"Because there's a smoking hole in Manhattan that testifies to the human cost of faith"
I strongly disagree that 9/11 is consequence of faith. And I do think that it is obviously something that touched very closely and us such is only human to look for an explanation or someone to blame, hence here is the pain that you expected God to protect you from and He didn't. But at the end of the day, it was not an act of God, it was the men attacking another men.
it's my hope that I can educate you in some small way.
Perhaps, you need to learn a thing or 2. It is arrogant to believe that you know the whole truth.
Historically the problem of toleration comes from your side
Sides... did you try to read my previous answer? or you just try to look something to fight against? You are on my "side", you just don't know it yet.
the Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin
All of them looking for confrontation. Again, did you even read my previous answer TRYING TO UNDERSTAND what I was saying? or just looking for something to rebuke?
Personally, I'd suggest you grow a thicker skin if you find being disagreed with on the Internet to be the height of intolerance
I call it intolerance when people cannot differentiate between the idea, the argument, and the person. I can deal with it just fine. But I will call it as I see it.
Since I just learned that this conversation is not an honest exchange of ideas, but more of a monologue due to your personal crusade to fight people that think different than you ("I don't have the luxury of allowing any of you to persist in your delusion unchallenged"), then I am not interest and I stand up from the table. I hope (I would say that I will pray, but I don;t want to offend you) that eventually you will come to peace with people that feels/think differently. Good bye.
You seem to think that I was born an atheist and never changed, but that's not the truth. There was a time when I thought I was talking to God, too. But I wasn't. There's no God to talk to; never has been. I was talking to myself, just as you're talking to yourself
Who or what hurt you and God fail to protect you from? Because this is the whole reason for your position.
Way to go. You tried to be hip and you're still an idiot. I didn't understand this one, but since it sounds offensive I am going to choose to ignore it.
No one's ever claimed a crotch was responsible for all things in heaven and Earth. Neither did I, it was just an example of a phenomena that scientific method just does not apply. But there has been famous people that do claim that sex is the driver of everything... read Sigmund Froid.
I doubt your God appreciates the comparison. I think He is laughing at it, He knows what I was trying to say. Do you know Him enough to know that He is not appreciating it?
It offends me to hear the condescending, faux-humble give-peace-a-chance routine from a guy who can't even play "when in Rome" on a tech news forum. LOL!!!, so you want that opinions posted here have to be under a frame of reasoning that must be acceptable by you... let me think about it... Nope... wait... (thinking more)... Nope. The purpose of a place like this is so different opinions get expressed with in a context of mutual respect. If you want to play "When in Rome" fine with me. But I don;t see how is something that can be expected from everybody else.
BTW: "When in Rome do as Romans do" is a funny phrase since in old Rome there was always a lot of discussion and arguments interchange, thus technically I am doing what was done in Rome... Unless this post gets modded down (oops!).
I'm glad to see that sociology and psychology aren't science.
[Sarcasm] They are called "inexact" sciences... wonder why?[/Sarcasm]
To answer to your whole posting I would have to copy it in full. Which is pointless. But the reasoning is based on 2 mayor false premises that are easy to accept because they are what we humans will do if we were in His place.
1.- The objective of good is to oppose bad. Wrong. The objective of good is to do good on its own, and to accept the conversion of bad into good. The objective of bad is to confront good so it cannot be converted, the funny thing is that the good that actively pushes for the conversion is not good, is is just one of the arguments of bad (hence why God is not actively showing off). The belief that there is a battle of God vs. Evil, serves the Evil purpose, not God's purpose. If it does not serves God's purpose, then the God must be looking for something else. Or explained in a different way: In bad there is "us" and "them" and a confrontation in between, in good there is "us" and the "people like us" that will be welcome if they choose to be converted. Which is opposite to confronting and destroy evil. I am personally in the middle. I think the confrontation is plain stupid, and I don't intend to convert anyone because that is not my choice. Who is living in a lie now?
2.- God has the power to give me all that I ask for because His supernatural powers, I have been asking and I haven't receive, then He must not exists and/or I am not interested. I believe that God is not a supermarket, neither a spoiling dad. If you believe that the very basis of religion is to appeal to the supernatural so we can control the natural, then a) you are confusing religion with church because that is the purpose of the church to gain more people, not the purpose of God; and b)That position is a very selfish one (I cannot say if you are a selfish person) and trying to get to know something or someone on the bases of its/his/her utility to me would be something that would shrink the world to a size that neglect other things that are empirically happening.
Out of all the other postings, this is the one that made me laugh the most.
