own quote: "We are nothing, but our will to survive." I look at the world, and through all the chaos and beauty, the perfection and the unexplained, the similarity coupled perfectly with diversity, I see one common theme, one common direction everything moves in - survival. We are simply a combination of energy and matter, with our will to survive. Those three things make us what we are, and I see no contradiction in that between science and God (or, as some like to call Him, Energy, or Nature, or Buda, or Alah, or the Universe... anything that encompasses all that is).
Some might say "you're reducing him to components, to a purposeless, thoughtless entity". Really? I have will, and purpose, and thought, yet I am not all that is... I can only assume that if God is everything I am and more, than he too has will, purpose, thought... He just does way more with it than I could ever accomplish.
People like to think of themselves as God... the be-all, end-all. But I can't see how any rational person can think that way when they look outside, look at the earth, the universe, and realize that as one individual, how insignificant we are in this grand display of ingenuity. We can't even come close to replicating ourselves from scratch... how could we posture to be greater than all that exists?
People who follow science and consider it incompatible with religion, as well as people who are religious and consider it incompatible with science, simply have a view of life that's too limited. The two aren't antithetical; in fact, I think they are perfectly complementary. Just because there are vast numbers of people who understand things in a limited or incorrect sense and thus give off a misrepresented view of that school of thought does not mean that the school of thought itself is invalid. No, I don't take everything in the Bible literally, yes I think there could be errors, misinterpretations, etc... but I also think that on a basic level there are some truths and principals within the Bible that have not only contributed enormously to the successful progression of humanity, but are fundamental to our understanding of life and the universe.
In other words: in everything that is scientific truth, there I also find God.
I understand the universe to be made of matter and energy and the laws that govern them. I believe in cause and effect. I do not think matter and energy just "came to be" one day... I think they always existed, and are part of God. I believe that matter and energy came together using the laws of the universe to form life (perhaps with other additions... "will", or gravity... it's difficult to ascertain the exact parameters of life). God encompasses this entire framework. I don't believe it happened in a split second, but I also don't believe it would have happened without Him (aka, without matter, energy, laws, etc). I believe it happened how it was supposed to, in the perfect manner, in perhaps the ONLY manner, and I don't pretend to hold exclusive knowledge to that process.
My own quote: "We are nothing, but our will to survive." I look at the world, and through all the chaos and beauty, the perfection and the unexplained, the similarity coupled perfectly with diversity, I see one common theme, one common direction everything moves in - survival. We are simply a combination of energy and matter, with our will to survive. Those three things make us what we are, and I see no contradiction in that between science and God (or, as some like to call Him, Energy, or Nature, or Buda, or Alah, or the Universe... anything that encompasses all that is).
Some might say "you're reducing him to components, to less than a person, to a purposeless, thoughtless entity". Really? I have will, and purpose, and thought, yet I am not all that is... I can only assume that if God is everything I am and more, than he too has will, purpose, thought... He just does way more with it than I could ever accomplish.
People like to think of themselves as God... the be-all, end-all. But I can't see how any rational person can think that way when they look outside, look at the earth, the universe, and realize that as one individual, how insignificant we are in this grand display of ingenuity. We can't even come close to replicating ourselves from scratch... how could we posture to be greater than all that exists?
People who follow science and consider it incompatible with religion, as well as people who are religious and consider it incompatible with science, simply have a view of life that's too limited. The two aren't antithetical; in fact, I think they are perfectly complementary. Just because there are vast numbers of people who understand things in a limited or incorrect sense and thus give off a misrepresented view of that school of thought does not mean that the school of thought itself is invalid. No, I don't take everything in the Bible literally, yes I think there could be errors, misinterpretations, etc... but I also think that on a basic level there are some truths and principals within the Bible that have not only contributed enormously to the successful progression of humanity, but are fundamental to our understanding of life and the universe.
You fail, by yet again performing the same mistake most others do - grouping all religious people together. I'm perfectly happy being a religious person and not taking the Bible literally, word for word. I think that no person is so knowledgeable as to have complete and correct understanding of everything, including that which was written thousands of years ago. To assume you do is audacious to the extreme.
