I imagine the answer you get will depend on who you ask, but I believe that they're not the same, and probably not dependent on one another. You can behave in a moral manner without believing in a deity (or without the fear of divine punishment), and you can also behave in a way which is morally reprehensible all while believing that you do the work of God.
To go further into what morality is, one would likely need to delve into a philosophy course. It's been a while since I last was in one, so I likely don't have the most robust definition of morality. Wikipedia puts it most simply, in that it's a way to differentiate good from bad behavior. When you think about "why doing X is bad", the reasoning can be rational or irrational, or even perhaps circular.
Irrational: Don't do X because God Said Not To. Rational: Don't do X because it hurts other people.
Both of these are reasons that people use to differentiate moral behavior from immoral behavior. (I'm sure they aren't the only ways one can come up with a moral code.) Often, they agree on the fact that something is bad (killing people, stealing), and merely disagree on the reason.
Many people reason differently about morality, hence the entire field of the study of ethics. Wikipedia's page is somewhat informative ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality ).... but, in general, being rational and being moral are NOT the same.
I'd be frustrated if I couldn't hear the commentary about WHY it's good play, or what brilliant feat of timing, control, or other skill the players just did... because I sure as hell am not good enough at Starcraft to even recognize it. Announcers make sports more fun to follow for non-savvy spectators, whether it be football or Starcraft.
The difference is, he claimed that his uncle patented something with a semi-reasonable fuel savings -- 20 mpg, not 100 or 200, is more believable. Still might be a hoax, but then I know people (like my uncles and grandfather) were doing seemingly-weird stuff with water injection and other stuff to increase mileage at the expense of power back then, so it's not terribly surprising that someone may have gone so far as to patent something.
Slashdot is news for NERDS. Nerds tend to like rational thought. Many people who self-identify as nerds are likely to see the idea of an imaginary sky-friend as silly, especially when the people who are most vocal in their support of their sky-friend often are those who seem to want to interfere in the actions of others, or who fight science in ways that would be hilarious if they didn't have an effect on us. It's not surprising that some of both posts and moderation would be dedicated towards promoting a viewpoint that is less than supportive of religion in general, and organized religion in particular.
I grew up as a Christian Scientist, though I am not one now. Christian Science doesn't forbid medical treatment. Whether a person chooses to use prayer or see a doctor (or both) is their own decision, and no Christian Scientist is going to be punished or excommunicated for seeing a doctor. Whenever I'd talk about anything like seeing a doctor with other Christian Scientists (e.g., in Sunday school), it was very clear that pretty much everyone felt that it was your responsibility to handle things in the way that was best and safest. (So, yes, DO go to the ER when you cut your hand badly.) Many of the people in my church gave testimonials of handling various injuries and illnesses through prayer, but it's always something you (as the patient) have to seek -- not something that is thrust upon you as the Thing To Do.
The church manual, as far as I recall, doesn't have any prohibitions on seeking medical treatment, either. The general perspective that seemed to be shared by most of the practicing scientists that I talked to (whether "Practitioners" (healers) or otherwise) was that yes, medicine certainly works -- we have proof of that all around us -- but that prayer did also, and so they chose to use than when they felt it was appropriate. Christian Scientists use prayer rather than medical treatment not because they think doctors are quacks, but (generally) because they feel prayer is a Better Way of doing it. It's neither taboo nor forbidden.
My parents have told me of healings they had that seemed miraculous, as well as ones I had when I was a young child. I remember recovering quickly from a dog bite, but that's about all I remember. When I had an emergency, I went to the ER for stitches, and felt no stigma from other church members. I never felt that prayer "worked" for me, though -- and eventually grew skeptical enough of the base concepts. (e.g., I'm sure it would be great if there were a God, and even better if thought and prayer influenced things... but so far I have a hard time believing it.)
It's slightly different. Google didn't market it as Google Java, and in fact took pains to say that "the syntax looks like Java but it is compiled to run on the Dalvik VM".