Just because you don't understand relationships, doesn't mean that others don't.
Show me one single person.
They all seem to think they've got some sort of free will and aren't subject to the laws of physics
Surprise! People DOES have free will! We are given rules of a game that cannot be broken (the laws of physics), but the law of physics does not apply to the matters of the heart.
The other hard part of the model is the fact that you can't see what you can't understand.
Absolutely agree, but to begin to discover what you cannot see, so you have a chance to understand it; does require a few steps in the blind at the beginning.
people are blind to what they can't see in themselves. Sort of makes sense, don't it?
Agree, and it does makes sense. Trying to explain something to someone that is not prepared to see it is pointless. Try to explain to a second grader what an integral is... not happening, does that means that calculus must not exists? Nope. Try to explain feelings of Faith to someone that needs cold logic proof of its universe... not happening, not because they don't exists, but because people are blind to what they can't see in themselves
Then you've given away the game
No I haven't. Faith is believing in something yet to happen. But after you believe it, and understand what happened or not, then is not faith anymore. Faith is before the fact, but it is not required after the fact. I understand that for a mind that needs proof and previous experience this is a lot to grasp, but it is how it works, and is my own failure not being able to broken it down more. More earthy example: Christopher Columbus made observations that defy all logic of that time: Ships that sort of dissapear slowly in the horizon, but they came back instead of falling of the edge. So he goes in a scary and daring conclusion: Earth must rounded then. And he went in a Leap of Faith. Yes, he had an observation that gave him some bases to think different, but I don't think that he has the first person to look at this phenomena. And yet he comes not only to a different conclusion, but he goes ahead, sell it to the court and try it. Now religious faith is more complex, but for that first we need to crack the egg and realize that there is something on the other side to talk to. You can choose not to think that way and that is ok with me, for I have no right to pretend that I have the ultimate truth. I choose to do believe, because my personal experience show me so, and you have no right to tell me otherwise. The mere fact that you are trying to explain God with logic will not work. Have you ever fall in love for someone that does not love you back? was there any reasoning to it? There are things that cannot be explained with logic.
And I don't understand the people who can say "God is inherently unknowable; now, let me tell you all about Him."
We all do this all the time. Do you have friends? do you know them? Completely? Never. Humans are not knowledgeable in full. But we can now some things, and you can tell me those things about your friends, don't you? Same thing with God. Yes, He is inherently unknowable, but there are things that can be told about him.
So from what I can gather, what you call prayer, I call introspection Nope, they are different. I call prayer as a conversation with God, but sometimes (not always) with a delayed (hours, days, or more) answer. The point of faith is to be able to believe in something that has yet to be proven. Which is why science has an allergy to it. For science it needs to be not only proven, but also quantifiable. To me that is the way to study what God created. The subject of science is God creation, not God Himself. Because of this, science does not apply to faith, it complements it. Again, all my answers are in the context of what I believe, and I have no intention of convincing you of my belief. But don't pretend that you will convince me of yours, or that yours are the "right" ones. So I believe that God gave us a universe that is within our reach to understand (very generous of him toward us; in contrast with animals that do not share the same privilege), but that day nothing about God himself. Now, Introspection is something totally different. To me introspection is trying to figure out something all by yourself, thru reasoning or any other means. As such, is a relationship with the (thy?) self and it is internal in nature; as opposed to prayer that is a relationship with God, thus external in nature.
I've always had the feeling that Christianity is not about God at all, but about the followers. If I may comment on this... this concept comes out of mixing Church with God. And those are 2 totally separate concepts. A church is just an administrative means to establish a relationship with God, albeit not a strictly necessary one since a person can have a good relationship with God without belonging to a church. Now, a well balanced and nature (nature center as in the concepts explained by NCD (the brown book for the people familiar with that study)) center church can and will help you growing that relationship. In my very personal opinion, the catholic church is not one of them since it refuses to acknowledge the always changing needs of the people or any relationship with God that does not fall under their regulations. That is politics. And that is why I agree to this "God is merely a tool that is used for self control (and mass control too perhaps)"
But does prayer ever work under favourable circumstances Favorables to whom? Prayer works as a way to talk to God. The circumstances are according to your relationship with Him. And same example as with a girlfriend... if she feels that whatever you are doing to please her is an "experiment" then your chances to succeed went down the toilet (unless she is sick of low self esteem, which is not a sickness that the God that I believe in has)... with the added difficulty that God, by definition, knows what your real intentions are regardless if you express them or not.
