If this wasn't an official FBI case (which is true) then there could have been a reluctance to use FBI resources or computer people. It sounds like his buddies in his office, not the FBI IT people.
Many people don't want to understand how linux works. I've installed Ubuntu on my parents' computer and it works fine although it recently had a flash problem. My parents don't care how linux works. It's better for them because 1. They don't have to pay for it, 2. It's not as susceptible to malware as Windows. I don't have bi-annual calls about the computer going "really slow" and for the most part, things just work. I'm now shopping for the best light-weight (the computer's old) distro with codecs built in. I'll walk my 70 year old mother through installing linux, it'll be legally free and it will just work.
As one who gives random tech support to non-techies sometimes it is easier to talk a user through a reboot than talking them through menus to cycle the network. Sometimes when helping others, especially when you're not present, the easiest route is more desired than the quickest or more efficient route.
You're right, I'm having to put up with the seeming majority view that the government should keep protecting people from their own stupidity. I would advocate freedom to make my own choices over parenting governments making decisions for everyone because someone might make a bad decision and get hurt.
Your analogy is flawed. First, the government does not have a parental role over adults. That's not its job. Your example is of a teenager with a prefrontal cortex not formed completely to be able to make rational decisions, not an adult.
A large function of regulating is determining what is unsafe and regulating that it cannot be done until it's gone through batteries of testing (which has proven to grow the cost of medicine and treatments we have now). I would like the government to stay out of what I'm choosing to do with my own body unless it's harming someone else.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume there is no weight when a gravitational field isn't present or when there's no mass. So, when there is weight, mass is vitally involved in determining said weight.
Also, if both are needed for weight to exist or be measurable, what makes one primary and the other secondary?
Part of me hesitates to comment on these discussions. I do understand evolution and, if there isn't a God who created the world and moved people to write it down, then evolution is the best model to describe the formation of what we have. It has many gaping holes, but it's the best thing excluding God. If, however, there is a God, the evidence fits neatly into the Biblical model also.
I agree that agnosticism is a good scientific place to be and if we could be unbiased we could look for holes in each model and how the evidence fits into each. The Creation/Evolution debate will never be solved because past what we can observe and repeat it is not empirical science and neither side can be proven. Furthermore, both sides have turned to ridiculing the other side to make them seem smarter. While this can be entertaining, it's counterproductive in the debate.
My main point is that evolution happens but there's a difference from a lizard species population separating and forming new species and even a dinosaur becoming a bird. Neither side knows in the scientific proof meaning of the word "know", but both sides "know" in the way I know I love my daughter and the way many "know" that there cannot be a God in control of all of this, which we answer to.
There are good teachers that don't teach to the test. Unfortunately, because of the high-stakes testing which can determine pay raises and personnel decisions, this is typically on non-core subjects. My physics (which does have a STARR test now) teacher was great. We rarely used the textbook but we measured the speed of sound and used a lot of hands on physics demonstrations. This is a good article. I'm hoping to begin teaching science, math or computer science next year. Maybe I can be part of the change.
I understand that . . . my point is that Hitler believed to be helping the enevitable white superior race, and that he believed he was helping speed up evolution, not that he correctly understood evolutionary theory. His atrocities were done in the name of evolution. He did not, it seems, have a good grasp on evolution, or used it for his purposes just as people have used Christianity for their purposes.
From what I have read, Hitler's belief is far from settled. It appears he was raised Catholic but his belief is reported differently depending on who is asking. The holocaust, however, was supported by Hitler's belief in survival of the fittest. As the stronger race we must get rid of the inferior and lesser races. This is NOT a Christian belief.
We agree it's not good science but I don't agree that it wasn't evolutionary extremists. I also don't agree Hitler was a Christian, as shown in His character. The historical testimony is far less than conclusive on the subject.
First, I didn't say it is good science, just that evolutionary thought can work out to eugenics. It was tried a few times and was unsuccessful. It is an evolutionary fail because natural selection tends to keep the norm. This didn't stop Hitler and some even in the United States to try and help evolution move more quickly.