I forgot to mention... I have no idea if Dr. Corbett was (is) an atheist. One thing readers should know, though, was that he was NOT the sort of teacher who wanted you to believe him and obey him because he was the teacher. He did NOT tell us to believe everything we told him, and a large part of his lectures were about exposing the bullshit pushed by the Establishment of the time (for any given time period), whether that be the church or the robber-barons. In the process, he encouraged us to think very carefully about what was spouted in our direction, from his pulpit or from anywhere else. It seemed very clear that "just because" or "because those are the rules" were reasons that he did NOT feel were sufficient for us - he wanted us to think about the underlying reasons for it. He encouraged us to see more than one (sometimes even more than two) sides to an argument -- making it clear that often both parties (countries, churches, etc) had both vested interests in getting their way as well as reasons to believe that they were Right.
He was an awesome, awesome teacher. I hope he's still teaching.
Dr. Corbett was my AP European History teacher in 1994. He was one of the most influential teachers I've ever had, and I'm tremendously grateful. He made history come alive, showing us how political, religious, and economic factors led to all sorts of things. Sitting in his class was almost like having George Carlin for a teacher -- and not just because he looked remotely similar. He told us about the naughty popes, about people being thrown out of windows, and all sorts of other memorable things which helped us all do well on the AP test, and also helped us remember WHY things happened, not merely WHAT happened. I've only had a couple of teachers (or professors) of his caliber. He was never against religious beliefs, but given the IMMENSE role that the Catholic (and Protestant) churches had on the political and social history of Europe (and by extension our culture in America), it should come as no surprise that he was quite ready to inform of the various dodgy things they did.
Dr. Corbett, if you ever read this, thank you for being awesome. Thank you for encouraging skepticism, for not only answering our questions but giving us a view of history that was broad, personal, and something that we could relate to world history happening around us. If you ever decide to record your lectures (or make audiobooks from their notes), I would buy them so that my kids can listen to you. Hell, I'd listen to them again.
I'm going to go see if he has said audiobooks. That would freaking rock.
Beware waking the dragon that is Government and asking them to "step in to" the waters you feel are muddied. The result you get would likely not be the one you want.
I played it on PC, mainly co-op with my best friend, with perhaps 50% more solo time too. Two playthroughs of the main campaign, to get to the loot-pinata mode.
Frankly, I liked it a lot. We could play the campaign as a duo, and that was worth every cent of admission (to me). Sharing weapon drops ("Oh, you like rifles? I found some good ones...") wasn't bad. The main fun was in cooperatively tackling things. My partner was much more.... Rambo-esque than I am, and often would run headlong into things that would gib him, and then come for me, but that I think is a personality difference rather than a skill difference. (I play shooters very conservatively.)
If the arrest reccords are not public, how could John Q Concerned Citizen (JCC) determine whether the police were behaving in a corrupted manner? If certain minorities (gays, blacks, people who drive import cars) feel they're unfairly targeted and could be targeted as retaliation for complaining, they're not likely to make an official complaint. Similarly, all you can do is complain about bad arrests, what happens when some homeless guy with no family or friends is arrested under dodgy circumstances? There's no one to complain on his behalf.
I think it would be interesting to see some statistical information such as arrest-event density per square mile of the area, or population distributions -- that requires public info. I don't like the idea of seeing my name up there for prospective employers to find, but it seems like a reasonable price to pay. The down side is, is anyone actually USING that data to do any of that analysis of police behavior? That seems like something only a hobbyist or special interest group would find the time or money to do.
Most Americans (despite the alleged goals of our legal system) are more concerned with permanently branding someone as Something Bad (sex offender, convict, etc), so that we can then exclude them from doing anything which Normal Polite Society can do. You know, like have a job, pick their kids up at school, live within X meters of anyone under the age of Y, etc. VERY few people truly subscribe to a notion of forgiveness or rehabilitation, and instead are inclined to believe that it's safer to stay the hell away from anyone who showed poor judgement or behavior in the past, no matter how long ago that was or whether the legal system feels they're rehabilitated.
