The thing that struck me about the ad I saw last night was the way the PC and Mac users were dressed up. I feel like I am not cool enough to own any Apple products. The story of my life, sadly.
Ever notice how Macheads never comb their hair? It must be like buying a Volkswagen.
"This reminds me of the police chief who announced on television plans to raid a secret drug factor on the outskirts of town. At the time appointed, the police, all twelve of them, lined up behind each other at the front door, knocked and waiting for the druggies to answer, as protocol required. After ten minute of toilet flushing and back-door slamming, somebody came to the front door in a bathrobe and explained he had been in the shower. The police took his story at face value, even though his was dry as a bone, then police proceeded to inspect the premises ensuring that the legal, moral , ethnic, human, and animal rights, and also the national dignity, of the druggies was preserved. After a search, the police chief announced THERE WERE NO STOCKPILES of drugs at the inspected site. Anyone care to move to this city? "
But he didn't make that assertion. He didn't have anything whatsoever to say about the article or what it says or means. He seems to be changing the subject.
The problem with that outlook is that for every Bill Gates there are about a finity ditch diggers without a high-school diploma.
Now the fact that many drop-outs go on to "achieve greatness" is very important. We should all remember that a high school diploma is not a magic paper that imbues us with success, but we should also remember that dropping out of high school is not a recipe for greatness, either.
You just sound like you are advocating dropping out of HS. If I misunderstood, please correct me.
We have the power to change our likes and dislikes, and our attractions. Looking at porn can make you less attracted to 'normal' women, for example. When we dwell on something, we make it a part of ourselves. The more we do it, the easier it becomes to do it, and the more automatic it becomes. If it is true for walking, then why not for being attracted? (Although I think it is less conscious than walking.)
Evidence for this (with regards to sexual attraction) is the widely-differing cultural norms for what constitutes an attractive woman throughout the world. I remember hearing that polynesian women are prized for being larger (I don't know how true this is, someone from the Pacific Islands, please correct me). My wife and I watched a show about brothels in the late 1800s, and the experts made it clear that the ideas of what was attractive was VERY DIFFERENT than what we think of it today.
His post may have been flamebait, but I don't think it was entirely unfounded.
Isn't it possible that the brain cells grew there after we made the choice instead of before?
What I mean is: I read the article, and it didn't say how they know that the "choice cells" are the chicken, and not the egg. I always had figured that our choices helped neurons in our brain grow (practicing the piano helps new pathways grow for piano-playing, right?) Then is it not reasonable to think that practicing our free will helps the free-will part of our brain grow?
Perhaps this doesn't make for hot debate, but for some inexplicable reason I found this one of the neatest things I've read on Slashdot for about a week.
I guess it's just the idea that incremental progress is quite fascinating when you look at it all at once.
That said, I also think it would be cool to see something on the evolution of slashdot interfaces,
Well, if you don't take yourself too seriously, you don't need to spend much on golf, either. You get some clubs and hit the city course in your shorts and tennies. Walking 9 holes is a great way to spend a couple hours with your buddies.
That said, I haven't played golf in like 4 years because it's more expensive where I live now.
I have been to the driving range a couple of times, but that was with the Cub Scouts (my assistant works at the course, and they let us in for free!).
I wouldn't WANT art that smacked me in the head with a 2x4.
In the words of Ben: "I don't collect art. I also don't collect whatever that is."
In short, maybe it was great art. But then, great is such a subjective term (especially when referring to art) that there is no shame at all in calling "Clockwork Orange" total garbage when we think that's what it is.
I guess if a can of crap can be art, Clockwork Orange can be, too. Just don't ask me to enjoy it.
What about the battlefield at Gettysburg? Congress did NOT declare the Civil War. Were the Southern soldiers combatants or not? How about the Union soldiers?
Granted, this was before the Geneva Conventions, but I wonder how it fits into your ideas.
I think that vetos are how Clinton came off looking like he was financially responsible. I am no fan of Clinton, but in those days, he was touted as being "The Man who Balanced the Budget." And back then, the Republican Party was touted as being "fiscally conservative."
