On second thought, Scripture itself sums it up best:
Psalm 146:3-4 Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.
The religious right puts forward an omnipotent God that watches us everywhere we go and ultimately judges all of our actions and determines the state of our eternal soul. So they are already inherently conditioned to this big brother mentality.
Hogwash. Most religious conservatives view government warily. "Religious right" figures like Chuck Colson and Francis Schaeffer have argued that we must beware of "Big Brother" tendencies in government, which tend to squash religious freedom.
Believing in a good God who sees everything does not predispose me to wanting a government of flawed humans who see everything. A central tenant of Christianity is that humans have evil tendencies. The value of democracy is to prevent some people from having too much power of others.
This quote from C.S. Lewis, a very influential Christian thinker, sums it up:
It is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects -- military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden -- that is what the State is there for. And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.
I'd argue that people who believe that Heaven will come after we die are less prone to trying to create it on earth. It's more often the atheists, who want their Utopia now, who try to make governments powerful enough to create it.
'For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew,' Dr. Malone said. 'In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.'"
In small tribes, "everyone you know" also lacks privacy. They know where you live, but you also know where they live. If they harm you, all your mutual friends/relatives will punish or shun them.
Where is that accountability in the "global village?" And how is "everybody watches everybody" the same as "a few powerful, anonymous people watch everybody?"
If the President of your country and the CEO of your ISP and the managers of your insurance company don't publish all of their own private info, it isn't equitable to let them publish yours.
Analysts at Forrester Research estimate that music sales in the United States will decline to $9.2 billion in 2013, from $10.1 billion this year. That compares with $14.6 billion in 1999, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.
Who are they including in this estimate? Do they include the income of independentmusicians like me?
In my own case, the answer is no - when somebody downloads my music for free and decides to send me a donation, I don't report it to the RIAA.
My guess is that, although some of the money people used to spend on music now goes to video games and other entertainment, a lot of the "losses" are going to non-RIAA musicians.
And as a personal plug: if you love music and dislike the RIAA, support independent music.
That said, there is much to be said for the Star Trek take on war: It should be messy, nasty, and full of foul stinking death and destruction lest we forget how much better peace is.
Yes. It also makes me uneasy that this technology takes away the "nasty and horrible" for the side that has the robots, but not for the side that doesn't. Sounds like a formula for indifferent conquest.
So you're defining "left" and "right" in purely economic terms. And someone else defines it differently, leading to confusion. Which was my point.
Human viewpoints come in many flavors, and labels are always oversimplifications. A graph like this, which shows dimensions of personal and economic freedom and at least four possible viewpoints, is better, although still a simplification.
I think the fact that the moralistic Christian tendency happens to be aligned with the right wing parties is a quirk of American politics; if you listen to European religious leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, they often tend to preach a left-wing message of social justice and collective effort, rather than the individualistic 'devil take the hindmost' philosophy of capitalism.
Now that is an interesting point, which I think Christians in the U.S. need to strongly consider.
The entire argument against cloning is coming from well-meaning, do-gooders who for the most part, lack the capacity to understand the implications of cloning. There seems to be this thought that a cloned individual would be lacking in some capacity or held up as a carnival sideshow.
I oppose cloning for none of the reasons you state. Biologically, a clone is the same as a twin. Theologically, twins have souls, and so would clones. They're just people whose genes happen to match someone else's.
My problem with cloning rests on two things:
Primarily, the trial-and-error creation of human embryos, destroying those that aren't wanted
Secondarily, the potential for people/governments to start "manufacturing" people to suit their desires, making us view fellow humans more like commodities
Neither of these are bogeyman ideas. The first reflects a definition of "human life" that you may not share, but for which there are valid arguments.
The second reflects the way oppressive governments already view people, but makes it worse. If you haven't read "Brave New World" with its descriptions of people bred with jobs in mind, including being slightly brain-damaged before birth so they'd be content with dumb jobs, you should. Ask yourself what guys like Kim Jong-il would do with that ability.
I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right."
Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing.
I think the most common/. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."
People who camp often use hand-pumped versions of this to make creek water drinkable. The advantage is that you can use the muscles in your arm to pump the water instead of sucking on a straw until your face implodes.
Not what you think it means
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 1
Offtopic, but: What's up tags like "!itsucked"?
I'm the least among programmers, but even I know that ! is for negation.
Are you saying "not it sucked?" or maybe "It didn't suck?"