There are extremists in Islam, Christianity and Evolution. Eugenics is an example of the negative outworking of extreme evolutionary thought. This being said, even most Christians who want freedom and believe it is being threatened is merely the freedom of speech. While it is somewhat offensive, I don't want daem0n1x to be censored. He should be able to say that people who believe like I do should eat dog food, even if he's in public office or a high school teacher. I won't vote for him and would challenge him as my teacher, but in the same vein, Christians shouldn't be censored from speaking about our faith, no matter where, or who we are.
Not that this hasn't been said before, but there is a difference in the realms of science which refer to repeatable, observable happenings (e.g. electricity, magnetism and micro-evolution) and science which cannot be repeated or observed (e.g. macro-evolution or the big bang theory)
I am a conservative and I don't know how the questions were worded but I think the oppositions to regulations is a more recent reason. A more likely explanation, at least to me, is the changing of science from figuring out how things work (The planets revolve around the sun, atoms are made of electrons, neutrons and protons) to figuring out what things happened (which requires at least assumptions of continuity and has recently required the assumption that God was not involved. In the past, that was not the case. Many scientists believed wholeheartedly in God and knowing His creation was a driving force in the motivation to understand the laws He put in motion.
I know I'm in the vast minority here will likely be attacked, but that's exactly why people who go to church distrust science, in my opinion.
While I'll agree it's not as big of a stick, the possibility of paying for a month when you're riding for a day is a stick. There's still consequences for breaking the rules.
I'm an active church member and about to get my Bachelor's in Religion and I agree, the government shouldn't be giving tax breaks because a group is religious but I don't mind if they do it based on charitable status or just non-profit status. My problem is when organizations state, and judges sometimes agree, that something related to religion can't be done because it's religious. (Nativity scenes or crosses for memorials for example)
I'm canceling too. Probably sooner. I was thinking about it already but this just made my decision for me. It was nice for my son to have his own que. It was nice while it lasted. Hello, redbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for posting on ignore Slashdot day
Maybe he could find other dads wanting to take the same approach . . . There's a job he'd be more likely to commit to.
If this wasn't an official FBI case (which is true) then there could have been a reluctance to use FBI resources or computer people. It sounds like his buddies in his office, not the FBI IT people.
Many people don't want to understand how linux works. I've installed Ubuntu on my parents' computer and it works fine although it recently had a flash problem. My parents don't care how linux works. It's better for them because 1. They don't have to pay for it, 2. It's not as susceptible to malware as Windows. I don't have bi-annual calls about the computer going "really slow" and for the most part, things just work. I'm now shopping for the best light-weight (the computer's old) distro with codecs built in. I'll walk my 70 year old mother through installing linux, it'll be legally free and it will just work.
As one who gives random tech support to non-techies sometimes it is easier to talk a user through a reboot than talking them through menus to cycle the network. Sometimes when helping others, especially when you're not present, the easiest route is more desired than the quickest or more efficient route.
You're right, I'm having to put up with the seeming majority view that the government should keep protecting people from their own stupidity. I would advocate freedom to make my own choices over parenting governments making decisions for everyone because someone might make a bad decision and get hurt.
Your analogy is flawed. First, the government does not have a parental role over adults. That's not its job. Your example is of a teenager with a prefrontal cortex not formed completely to be able to make rational decisions, not an adult.
Mod Parent Up This seems to be one of the most balanced approaches, concern for people without making decisions for them.
A large function of regulating is determining what is unsafe and regulating that it cannot be done until it's gone through batteries of testing (which has proven to grow the cost of medicine and treatments we have now). I would like the government to stay out of what I'm choosing to do with my own body unless it's harming someone else.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume there is no weight when a gravitational field isn't present or when there's no mass. So, when there is weight, mass is vitally involved in determining said weight. Also, if both are needed for weight to exist or be measurable, what makes one primary and the other secondary?
Weight does not equal mass but mass is vitally involved in determining weight.