Not so today. The Republicans have outspent my wildest imaginings (and that doesn't include the war). I wondered why this is, then I realized that back then, the Republicans controlled Congress, and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Republicans wouldn't pass any of Clinton's bills, and Clinton would veto the snot out of anything they did pass. So there we have it: the formula for government thrift is to pit people against each other so they are so busy hating each other that they can't spend our money.
That's a lot of assertions you're making. How do you know no one knows God exists? I'll grant you there are a lot of people who think he exists, but how do you know no one has ever seen him? And are there other ways to know besides seeing?
Anyway, you seem to know that we think God exists, but what makes you so sure? Have you had some kind of experience that we should know about? Plus, don't you sound audacious to yourself when you tell me I don't know something that I do in fact know? Maybe you've just figured it out. It's possible you're smarter than me, and you've just thought it through a little more thouroughly. That may be true, but a who's smarter contest is not a very objective way to establish the existence of God. It always reduces to some kind of "You're a jerk," saying match.
Since I didn't bring it up, and you didn't ask me, I can't really answer for that other guy, but here's a thought: We take what we know: God exists, evolution happens, etc., and try to put it together in a way that works. Not being a scientist, I wouldn't know how to do that. But without a prophet to tell us how it went down, we have to make inferences and assumptions using imperfect tools such as the Bible and the fossil record. That sounds like a cop-out answer to me, but I don't know what else to say. I guess when it comes down to it, without any authority, modern-day religion can't really add anything to what was revealed thousands of years ago, so I guess religion doesn't really have anything new to add right now, just try to reconcile what they know with what they are discovering.
I think one of the effects of this is that it is making religious people stop and ask themselves what they really believe, and why they believe it.
As for what I think, I like to think that He put it together personally, in a way that is portrayed symbolically in Genesis. But, like I say, without some more revelation, we will never have anything more to add to what the scriptures say.
I just realized: without revelation, creationists are in the same place as the evolutionists would be if they stopped finding fossils long ago. All the creationists can do is reinterpret the data (scriptures) they already have.
Note: Please forgive my generalized language (creationists, evolutionists, etc.). I kind of did it on purpose, because I think most of us have the tendency to lump people into one extreme or another.
I would like to have a few of these in my classroom. I would spend some of my budget on some of these. They are a darn sight cheaper than what I buy now.
Here's something I've been thinking about lately (I am not a professional scientist, but I try to think like one, and teach others to think like one, too. Someone correct me if I'm wrong).
When we try to scientifically model something, we are looking for something useful. That means we have to make assumptions to get the job done. For example, if I am calculating how much gas milage my car will get, and I don't have enough information to factor in tire wear, then I just don't factor it in at all. I have to make that assumption to get the job done.
Please forgive me if that example doesn't work out right. Let me know and I'll think up a better one.
Here's my point: I think sometimes we take these assumptions and start to regard them almost as Truth, or eternal verity or something like that, when it's not that at all, and it's not meant to be regarded that way. It's meant to be useful, nothing more.
Someone tell me where I'm wrong on this, because it sounds pretty good to me, but I'm not in the thick of it.
This is not meant to support or debunk Global Warming, but I think this kind of thinking does apply here. There is a lot of dogma running around on Slashdot, and I think few people are willing to lay aside their thinking. It sounds more like a religious discussion than a scientific one.
Slashdot Mirror
"My dad wanted me to ______, so I didn't." Does this guy think for himself any more than a guy who does what his dad wants him to?
But Freedom of the Press implies the freedom to to become a corporate McNews endeavor.
Ever notice how Macheads never comb their hair? It must be like buying a Volkswagen.
It sounds like you have to drink like a quart of coffee to get to the same level as a man who has never tried it.
Read the whole interview: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=20154
But he didn't make that assertion. He didn't have anything whatsoever to say about the article or what it says or means. He seems to be changing the subject.
Now the fact that many drop-outs go on to "achieve greatness" is very important. We should all remember that a high school diploma is not a magic paper that imbues us with success, but we should also remember that dropping out of high school is not a recipe for greatness, either.
You just sound like you are advocating dropping out of HS. If I misunderstood, please correct me.
That's fhqwhgads' brother.
That site says nothing about ID cards. The guy wouldn't give his name.