That's like saying that people who don't visit/phone/e-mail the teacher to ask questions don't get as much help as those who do, and so no one should be allowed to visit/phone/e-mail the teacher. The first part is true, but the latter is an absurd conclusion.
It's pretty sad that we now consider it proper behavior for teachers to actively avoid out of class contact with students (or parents). It just seems like a loss that students can't ask their teachers questions online in a semi-public forum.
Good point. Looking several cars ahead (while still aware of the ones in front of you) helps one notice brakes ahead and react earlier than if one were to wait for the guy in front of you to hit his brakes.
That's a very insightful way of looking at it. The other thing that my mother taught me was to always assume that the other driver is lying. They're not really going to turn right before they get to you, they ARE going to pass you and cut you off with no signal, etc. It sounds pessimistic, but it's actually somewhat relaxing for freeway driving. I will see people come up behind me (going much faster than most others), watch them zoom around me, and think, "yep, he's going to cut me off... I'll just back off on the gas a little so he can do that more safely."
In contrast I've been a passenger with people who seem both surprised and outraged by this behavior. I just see city driving as a meatspace extension of the anonymous behavior theory acticulated by Penny Arcade. Drivers are effectively anonymous to other drivers, and so behave selfishly and often rudely. I try not to let it surprise me.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine the answer you get will depend on who you ask, but I believe that they're not the same, and probably not dependent on one another. You can behave in a moral manner without believing in a deity (or without the fear of divine punishment), and you can also behave in a way which is morally reprehensible all while believing that you do the work of God.
To go further into what morality is, one would likely need to delve into a philosophy course. It's been a while since I last was in one, so I likely don't have the most robust definition of morality. Wikipedia puts it most simply, in that it's a way to differentiate good from bad behavior. When you think about "why doing X is bad", the reasoning can be rational or irrational, or even perhaps circular.
Irrational: Don't do X because God Said Not To.
Rational: Don't do X because it hurts other people.
Both of these are reasons that people use to differentiate moral behavior from immoral behavior. (I'm sure they aren't the only ways one can come up with a moral code.) Often, they agree on the fact that something is bad (killing people, stealing), and merely disagree on the reason.
Many people reason differently about morality, hence the entire field of the study of ethics. Wikipedia's page is somewhat informative ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality ). ... but, in general, being rational and being moral are NOT the same.
I'd be frustrated if I couldn't hear the commentary about WHY it's good play, or what brilliant feat of timing, control, or other skill the players just did ... because I sure as hell am not good enough at Starcraft to even recognize it. Announcers make sports more fun to follow for non-savvy spectators, whether it be football or Starcraft.
And yet it's so nerdy that some of us would try it on principle. I probably would, just for laughs.
"Let's see ... Amber Harvest, Sultry Redhead, Hoofeweizen, Potion of Stats!? I'll try that this time."
The difference is, he claimed that his uncle patented something with a semi-reasonable fuel savings -- 20 mpg, not 100 or 200, is more believable. Still might be a hoax, but then I know people (like my uncles and grandfather) were doing seemingly-weird stuff with water injection and other stuff to increase mileage at the expense of power back then, so it's not terribly surprising that someone may have gone so far as to patent something.
Slashdot is news for NERDS. Nerds tend to like rational thought. Many people who self-identify as nerds are likely to see the idea of an imaginary sky-friend as silly, especially when the people who are most vocal in their support of their sky-friend often are those who seem to want to interfere in the actions of others, or who fight science in ways that would be hilarious if they didn't have an effect on us. It's not surprising that some of both posts and moderation would be dedicated towards promoting a viewpoint that is less than supportive of religion in general, and organized religion in particular.