I think about it this way: if God is our source of being (energy, matter, will, what-have-you), then it follows that all of nature, and every process in it, is not only manifested and perpetuated by God, but in a very real sense IS PART of God (God being the entirety of the whole). If you look at life from this perspective, God isn't limited in any way, other than to not contradict himself.
So, you are saying that NATURE and GOD are antithetical?
I would posture that NATURE and GOD are inseparable.
And you're rebuttal to point 2 is irrelevant.... we know from experience that abuse and/or misconception/misinterpretation can happen in any realm of life, and that such is not cause to negate the founding premise/principal.
One of the reasons we have taxes is because we can't rely on a corporation to treat people equitably. Were there no oversight, they would push the bottom line as far down as possible, including their most coveted (yet expensive) resource - people. They would find a way to pay people as little as possible while making the most profits, because that is what corporations do... maximize profits. They have no incentive to treat people with respect and decency, other than to keep them working there... but were it up to them, unemployment would be artificially high so as to drive wages down as much as possible, making people BEG to have substandard wages in horrifying conditions... see third world countries. Heck, they're currently willing to bail on their own country and move to another, all in the name of PROFITS! (note: none of this is necessary [outsourcing, unemployment] when the bottom line isn't your objective.... and people can still be wealthy without focusing on the bottom line... but when it is the priority, everything else, even people, become secondary... and that's scary!)
I don't adhere to any "wing", but I do adhere to common sense. You're argument that "the stock market starts sliding because already regulation-squeezed corporations are being taxed to bankruptcy" is utter non-sense. The reason for the current stock slide is because Lenders were becoming increasingly greedy and risky in their practice, decided to make un-sound loans, then cry foul when people can't pay them back and beg the feds to bail them out, which ultimately falls back on our (middle class) shoulders by increasing inflation. When I make a bad investment, I have to suffer the consequences... big corporations should be no different. The current stock slide is a direct consequence of lax oversight of the fiscal lending practices in the US, and the feds willingness to bend over backwards for corporate America, at the expense of its citizens.
Are you seriously tying to tell me that, with increased taxes, Microsoft, Dell, HP, GE, Universal, News Corp, et al, wouldn't be profitable? Are you really that naive? These companies have fabulous wealth... more taxes would do nothing to stop them... Oh, they might have to sacrifice some multi-million dollar bonuses to their high level execs and upper management, boo-hoo poor them.
As for no taxes and re-investing wealth... I would be all for it if it actually worked. However, more often than not it is used to legitimize greed. Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and corporations have done nothing to ease the national debt, increase jobs and/or spur economic growth, reduce the ever-increasing discrepancy between rich and poor, the disappearance of the middle class, or anything of the like. What HAS happened is the standard of living across the US has lowered, the average wage hasn't been able to keep pace with inflation and the increase in energy and food (conveniently left out of inflation estimates), and we went from a balanced budget to one of trillions of debt. Not to mention a war we can't end that's costing us (the American public) even more. Granted, we didn't want Iran to hold all the cards, but there are better ways of going about things, when you consider the costs.
It sounds like you've bought into the classic argument of "let markets do as they like, everything will work out in the end". Yeah, because corruption doesn't happen, and doesn't need to be watched out for in the corporate world... only the government. We're going right back to our roots... imperial families pooling ever-greater power, paying a pittance to the populace to support their exorbitant lifestyle, all the while making us feel how "lucky" we are to live in such a great place as to allow us to sell our lives away for a promise of a better tomorrow that never comes. Oh wait, they give us "toys" to play with, that we might forget the predicament we're in. Or TV's to pacify us, and show us that life really is a grand script. Or computers to occupy our lives and make us feel as if we can make a difference. And then they "allow" us to reinvest our hard-earned money into their future with the promise of a return, that may or may not be fruitful (hey, it's a risk). Face it, we're pacified slaves, given just enough junk and knowledge and freedom to keep us "content", and you're post is a testimony to that. I'm not saying it's all bad... we have it better than most... but if you think there is anything "equitable" about our economic or legal policy, you have a lot of learning to do.