Does it work under any circumstances at all? Not that I've heard of. That means that you need to change your circle of friends. Unless that you actually believe that the sample of people that you have talk to is representative enough to actually be statistically meaningful. I for once, know Him enough to say that it does work, but not how we expected to work (There, now you can say that you know at least 1).
Besides, what prayer and which god(s) are we talking about? Automatically assuming Christianity is a certain kind of arrogance that I'm not fond of. I can only talk about my self, I am Christian and I believe in only 1 God. But I agree about your arrogance point, hence I did not assume that it was what you believe, that is why I put this: "Same thing with prayer... can't go around just asking and complaining that it does not work, but ignoring a relationship with God (or whoever you worship)" (emphasis added in this posting). Read back my posting.
Neither prayer nor any other supernatural or religious belief has ever been observed to be efficacious (corrected the spelling for you)
This just does not makes sense.
Trying to apply science principles to religion, is like trying to apply science to relationships. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
The reason that people perceive that prayers does not work is they are treating prayer as a mechanism to obtain whatever they wanted, and since they don't get it, then the conclusion it is that it does not work. Try to treat your girlfriend like that... wait! this is/. chances are you don't have one.
But prayer need to start by recognizing that the other end is smart and has free will too. But what is more important, start by dropping the arrogant belief that if it works, it means that we can get whatever we are asking for.
Yes there is a lot of suffering in this world, but most of it is self inflicted. And by 'self' I mean we as humanity. We need to learn to get along between ourselves first. No help from above.
Sorry for going too high in theological arguments, but I hope that I stopped on time.
Actually, I'll put an example at the level of the/. crowd:
One of the basic for science say that the same experiment, repeated under the same circumstances must produce the same results. Predictability of the theory.
Theory: Woman get stimulated by massaging their crotch (I hope that you all have some experience that prove that it does works sometimes). Experiment... try to do it in the bus... Did it work? Rarely? can't talk right now because she is busy extracting your tonsils without anesthesia? Yup. The theory ignores something called "relationship". And if you tell me that the theory can be modified by adding as requirement that a good relationship must exists, and the mood, and the location, etc; then I can tell that you haven't been in a long enough relationship. If any.
Same thing with prayer... can't go around just asking and complaining that it does not work, but ignoring a relationship with God (or whoever you worship), or ignoring taking responsibility for fixing your own mess. Of course it will not work. But it is like claiming that the telephone does not work because the other side is not giving you the answers that you want to hear and in the way that you want to hear them.
Having a kid is the most environmentally irresponsible act a human can perform
Screw this personal choice bullcrap
Can you tell the bitter old guy who was just at Tony Roma's with his wife and had a young couple with a pair of noisy children seated right next to them in an otherwise empty restaurant?rm
Agree. Look at what your parents did: The had YOU!!!
Whom, I imagine, consult all of your personal choices with a sample of what society thinks of you, right?
And after that last quote... lets not talk about your childhood.
I guess plover was not spanked enough...
BTW: He was modded 4 - insightful... what was so insightful in the opinion of a bitter socipath???
Who needs meaningful filenames and directories when you have grep?
Actually, he has a point.
One of the best features, to my taste, of gmail is that I can quickly find an email with a specific content regardless of the subject. Same thing with files if they are full content indexed.
And that is the way that humans naturally work: "I know what I am looking for, I just don't know where I put it (nor I care where it was)". The folders and file names paradigm is an emulation of the paper archival model. Classes are tough on how to create a mantain one (bookeeping, library, secretaries).
You see, this "order" force us to keep to pieces of information in our head: What is it and where is it. And to use one to get the other.
Of course anyone can create a simple filing system, but it requires some level of self disipline to keep it.
If we will end up doing the processing in the client side anyways... isn't it better to use winforms?
And I know the flame about:
But is Microsoft, and what about the children... err sorry, linux. (ans. Use Mono, still not complete, but getting closer).
But any browser can show it, and the browser is already on the client. (ans. yes, but then you need to test for cross browser comp., and... oh yeah, 1 touch deployment)
But the people wants it on a browser. (ans. At least, in corporate world, no they don't. Is IT for the sake of its own simplicity that wants in on a browser, but the user don't care as long as it actually meets requirements. I have yet to hear a user saying "Thank God you put it on a web page!")
But the server has all the processing power, we rather upgrade the server than each station (ans. are you sure? yes, the server is much more powerful that the average client station, but at least in the US were I work, we are using dual core with 1GB of memory and 60GB on the clients, which is already an overkill for the average business program. Look at Excel, how bloated and fast it is in much smaller clients. Current client stations are good enough)
Seriously. Htm is a DOCUMENT and we are using one technology after another to hack it into an application, and we succeed in a lots of cases; but it is still a hack.