If you just want to exclaim something, the exclamation point goes at the end. (Unless you're writing in Spanish, in which case it goes in both places and the first one better be upside down.)
My idea of American 'culture' is fast food, celebrities, gas guzzling cars, and guns. Have I missed anything?
Oh, I don't know, maybe apple pie, rock 'n roll, government by and for the people, and gettin' a little misty-eyed when you see a bald eagle flying in front of a flag.
Seriously, though, my idea of Scottish culture is kilts and headbutts. So what does that have to do with real life? People are more than stereotypes.
You know, the blues started in the south, too. There is a club in downtown Nashville with B.B. King's name on it, and other genres get recorded there, too.
Technology doesn't fundamentally change communication (whether it be words, pictures, video, or audio). It may change the style and method of delivery (the 'channel' and 'code') but the content of what is being communicated does not change.
I disagree. These two things provide radically different kinds of feedback from citizens:
Individual citizens write letters, on paper, to their government. They can't attach their words to a bill under consideration, they can't see what others are writing, and the sheer volume of their mail makes it a full-time job to determine what "the people" think.
Bills under consideration are listed online. Citizens attach their comments to them, respond to each other's comments, and vote up or down the comments of their peers. Officials can look at a bill and see the most popular sentiments of their constituents listed at the top of the comments.
I think "Web 2.0," by which I mean "online, peer-moderated group communication" could be a huge asset to more open governance. It can help citizens amplify their collective voice in a way that only full-time lobbyists have been able to do before.
I like G.K. Chesterton's version: "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
Regardless of why they're not doing it, I'm glad they are not. Collecting personal information which was willingly disclosed is not a crime and should not be.
I'm not sure I agree. Do people "willingly disclose" the contents of their emails, their searches, their map queries, their photos, their videos, etc by using Google services? Personally, I'm trusting them not to compile all that information and sell it - but what if they did?
With data mining, the whole is much more than the sum of the parts. Your individual queries might not be worth protecting - "ooh, I can't have Google know that I want an office chair!" - but in aggregate, they might reveal where you live, your financial status, your relationship troubles, your medical problems, what products you like.... stuff that marketers would die for.
If people knew what their "willingly disclosed" info could be used for, maybe they'd be less willing.
When you get to the level of paranoia where you want this, perhaps I could interest you in my radar-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector detector.
It consists of a black box with a little red light, which always blinks to indicate that you're always being watched.
I have patented the concept of patents and will soon be suing the Patent Office and everyone who holds a patent. You will all be hearing from my lawyer.
It doesn't (yet) cover general IT questions, but for programming questions, StackOverflow is meant to be a better, and free, alternative to Experts Exchange.
You shouldn't get fired for not having your BlackBerry on at all times, because you should negotiate those expectations when you get the job.
You should agree to one of two things:
I work certain hours and no more, or
I am on call X amount and I get extra money for that
Personally, I'd strongly prefer the former. You can always work more to make more money, but when do you get to enjoy it? There is more to life than work, and your boss does not own you.
Why not? If you could rearrange the particles, you could turn anything into anything.
If you're talking about a being who had the idea for atoms in the first place, and created them by mere force of will, yes, I think bread into fish is a trivial problem for such a being.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes - it's like the difference between natural death and murder.
Hogwash. Most religious conservatives view government warily. "Religious right" figures like Chuck Colson and Francis Schaeffer have argued that we must beware of "Big Brother" tendencies in government, which tend to squash religious freedom.
Believing in a good God who sees everything does not predispose me to wanting a government of flawed humans who see everything. A central tenant of Christianity is that humans have evil tendencies. The value of democracy is to prevent some people from having too much power of others.
This quote from C.S. Lewis, a very influential Christian thinker, sums it up:
I'd argue that people who believe that Heaven will come after we die are less prone to trying to create it on earth. It's more often the atheists, who want their Utopia now, who try to make governments powerful enough to create it.
In small tribes, "everyone you know" also lacks privacy. They know where you live, but you also know where they live. If they harm you, all your mutual friends/relatives will punish or shun them.
Where is that accountability in the "global village?" And how is "everybody watches everybody" the same as "a few powerful, anonymous people watch everybody?"
If the President of your country and the CEO of your ISP and the managers of your insurance company don't publish all of their own private info, it isn't equitable to let them publish yours.
Who are they including in this estimate? Do they include the income of independent musicians like me?