Thank you Mr Paul McGuinness. As an ardent U2 fan, I now abhor their music and image, and will never, EVER, purchase anything related to their name again. I will also encourage everyone I know to do the same. Unless, of course, they make public amends, which I highly doubt they will. Thank you, for alienating thousands of potential customers over you're obscene control-freak values and lack of respect for those who support you - the FANS.
See, you (and shareholders across the globe) believe money is the end-all. Gates, Allen, Ballmer, et al, understand it is only a medium. That's why they're fabulously wealthy. Corps are simply vehicles, resources (money and people) their fuel, driven to achieve whatever goals their top level execs deem appropriate. The idea of an "innocent corp that has no official agenda other than to provide wealth" is a fallacy gobbled up by far too many Americans.
Actually, they exist to "show" a profit, and in so doing attract investors/revenue/workers. Appearance is a lot more important than reality.... see Enron. What they do with that money (influence: research, litigation, politics, etc) is actually much more important to them than turning the highest profit/making the most money. They declare earnings to make you feel warm and bubbly inside. They use their money to make more money, but ultimately, to maintain or increase market/consumer/governmental control. Money, even for a Corp, is only what it always has been... a means.
I too have occasional downtime. The nature of IT is a lot like being on call - they only need you when there's a problem (aka "request"). If you do your job well, there's few problems, and they're solved quickly, which only leads to increased downtime.
I use this time to improve myself as much as possible. This can be through research, reading, testing, organizing, documenting, standardizing... etc... work related or not. As long as you're achieving some form of progress, and aren't negligent in your duties, there's little for your employer to gripe about. That is, unless he/she's a total headcase.
On a side note, it has always amazed me how, as an employee, there is little incentive to be your best. The more you do, and the quicker and better you do it, the more they give you. Now, SUPPOSEDLY, such people should be promoted/compensated. But there are only so many positions to be promoted to, and lots of eager people waiting for them. Few who work in such a fashion actually receive just compensation; this results in resentfulness and laziness. If everyone were payed on a performance basis, that would be great... but too often hard workers are taken advantage of by our broken form of hourly wage/salaried work.
touche!
ok, so most of this fault lies with the ISPs for claiming to provide something they can't, and wasting monetary incentives besides. but for the life of me, i can't understand why so many intelligent individuals here can't grasp the concept of pay-per-use in a service. i know it challenges and, indeed, infringes upon most internet users here who think they deserve to gobble up as much bandwidth as possible and pay exactly the same as someone who uses very little... but come on slashdotters, i really have higher expectations... put aside you're biases and see this issue for what it is - an attempt at some form of fairness.
Were you dropped on your head as an infant? Or do you purposely tune out arguments that don't agree with you?
Is the same problem you have here. If they pass this law, do they really expect REAL terrorists to continue using a medium they KNOW is monitored? Exactly the same as the handgun problem.... you can outlaw them, but criminals find a way around it, while good citizens are unjustly penalized.
You are saying two things. First, we can prove nothing absolutely. That, I (mostly) agree with. Second, you're a reductionist, and consider reality filtered through our neural mass to be nothing more than interpretation which has nothing to do with said reality (in any provable sense). Since you deduced this through your neural mass, it has no more validity than the Pythagorean theorem (at least to you).
Since there is something to be filtered (reality), as opposed to nothing, reality exists, and since we can observe in it consistency, and furthermore understand and deduce that consistency, there must be principals enforcing that consistency (outside of our minds).
Now, you can continue to follow post-modernism to the point that "we can't prove there is a reality" and that "everything exists only in our minds", but that is impossible to prove. Furthermore, if there is no reality, then what are we, how did we get here, what is it we are actually "perceiving" if not something real, and how are we able to communicate that with any form of reliability and mutual understanding? You see, your path raises more questions than it answers, and such paths usually take us nowhere. It is the ultimate form of doubt, which debilitates more than it facilitates.