Yes I did. I presented my proof, the fact that you are choosing not to believe them does not change the fact that I already made my case. It is in you now the burden to prove me wrong either by presenting new evidence (I did present evidence) or by adding new facts that contradict my case (please notice that I said facts, not your personal set of beliefs on how the world should spin; if you believe that the EULA is not real, that is your problem). I do not have the burden to convince you, nor you have to convince me. Unless you can make your case on why you still think that you do have first sale rights there is no further discussion, not because I fail to convince you, but for your lack of counterarguments.
Doesn't count until a judge rules on it. The EULA shows up after sale and there's no credible way to return the product.
Sure, go ahead and sue ms for it. I'll sit and look from here. The fact remains that if you installed then implicitly you agree with the EULA, thus it becomes contractual in nature. From a purely conceptual point of view I agree with you, but from a practical point of view it is still what it is.
And I already proved my point by citing the EULA and pointing to the fact that by installing the product you agree to it (otherwise, don't install it). The point is not if ms is right on what they are doing, ms is saying: "We sell this product under this conditions, if you don't agree with the conditions, then don't buy the product. Furthermore, we do not produce a product under the conditions that you want." and regardless of the morality of the proposal they do have the right to sell their products with the conditions that they please. It might not be fair, but it is just.
About the terms of Buy or Upgrade... marketing can say whatever they want, but the fact remains that if you install the software then you are playing by the EULA. And the EULA becomes contractual by nature. Agree that it is a form of scam.
Actually I agree with what you say in your second paragraph.
Well... you are wrong. The license to the software (not to its distribution medium) says that you are virtually renting it. You are paying a fee for using it, but you do not own it. From the EULA:
3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.
The reason behind this is to prevent the first sale right defense (you bought it, you own it, you can do whatever you want with it) so it makes illegal to reverse engineering, and all the rest.
Conclusion: no, you do not have first sale doctrine rights.
btw, reading the eula on windows XP I found something I believe more disturbing:
2.1 Digital Rights Management.... A list of revoked DRM Software is sent to your computer whenever you download a license for Secure Content from the Internet. You therefore agree that Microsoft may, in conjunction with such license, also download revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of Secure Content Owners....
I know that this is done for DRM purposes, but it is phrased so wide open, that allows them to revoke software that I have in my computer under the excuse that they are protecting secure content, this can be easily abused.
You sound like a real expert in the matter. It almost makes me think that you are a member of one of those 200 wealthy families in Mexico.
Talking about illegal steps... we both are standing in a free country because 56 people got together to sign a document in 1776. A document so illegal that it cost them (and to their families) dearly. They didn't sign that document because they were looking for a job or in search of happiness (which the document declares as God given right; and if you believe in God or not is irrelevant compared to the fact that they believed, thus still counts as a mayor point towards freedom ). They signed because they felt that tax without representation was a problem, a much lower life threat than not being able to feed yourself or your family. The document is, and you should know by now: The Declaration of Independence.
Immigration is not intrinsically illegal. We made it illegal, thus is questionable. And the capacity of questioning the law is what keeps this country free.
Your opinion is based in a very angry heart. Are you really saying that anger should be the driving force for the most powerful nation in the world?
I always wonder... if the current immigration laws were in place when the mayflower arrived, where we all would be?. How many in the mayflower came married to an American citizen? How many came with an H1-B?
1. Somebody drop a [insert name of disposable diaper/feminine pad/paper towel/toilet paper brand] on it 2. Bruce almighty stop practicing with tomato soup and now it went for lakes for the sequel, or the water was needed for Evans Almighty. 3. The lake was only 30 years old... The lake overlords left it there while going on vacation, better welcome them 4. The builders in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy are not done with the planet!!! 5. Yo mama is so big that when she gets thirsty she drinks lakes 6. If you are Chilean: The Argentineans took it!!!!!
Actually for that base it was the "Pillan" which was kind of a Chilean version of the Cessna (sorry that the link is in Spanish, but it has some pictures and stats)
And to the other post, the one previous to this one... I understand that is hard to believe, you would have to live in Chile for a while to understand the cultural background... actually, the cultural attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... it turns out that eventually we might end up powering our cars with common cold... just kidding
"Because there's a smoking hole in Manhattan that testifies to the human cost of faith" I strongly disagree that 9/11 is consequence of faith. And I do think that it is obviously something that touched very closely and us such is only human to look for an explanation or someone to blame, hence here is the pain that you expected God to protect you from and He didn't. But at the end of the day, it was not an act of God, it was the men attacking another men.
it's my hope that I can educate you in some small way. Perhaps, you need to learn a thing or 2. It is arrogant to believe that you know the whole truth.