I grew up as a Christian Scientist, though I am not one now. Christian Science doesn't forbid medical treatment. Whether a person chooses to use prayer or see a doctor (or both) is their own decision, and no Christian Scientist is going to be punished or excommunicated for seeing a doctor. Whenever I'd talk about anything like seeing a doctor with other Christian Scientists (e.g., in Sunday school), it was very clear that pretty much everyone felt that it was your responsibility to handle things in the way that was best and safest. (So, yes, DO go to the ER when you cut your hand badly.) Many of the people in my church gave testimonials of handling various injuries and illnesses through prayer, but it's always something you (as the patient) have to seek -- not something that is thrust upon you as the Thing To Do.
The church manual, as far as I recall, doesn't have any prohibitions on seeking medical treatment, either. The general perspective that seemed to be shared by most of the practicing scientists that I talked to (whether "Practitioners" (healers) or otherwise) was that yes, medicine certainly works -- we have proof of that all around us -- but that prayer did also, and so they chose to use than when they felt it was appropriate. Christian Scientists use prayer rather than medical treatment not because they think doctors are quacks, but (generally) because they feel prayer is a Better Way of doing it. It's neither taboo nor forbidden.
My parents have told me of healings they had that seemed miraculous, as well as ones I had when I was a young child. I remember recovering quickly from a dog bite, but that's about all I remember. When I had an emergency, I went to the ER for stitches, and felt no stigma from other church members. I never felt that prayer "worked" for me, though -- and eventually grew skeptical enough of the base concepts. (e.g., I'm sure it would be great if there were a God, and even better if thought and prayer influenced things ... but so far I have a hard time believing it.)
It's slightly different. Google didn't market it as Google Java, and in fact took pains to say that "the syntax looks like Java but it is compiled to run on the Dalvik VM".
Well, we've got to see the Hotblack Desiato concerts somehow, right?
I forgot to mention ... I have no idea if Dr. Corbett was (is) an atheist. One thing readers should know, though, was that he was NOT the sort of teacher who wanted you to believe him and obey him because he was the teacher. He did NOT tell us to believe everything we told him, and a large part of his lectures were about exposing the bullshit pushed by the Establishment of the time (for any given time period), whether that be the church or the robber-barons. In the process, he encouraged us to think very carefully about what was spouted in our direction, from his pulpit or from anywhere else. It seemed very clear that "just because" or "because those are the rules" were reasons that he did NOT feel were sufficient for us - he wanted us to think about the underlying reasons for it. He encouraged us to see more than one (sometimes even more than two) sides to an argument -- making it clear that often both parties (countries, churches, etc) had both vested interests in getting their way as well as reasons to believe that they were Right.
He was an awesome, awesome teacher. I hope he's still teaching.
Dr. Corbett was my AP European History teacher in 1994. He was one of the most influential teachers I've ever had, and I'm tremendously grateful. He made history come alive, showing us how political, religious, and economic factors led to all sorts of things. Sitting in his class was almost like having George Carlin for a teacher -- and not just because he looked remotely similar. He told us about the naughty popes, about people being thrown out of windows, and all sorts of other memorable things which helped us all do well on the AP test, and also helped us remember WHY things happened, not merely WHAT happened. I've only had a couple of teachers (or professors) of his caliber. He was never against religious beliefs, but given the IMMENSE role that the Catholic (and Protestant) churches had on the political and social history of Europe (and by extension our culture in America), it should come as no surprise that he was quite ready to inform of the various dodgy things they did.
Dr. Corbett, if you ever read this, thank you for being awesome. Thank you for encouraging skepticism, for not only answering our questions but giving us a view of history that was broad, personal, and something that we could relate to world history happening around us. If you ever decide to record your lectures (or make audiobooks from their notes), I would buy them so that my kids can listen to you. Hell, I'd listen to them again.
I'm going to go see if he has said audiobooks. That would freaking rock.