Evidence for this (with regards to sexual attraction) is the widely-differing cultural norms for what constitutes an attractive woman throughout the world. I remember hearing that polynesian women are prized for being larger (I don't know how true this is, someone from the Pacific Islands, please correct me). My wife and I watched a show about brothels in the late 1800s, and the experts made it clear that the ideas of what was attractive was VERY DIFFERENT than what we think of it today.
His post may have been flamebait, but I don't think it was entirely unfounded.
What I mean is: I read the article, and it didn't say how they know that the "choice cells" are the chicken, and not the egg. I always had figured that our choices helped neurons in our brain grow (practicing the piano helps new pathways grow for piano-playing, right?) Then is it not reasonable to think that practicing our free will helps the free-will part of our brain grow?
I guess it's just the idea that incremental progress is quite fascinating when you look at it all at once.
That said, I also think it would be cool to see something on the evolution of slashdot interfaces,
You must really have problems with green crap, then. Don't eat black licorice.
I think your example is a bit extreme, though I see the point you are trying to make.
That said, I haven't played golf in like 4 years because it's more expensive where I live now.
I have been to the driving range a couple of times, but that was with the Cub Scouts (my assistant works at the course, and they let us in for free!).
In the words of Ben: "I don't collect art. I also don't collect whatever that is."
In short, maybe it was great art. But then, great is such a subjective term (especially when referring to art) that there is no shame at all in calling "Clockwork Orange" total garbage when we think that's what it is.
I guess if a can of crap can be art, Clockwork Orange can be, too. Just don't ask me to enjoy it.
I agree, but I was trying to examine the limits of mrchaotica's feelings about what constitutes an enemy combatant.
Granted, this was before the Geneva Conventions, but I wonder how it fits into your ideas.
Not so today. The Republicans have outspent my wildest imaginings (and that doesn't include the war). I wondered why this is, then I realized that back then, the Republicans controlled Congress, and the Democrats controlled the White House. The Republicans wouldn't pass any of Clinton's bills, and Clinton would veto the snot out of anything they did pass. So there we have it: the formula for government thrift is to pit people against each other so they are so busy hating each other that they can't spend our money.
Anyway, you seem to know that we think God exists, but what makes you so sure? Have you had some kind of experience that we should know about? Plus, don't you sound audacious to yourself when you tell me I don't know something that I do in fact know? Maybe you've just figured it out. It's possible you're smarter than me, and you've just thought it through a little more thouroughly. That may be true, but a who's smarter contest is not a very objective way to establish the existence of God. It always reduces to some kind of "You're a jerk," saying match.
To get new habitat, of course. Let's say there were plants up there already, then the first animal to make it would become enormously successful.
I had heard that about the DNA record. Interestingly, I heard it from a professor at Brigham Young University, a very religious school.
I think one of the effects of this is that it is making religious people stop and ask themselves what they really believe, and why they believe it.
As for what I think, I like to think that He put it together personally, in a way that is portrayed symbolically in Genesis. But, like I say, without some more revelation, we will never have anything more to add to what the scriptures say.
I just realized: without revelation, creationists are in the same place as the evolutionists would be if they stopped finding fossils long ago. All the creationists can do is reinterpret the data (scriptures) they already have.
Note: Please forgive my generalized language (creationists, evolutionists, etc.). I kind of did it on purpose, because I think most of us have the tendency to lump people into one extreme or another.
I teach 3rd grade in the USA.
When we try to scientifically model something, we are looking for something useful. That means we have to make assumptions to get the job done. For example, if I am calculating how much gas milage my car will get, and I don't have enough information to factor in tire wear, then I just don't factor it in at all. I have to make that assumption to get the job done.
Please forgive me if that example doesn't work out right. Let me know and I'll think up a better one.
Here's my point: I think sometimes we take these assumptions and start to regard them almost as Truth, or eternal verity or something like that, when it's not that at all, and it's not meant to be regarded that way. It's meant to be useful, nothing more.
Someone tell me where I'm wrong on this, because it sounds pretty good to me, but I'm not in the thick of it.
This is not meant to support or debunk Global Warming, but I think this kind of thinking does apply here. There is a lot of dogma running around on Slashdot, and I think few people are willing to lay aside their thinking. It sounds more like a religious discussion than a scientific one.