Historically the problem of toleration comes from your side Sides... did you try to read my previous answer? or you just try to look something to fight against? You are on my "side", you just don't know it yet.
the Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin All of them looking for confrontation. Again, did you even read my previous answer TRYING TO UNDERSTAND what I was saying? or just looking for something to rebuke?
Personally, I'd suggest you grow a thicker skin if you find being disagreed with on the Internet to be the height of intolerance I call it intolerance when people cannot differentiate between the idea, the argument, and the person. I can deal with it just fine. But I will call it as I see it.
Since I just learned that this conversation is not an honest exchange of ideas, but more of a monologue due to your personal crusade to fight people that think different than you ("I don't have the luxury of allowing any of you to persist in your delusion unchallenged"), then I am not interest and I stand up from the table. I hope (I would say that I will pray, but I don;t want to offend you) that eventually you will come to peace with people that feels/think differently. Good bye.
Then why you have the need to convince me? Because your argument became very personal, thus it is an emotional issue for you.
Then why is hard for you to tolerate people that is not atheist?
All these are honest questions in the sense that I really want to know.
Who or what hurt you and God fail to protect you from? Because this is the whole reason for your position.
Way to go. You tried to be hip and you're still an idiot. I didn't understand this one, but since it sounds offensive I am going to choose to ignore it.
No one's ever claimed a crotch was responsible for all things in heaven and Earth. Neither did I, it was just an example of a phenomena that scientific method just does not apply. But there has been famous people that do claim that sex is the driver of everything... read Sigmund Froid.
I doubt your God appreciates the comparison. I think He is laughing at it, He knows what I was trying to say. Do you know Him enough to know that He is not appreciating it?
It offends me to hear the condescending, faux-humble give-peace-a-chance routine from a guy who can't even play "when in Rome" on a tech news forum. LOL!!!, so you want that opinions posted here have to be under a frame of reasoning that must be acceptable by you... let me think about it... Nope... wait... (thinking more)... Nope. The purpose of a place like this is so different opinions get expressed with in a context of mutual respect. If you want to play "When in Rome" fine with me. But I don;t see how is something that can be expected from everybody else.
BTW: "When in Rome do as Romans do" is a funny phrase since in old Rome there was always a lot of discussion and arguments interchange, thus technically I am doing what was done in Rome... Unless this post gets modded down (oops!).
I'm glad to see that sociology and psychology aren't science. [Sarcasm] They are called "inexact" sciences... wonder why?[/Sarcasm]
To answer to your whole posting I would have to copy it in full. Which is pointless. But the reasoning is based on 2 mayor false premises that are easy to accept because they are what we humans will do if we were in His place.
1.- The objective of good is to oppose bad. Wrong. The objective of good is to do good on its own, and to accept the conversion of bad into good. The objective of bad is to confront good so it cannot be converted, the funny thing is that the good that actively pushes for the conversion is not good, is is just one of the arguments of bad (hence why God is not actively showing off). The belief that there is a battle of God vs. Evil, serves the Evil purpose, not God's purpose. If it does not serves God's purpose, then the God must be looking for something else. Or explained in a different way: In bad there is "us" and "them" and a confrontation in between, in good there is "us" and the "people like us" that will be welcome if they choose to be converted. Which is opposite to confronting and destroy evil. I am personally in the middle. I think the confrontation is plain stupid, and I don't intend to convert anyone because that is not my choice. Who is living in a lie now?
2.- God has the power to give me all that I ask for because His supernatural powers, I have been asking and I haven't receive, then He must not exists and/or I am not interested. I believe that God is not a supermarket, neither a spoiling dad. If you believe that the very basis of religion is to appeal to the supernatural so we can control the natural, then a) you are confusing religion with church because that is the purpose of the church to gain more people, not the purpose of God; and b)That position is a very selfish one (I cannot say if you are a selfish person) and trying to get to know something or someone on the bases of its/his/her utility to me would be something that would shrink the world to a size that neglect other things that are empirically happening.
Out of all the other postings, this is the one that made me laugh the most.
Just because you don't understand relationships, doesn't mean that others don't. Show me one single person.
They all seem to think they've got some sort of free will and aren't subject to the laws of physics Surprise! People DOES have free will! We are given rules of a game that cannot be broken (the laws of physics), but the law of physics does not apply to the matters of the heart.