We can't do that, then they might start trying to bot Farmville or something.
Comparing notepad to a text editor is like comparing a chimpanzee at a typewriter to Stephen Hawking.
I think they should have to use actual employees, who have been employed before the challenge, to prevent them just hiring Q3 allstars.
Beware waking the dragon that is Government and asking them to "step in to" the waters you feel are muddied. The result you get would likely not be the one you want.
I played it on PC, mainly co-op with my best friend, with perhaps 50% more solo time too. Two playthroughs of the main campaign, to get to the loot-pinata mode.
Frankly, I liked it a lot. We could play the campaign as a duo, and that was worth every cent of admission (to me). Sharing weapon drops ("Oh, you like rifles? I found some good ones ...") wasn't bad. The main fun was in cooperatively tackling things. My partner was much more .... Rambo-esque than I am, and often would run headlong into things that would gib him, and then come for me, but that I think is a personality difference rather than a skill difference. (I play shooters very conservatively.)
Exactly. Borderlands is First Person Diablo With Guns. It is also Tremendous Fun when played with friends.
If the arrest reccords are not public, how could John Q Concerned Citizen (JCC) determine whether the police were behaving in a corrupted manner? If certain minorities (gays, blacks, people who drive import cars) feel they're unfairly targeted and could be targeted as retaliation for complaining, they're not likely to make an official complaint. Similarly, all you can do is complain about bad arrests, what happens when some homeless guy with no family or friends is arrested under dodgy circumstances? There's no one to complain on his behalf.
I think it would be interesting to see some statistical information such as arrest-event density per square mile of the area, or population distributions -- that requires public info. I don't like the idea of seeing my name up there for prospective employers to find, but it seems like a reasonable price to pay. The down side is, is anyone actually USING that data to do any of that analysis of police behavior? That seems like something only a hobbyist or special interest group would find the time or money to do.
Most Americans (despite the alleged goals of our legal system) are more concerned with permanently branding someone as Something Bad (sex offender, convict, etc), so that we can then exclude them from doing anything which Normal Polite Society can do. You know, like have a job, pick their kids up at school, live within X meters of anyone under the age of Y, etc. VERY few people truly subscribe to a notion of forgiveness or rehabilitation, and instead are inclined to believe that it's safer to stay the hell away from anyone who showed poor judgement or behavior in the past, no matter how long ago that was or whether the legal system feels they're rehabilitated.
Brilliant. Thanks for the suggesion -- done and done. (OH LOOK now I can do it for Experts Exchange, too. I think I am even more grateful.)
God help you if you want a metric pen, too.
That's like saying that people who don't visit/phone/e-mail the teacher to ask questions don't get as much help as those who do, and so no one should be allowed to visit/phone/e-mail the teacher. The first part is true, but the latter is an absurd conclusion.
It's pretty sad that we now consider it proper behavior for teachers to actively avoid out of class contact with students (or parents). It just seems like a loss that students can't ask their teachers questions online in a semi-public forum.
Good point. Looking several cars ahead (while still aware of the ones in front of you) helps one notice brakes ahead and react earlier than if one were to wait for the guy in front of you to hit his brakes.
That's a very insightful way of looking at it. The other thing that my mother taught me was to always assume that the other driver is lying. They're not really going to turn right before they get to you, they ARE going to pass you and cut you off with no signal, etc. It sounds pessimistic, but it's actually somewhat relaxing for freeway driving. I will see people come up behind me (going much faster than most others), watch them zoom around me, and think, "yep, he's going to cut me off... I'll just back off on the gas a little so he can do that more safely."
In contrast I've been a passenger with people who seem both surprised and outraged by this behavior. I just see city driving as a meatspace extension of the anonymous behavior theory acticulated by Penny Arcade. Drivers are effectively anonymous to other drivers, and so behave selfishly and often rudely. I try not to let it surprise me.
I wonder how it can differentiate a "panic" stop from a regular one.