In my own case, the answer is no - when somebody downloads my music for free and decides to send me a donation, I don't report it to the RIAA.
My guess is that, although some of the money people used to spend on music now goes to video games and other entertainment, a lot of the "losses" are going to non-RIAA musicians.
And as a personal plug: if you love music and dislike the RIAA, support independent music.
Yes. It also makes me uneasy that this technology takes away the "nasty and horrible" for the side that has the robots, but not for the side that doesn't. Sounds like a formula for indifferent conquest.
Just the first couple I can think of...
So you're defining "left" and "right" in purely economic terms. And someone else defines it differently, leading to confusion. Which was my point.
Human viewpoints come in many flavors, and labels are always oversimplifications. A graph like this, which shows dimensions of personal and economic freedom and at least four possible viewpoints, is better, although still a simplification.
Now that is an interesting point, which I think Christians in the U.S. need to strongly consider.
I oppose cloning for none of the reasons you state. Biologically, a clone is the same as a twin. Theologically, twins have souls, and so would clones. They're just people whose genes happen to match someone else's.
My problem with cloning rests on two things:
Neither of these are bogeyman ideas. The first reflects a definition of "human life" that you may not share, but for which there are valid arguments.
The second reflects the way oppressive governments already view people, but makes it worse. If you haven't read "Brave New World" with its descriptions of people bred with jobs in mind, including being slightly brain-damaged before birth so they'd be content with dumb jobs, you should. Ask yourself what guys like Kim Jong-il would do with that ability.
I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right."
Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing.
I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."
People who camp often use hand-pumped versions of this to make creek water drinkable. The advantage is that you can use the muscles in your arm to pump the water instead of sucking on a straw until your face implodes.
Offtopic, but: What's up tags like "!itsucked"?
I'm the least among programmers, but even I know that ! is for negation.
Are you saying "not it sucked?" or maybe "It didn't suck?"
If you just want to exclaim something, the exclamation point goes at the end. (Unless you're writing in Spanish, in which case it goes in both places and the first one better be upside down.)
I tagged it "herecomethequotes."
Oh, I don't know, maybe apple pie, rock 'n roll, government by and for the people, and gettin' a little misty-eyed when you see a bald eagle flying in front of a flag.
Seriously, though, my idea of Scottish culture is kilts and headbutts. So what does that have to do with real life? People are more than stereotypes.
You know, the blues started in the south, too. There is a club in downtown Nashville with B.B. King's name on it, and other genres get recorded there, too.
I disagree. These two things provide radically different kinds of feedback from citizens:
I think "Web 2.0," by which I mean "online, peer-moderated group communication" could be a huge asset to more open governance. It can help citizens amplify their collective voice in a way that only full-time lobbyists have been able to do before.
I like G.K. Chesterton's version: "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
I'm not sure I agree. Do people "willingly disclose" the contents of their emails, their searches, their map queries, their photos, their videos, etc by using Google services? Personally, I'm trusting them not to compile all that information and sell it - but what if they did?
With data mining, the whole is much more than the sum of the parts. Your individual queries might not be worth protecting - "ooh, I can't have Google know that I want an office chair!" - but in aggregate, they might reveal where you live, your financial status, your relationship troubles, your medical problems, what products you like.... stuff that marketers would die for.
If people knew what their "willingly disclosed" info could be used for, maybe they'd be less willing.
I've hired the... patenting... of... uh...
Well my dad can beat up your dad!
When you get to the level of paranoia where you want this, perhaps I could interest you in my radar-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector-detector detector.
It consists of a black box with a little red light, which always blinks to indicate that you're always being watched.
I have patented the concept of patents and will soon be suing the Patent Office and everyone who holds a patent. You will all be hearing from my lawyer.
It doesn't (yet) cover general IT questions, but for programming questions, StackOverflow is meant to be a better, and free, alternative to Experts Exchange.
You shouldn't get fired for not having your BlackBerry on at all times, because you should negotiate those expectations when you get the job.
You should agree to one of two things:
Personally, I'd strongly prefer the former. You can always work more to make more money, but when do you get to enjoy it? There is more to life than work, and your boss does not own you.
How about the oil cartels? They deliberately lower their production in order to raise prices.
Why not? If you could rearrange the particles, you could turn anything into anything.
If you're talking about a being who had the idea for atoms in the first place, and created them by mere force of will, yes, I think bread into fish is a trivial problem for such a being.