The other hard part of the model is the fact that you can't see what you can't understand. Absolutely agree, but to begin to discover what you cannot see, so you have a chance to understand it; does require a few steps in the blind at the beginning.
people are blind to what they can't see in themselves. Sort of makes sense, don't it? Agree, and it does makes sense. Trying to explain something to someone that is not prepared to see it is pointless. Try to explain to a second grader what an integral is... not happening, does that means that calculus must not exists? Nope. Try to explain feelings of Faith to someone that needs cold logic proof of its universe... not happening, not because they don't exists, but because people are blind to what they can't see in themselves
Then you've given away the game No I haven't. Faith is believing in something yet to happen. But after you believe it, and understand what happened or not, then is not faith anymore. Faith is before the fact, but it is not required after the fact. I understand that for a mind that needs proof and previous experience this is a lot to grasp, but it is how it works, and is my own failure not being able to broken it down more. More earthy example: Christopher Columbus made observations that defy all logic of that time: Ships that sort of dissapear slowly in the horizon, but they came back instead of falling of the edge. So he goes in a scary and daring conclusion: Earth must rounded then. And he went in a Leap of Faith. Yes, he had an observation that gave him some bases to think different, but I don't think that he has the first person to look at this phenomena. And yet he comes not only to a different conclusion, but he goes ahead, sell it to the court and try it. Now religious faith is more complex, but for that first we need to crack the egg and realize that there is something on the other side to talk to. You can choose not to think that way and that is ok with me, for I have no right to pretend that I have the ultimate truth. I choose to do believe, because my personal experience show me so, and you have no right to tell me otherwise. The mere fact that you are trying to explain God with logic will not work. Have you ever fall in love for someone that does not love you back? was there any reasoning to it? There are things that cannot be explained with logic.
And I don't understand the people who can say "God is inherently unknowable; now, let me tell you all about Him." We all do this all the time. Do you have friends? do you know them? Completely? Never. Humans are not knowledgeable in full. But we can now some things, and you can tell me those things about your friends, don't you? Same thing with God. Yes, He is inherently unknowable, but there are things that can be told about him.
Nope, they are different. I call prayer as a conversation with God, but sometimes (not always) with a delayed (hours, days, or more) answer. The point of faith is to be able to believe in something that has yet to be proven. Which is why science has an allergy to it. For science it needs to be not only proven, but also quantifiable. To me that is the way to study what God created. The subject of science is God creation, not God Himself. Because of this, science does not apply to faith, it complements it. Again, all my answers are in the context of what I believe, and I have no intention of convincing you of my belief. But don't pretend that you will convince me of yours, or that yours are the "right" ones. So I believe that God gave us a universe that is within our reach to understand (very generous of him toward us; in contrast with animals that do not share the same privilege), but that day nothing about God himself.
Now, Introspection is something totally different. To me introspection is trying to figure out something all by yourself, thru reasoning or any other means. As such, is a relationship with the (thy?) self and it is internal in nature; as opposed to prayer that is a relationship with God, thus external in nature.
I've always had the feeling that Christianity is not about God at all, but about the followers.
If I may comment on this... this concept comes out of mixing Church with God. And those are 2 totally separate concepts. A church is just an administrative means to establish a relationship with God, albeit not a strictly necessary one since a person can have a good relationship with God without belonging to a church. Now, a well balanced and nature (nature center as in the concepts explained by NCD (the brown book for the people familiar with that study)) center church can and will help you growing that relationship. In my very personal opinion, the catholic church is not one of them since it refuses to acknowledge the always changing needs of the people or any relationship with God that does not fall under their regulations. That is politics. And that is why I agree to this "God is merely a tool that is used for self control (and mass control too perhaps)"
Favorables to whom? Prayer works as a way to talk to God. The circumstances are according to your relationship with Him. And same example as with a girlfriend... if she feels that whatever you are doing to please her is an "experiment" then your chances to succeed went down the toilet (unless she is sick of low self esteem, which is not a sickness that the God that I believe in has)... with the added difficulty that God, by definition, knows what your real intentions are regardless if you express them or not.
Does it work under any circumstances at all? Not that I've heard of.
That means that you need to change your circle of friends. Unless that you actually believe that the sample of people that you have talk to is representative enough to actually be statistically meaningful. I for once, know Him enough to say that it does work, but not how we expected to work (There, now you can say that you know at least 1).
Besides, what prayer and which god(s) are we talking about? Automatically assuming Christianity is a certain kind of arrogance that I'm not fond of.