Part of me hesitates to comment on these discussions. I do understand evolution and, if there isn't a God who created the world and moved people to write it down, then evolution is the best model to describe the formation of what we have. It has many gaping holes, but it's the best thing excluding God. If, however, there is a God, the evidence fits neatly into the Biblical model also. I agree that agnosticism is a good scientific place to be and if we could be unbiased we could look for holes in each model and how the evidence fits into each. The Creation/Evolution debate will never be solved because past what we can observe and repeat it is not empirical science and neither side can be proven. Furthermore, both sides have turned to ridiculing the other side to make them seem smarter. While this can be entertaining, it's counterproductive in the debate. My main point is that evolution happens but there's a difference from a lizard species population separating and forming new species and even a dinosaur becoming a bird. Neither side knows in the scientific proof meaning of the word "know", but both sides "know" in the way I know I love my daughter and the way many "know" that there cannot be a God in control of all of this, which we answer to.
They probably don't usually grow on trees because trees usually grow on land.
There are good teachers that don't teach to the test. Unfortunately, because of the high-stakes testing which can determine pay raises and personnel decisions, this is typically on non-core subjects. My physics (which does have a STARR test now) teacher was great. We rarely used the textbook but we measured the speed of sound and used a lot of hands on physics demonstrations. This is a good article. I'm hoping to begin teaching science, math or computer science next year. Maybe I can be part of the change.
I understand that . . . my point is that Hitler believed to be helping the enevitable white superior race, and that he believed he was helping speed up evolution, not that he correctly understood evolutionary theory. His atrocities were done in the name of evolution. He did not, it seems, have a good grasp on evolution, or used it for his purposes just as people have used Christianity for their purposes.
From what I have read, Hitler's belief is far from settled. It appears he was raised Catholic but his belief is reported differently depending on who is asking. The holocaust, however, was supported by Hitler's belief in survival of the fittest. As the stronger race we must get rid of the inferior and lesser races. This is NOT a Christian belief. We agree it's not good science but I don't agree that it wasn't evolutionary extremists. I also don't agree Hitler was a Christian, as shown in His character. The historical testimony is far less than conclusive on the subject.
First, I didn't say it is good science, just that evolutionary thought can work out to eugenics. It was tried a few times and was unsuccessful. It is an evolutionary fail because natural selection tends to keep the norm. This didn't stop Hitler and some even in the United States to try and help evolution move more quickly.
There are extremists in Islam, Christianity and Evolution. Eugenics is an example of the negative outworking of extreme evolutionary thought. This being said, even most Christians who want freedom and believe it is being threatened is merely the freedom of speech. While it is somewhat offensive, I don't want daem0n1x to be censored. He should be able to say that people who believe like I do should eat dog food, even if he's in public office or a high school teacher. I won't vote for him and would challenge him as my teacher, but in the same vein, Christians shouldn't be censored from speaking about our faith, no matter where, or who we are.
Not that this hasn't been said before, but there is a difference in the realms of science which refer to repeatable, observable happenings (e.g. electricity, magnetism and micro-evolution) and science which cannot be repeated or observed (e.g. macro-evolution or the big bang theory)
I am a conservative and I don't know how the questions were worded but I think the oppositions to regulations is a more recent reason. A more likely explanation, at least to me, is the changing of science from figuring out how things work (The planets revolve around the sun, atoms are made of electrons, neutrons and protons) to figuring out what things happened (which requires at least assumptions of continuity and has recently required the assumption that God was not involved. In the past, that was not the case. Many scientists believed wholeheartedly in God and knowing His creation was a driving force in the motivation to understand the laws He put in motion. I know I'm in the vast minority here will likely be attacked, but that's exactly why people who go to church distrust science, in my opinion.
And why is Venus spinning the other direction?
While I'll agree it's not as big of a stick, the possibility of paying for a month when you're riding for a day is a stick. There's still consequences for breaking the rules.
I'm an active church member and about to get my Bachelor's in Religion and I agree, the government shouldn't be giving tax breaks because a group is religious but I don't mind if they do it based on charitable status or just non-profit status. My problem is when organizations state, and judges sometimes agree, that something related to religion can't be done because it's religious. (Nativity scenes or crosses for memorials for example)
lol, if they're wearing a decoy ring doesn't that say they don't want to be hit on ???? Still not available.
I'm canceling too. Probably sooner. I was thinking about it already but this just made my decision for me. It was nice for my son to have his own que. It was nice while it lasted. Hello, redbox.