I can only talk about my self, I am Christian and I believe in only 1 God. But I agree about your arrogance point, hence I did not assume that it was what you believe, that is why I put this: "Same thing with prayer... can't go around just asking and complaining that it does not work, but ignoring a relationship with God (or whoever you worship)" (emphasis added in this posting). Read back my posting.
See: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=482032&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&no_d2=1&pid=22701830#22703474 Right above.
This just does not makes sense.
Trying to apply science principles to religion, is like trying to apply science to relationships. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
The reason that people perceive that prayers does not work is they are treating prayer as a mechanism to obtain whatever they wanted, and since they don't get it, then the conclusion it is that it does not work. Try to treat your girlfriend like that... wait! this is /. chances are you don't have one.
But prayer need to start by recognizing that the other end is smart and has free will too. But what is more important, start by dropping the arrogant belief that if it works, it means that we can get whatever we are asking for.
Yes there is a lot of suffering in this world, but most of it is self inflicted. And by 'self' I mean we as humanity. We need to learn to get along between ourselves first. No help from above.
Sorry for going too high in theological arguments, but I hope that I stopped on time.
Actually, I'll put an example at the level of the /. crowd:
One of the basic for science say that the same experiment, repeated under the same circumstances must produce the same results. Predictability of the theory.
Theory: Woman get stimulated by massaging their crotch (I hope that you all have some experience that prove that it does works sometimes). Experiment... try to do it in the bus... Did it work? Rarely? can't talk right now because she is busy extracting your tonsils without anesthesia? Yup. The theory ignores something called "relationship". And if you tell me that the theory can be modified by adding as requirement that a good relationship must exists, and the mood, and the location, etc; then I can tell that you haven't been in a long enough relationship. If any.
Same thing with prayer... can't go around just asking and complaining that it does not work, but ignoring a relationship with God (or whoever you worship), or ignoring taking responsibility for fixing your own mess. Of course it will not work. But it is like claiming that the telephone does not work because the other side is not giving you the answers that you want to hear and in the way that you want to hear them.
Having a kid is the most environmentally irresponsible act a human can perform
Screw this personal choice bullcrap
Can you tell the bitter old guy who was just at Tony Roma's with his wife and had a young couple with a pair of noisy children seated right next to them in an otherwise empty restaurant?rm
Agree. Look at what your parents did: The had YOU!!!
Whom, I imagine, consult all of your personal choices with a sample of what society thinks of you, right?
And after that last quote... lets not talk about your childhood.
I guess plover was not spanked enough...
BTW: He was modded 4 - insightful... what was so insightful in the opinion of a bitter socipath???
Who needs meaningful filenames and directories when you have grep?
Actually, he has a point.
One of the best features, to my taste, of gmail is that I can quickly find an email with a specific content regardless of the subject. Same thing with files if they are full content indexed.
And that is the way that humans naturally work: "I know what I am looking for, I just don't know where I put it (nor I care where it was)". The folders and file names paradigm is an emulation of the paper archival model. Classes are tough on how to create a mantain one (bookeeping, library, secretaries).
You see, this "order" force us to keep to pieces of information in our head: What is it and where is it. And to use one to get the other.
Of course anyone can create a simple filing system, but it requires some level of self disipline to keep it.
And is not intuitive.
I know what I want... just fetch it!
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm
I did find other more disturbing than the article:
Let's take money from NASA, we need more control of the people: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00367
The children! the children!... we don't need stinking advance technology, the country is outsourcing anyway:http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00366
If we will end up doing the processing in the client side anyways... isn't it better to use winforms?
And I know the flame about:
But is Microsoft, and what about the children... err sorry, linux. (ans. Use Mono, still not complete, but getting closer).
But any browser can show it, and the browser is already on the client. (ans. yes, but then you need to test for cross browser comp., and... oh yeah, 1 touch deployment)
But the people wants it on a browser. (ans. At least, in corporate world, no they don't. Is IT for the sake of its own simplicity that wants in on a browser, but the user don't care as long as it actually meets requirements. I have yet to hear a user saying "Thank God you put it on a web page!")
But the server has all the processing power, we rather upgrade the server than each station (ans. are you sure? yes, the server is much more powerful that the average client station, but at least in the US were I work, we are using dual core with 1GB of memory and 60GB on the clients, which is already an overkill for the average business program. Look at Excel, how bloated and fast it is in much smaller clients. Current client stations are good enough)
Seriously. Htm is a DOCUMENT and we are using one technology after another to hack it into an application, and we succeed in a lots of cases; but it is still a hack.
Sex Overlord!!!
If they are female and without leather clothes, I will welcome them!!! seriously!!!
Yes I did. I presented my proof, the fact that you are choosing not to believe them does not change the fact that I already made my case. It is in you now the burden to prove me wrong either by presenting new evidence (I did present evidence) or by adding new facts that contradict my case (please notice that I said facts, not your personal set of beliefs on how the world should spin; if you believe that the EULA is not real, that is your problem). I do not have the burden to convince you, nor you have to convince me. Unless you can make your case on why you still think that you do have first sale rights there is no further discussion, not because I fail to convince you, but for your lack of counterarguments.
Doesn't count until a judge rules on it. The EULA shows up after sale and there's no credible way to return the product.
Sure, go ahead and sue ms for it. I'll sit and look from here. The fact remains that if you installed then implicitly you agree with the EULA, thus it becomes contractual in nature. From a purely conceptual point of view I agree with you, but from a practical point of view it is still what it is.
And I already proved my point by citing the EULA and pointing to the fact that by installing the product you agree to it (otherwise, don't install it). The point is not if ms is right on what they are doing, ms is saying: "We sell this product under this conditions, if you don't agree with the conditions, then don't buy the product. Furthermore, we do not produce a product under the conditions that you want." and regardless of the morality of the proposal they do have the right to sell their products with the conditions that they please. It might not be fair, but it is just.
About the terms of Buy or Upgrade... marketing can say whatever they want, but the fact remains that if you install the software then you are playing by the EULA. And the EULA becomes contractual by nature. Agree that it is a form of scam.
Actually I agree with what you say in your second paragraph.
Well... you are wrong. The license to the software (not to its distribution medium) says that you are virtually renting it. You are paying a fee for using it, but you do not own it. From the EULA:
3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.
The reason behind this is to prevent the first sale right defense (you bought it, you own it, you can do whatever you want with it) so it makes illegal to reverse engineering, and all the rest.
Conclusion: no, you do not have first sale doctrine rights.
btw, reading the eula on windows XP I found something I believe more disturbing: 2.1 Digital Rights Management.... A list of revoked DRM Software is sent to your computer whenever you download a license for Secure Content from the Internet. You therefore agree that Microsoft may, in conjunction with such license, also download revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of Secure Content Owners. ...
I know that this is done for DRM purposes, but it is phrased so wide open, that allows them to revoke software that I have in my computer under the excuse that they are protecting secure content, this can be easily abused.
"The question is: would it even work? Or would those contractors get big bucks for possibly the dumbest idea in history?"
Nope, this is the dumbest idea that they come up with:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4107333a4560.html/
The idea is plain stupid, but looks like not more than the people that actually pass it
WOW!!!
You sound like a real expert in the matter. It almost makes me think that you are a member of one of those 200 wealthy families in Mexico.
Talking about illegal steps... we both are standing in a free country because 56 people got together to sign a document in 1776. A document so illegal that it cost them (and to their families) dearly. They didn't sign that document because they were looking for a job or in search of happiness (which the document declares as God given right; and if you believe in God or not is irrelevant compared to the fact that they believed, thus still counts as a mayor point towards freedom ). They signed because they felt that tax without representation was a problem, a much lower life threat than not being able to feed yourself or your family. The document is, and you should know by now: The Declaration of Independence.
Immigration is not intrinsically illegal. We made it illegal, thus is questionable. And the capacity of questioning the law is what keeps this country free.
Your opinion is based in a very angry heart. Are you really saying that anger should be the driving force for the most powerful nation in the world?
I always wonder... if the current immigration laws were in place when the mayflower arrived, where we all would be?. How many in the mayflower came married to an American citizen? How many came with an H1-B?
6 possible explanations:
1. Somebody drop a [insert name of disposable diaper/feminine pad/paper towel/toilet paper brand] on it
2. Bruce almighty stop practicing with tomato soup and now it went for lakes for the sequel, or the water was needed for Evans Almighty.
3. The lake was only 30 years old... The lake overlords left it there while going on vacation, better welcome them
4. The builders in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy are not done with the planet!!!
5. Yo mama is so big that when she gets thirsty she drinks lakes
6. If you are Chilean: The Argentineans took it!!!!!
Actually for that base it was the "Pillan" which was kind of a Chilean version of the Cessna (sorry that the link is in Spanish, but it has some pictures and stats)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35_Pill%C3%A1n
And to the other post, the one previous to this one... I understand that is hard to believe, you would have to live in Chile for a while to understand the cultural background... actually, the cultural attitude.