If a voice in your head told you to kill your own child, would you do it? Let's say at the last minute, the voice says "just joking!", but you were *really* gonna do it. Am I supposed to think you did a morally righteous thing by fully intending to kill your own child to prove your loyalty to someone?
Why not? After all, that same voice followed through with his own son some 2K years later.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?" * God doesn't prevent "evil" for the same reason you allow you child to fall sometimes. Kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk.
Methinks you either fail to grasp the meaning of "evil" or intentionally misconstrue it.
Let me give you an example in two parts.
Assume you have two kids, a 5 year old daughter and a newborn son. Your daughter gets jealous of all the attention that her baby brother gets, so she takes a knitting needle and attempts to stab him in the face.
Question for part 1: will you stop her or will you let her poke your son's eye out because you believe that "kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk"?
But wait, that's not truly "evil" yet, so let's adjust the setting a little.
Assume that the daughter is not 5 but 25. She is fully aware of the consequences of her actions and her motivation in trying to blind (or kill) her brother is not a juvenile spur-of-the-moment, jealousy-induced rage but something that was thought through to some extent.
Question for part 2: Will you stop her now?
Apparently, this construct which you refer to as "God" does not prevent infanticide. It also does not prevent wars, genocides and other massacres, or, come tho think of it, natural disasters.
Home assignment for part 3: read this, this and this, then correct your post to make it look less idiotic. In particular, consider your assertion that
"Evil" is unfortunately a prerequisite for learning. One of the most important things to learn in this life is that many things a child sees as "evil" are in fact "good"
Provincial elections are about a week away. If you really want to ensure that politicians listen to the electorate, send a clear message to the PC party by voting AGAINST them.
Otherwise, stop complaining.
(Yes, I know the difference between the provincial and federal governments, but it's still the same parties with the same people effectively calling the shots.)
The Board of Directors decide the payment/severance packages in most US corporations. You would be right if the CEO and Director of the Board are the same person, which does happen.
Red, you've been on/. for, what, 2.5 years and still haven't figured out that the purpose of the site is to generate discussion?
For example, while I could not care less about the submitter's thesis, not to mention the copyright terms it is released under, I appreciated reading this comment.
So lay down your flamethrower and either contribute something valuable to the topic or move on to whatever holds your interest.
The MafiAA, as some like to call it, simply stands between the geek and his free movie fix and the ego boost that comes with sharing files with 15,000 of your closest friends on the P2P nets.
You are, of course, completely right. It has nothing to do with people getting sick of being locked out of their culture. The fact that we can't sing "Happy Birthday" when we celebrate our children's birthdays in a public place is completely coincidental.
False dichotomy alert. Lets stop going after shoplifters, hackers, and wife beaters, until we've taken care of the mafia, drug lords, and crazy dictators with nukes.
It's a question of optimally allocating scarce resources. Let the feds deal take care of the "mafia, drug lords, and crazy dictators with nukes" and leave the "shoplifters, hackers, and wife beaters" to local law enforcement.
It's easier to go after the kiddies than to address the real threats, such as the Russian mafia or whoever is doing the stuff from China.
I suspect that "the kiddies" lack the resources that "the Russian mafia" et al have, and therefore are unable to offer law enforcement the same incentives to look the other way.
Intelligent design has nothing to do with it. Your assertion is that we don't have capabilities like this because we haven't needed them enough yet? Isn't it possible that such things (like being able to go without oxygen for a long time) would involve too significant a cost for the rare cases it would be needed and therefore is not worth the tradeoff?
The assertion is that we don't have such capabilities either because mutations to that effect did not randomly happen (oxygen-less survival) or because they did not have a significant positive effect on our ability to reproduce (perfect memory).
Pokerstars, the other company hit by the "Black Friday" indictment, was able to reach an agreement with the US government that allowed them to refund all the US players' money.
They were able to do that because they are holding players' funds in separate accounts.
I was having a discussion with my daughter (an artist) the other day about protecting her work, and much of what we discussed applies to this technology--when you get right down to it, the moment you convert any product into a digital format, and expose it to the internet in any way, you lose a great deal of control of that creation, if not all.
I had lots of discussions with my relatives (all medical doctors who saved many lives and/or improved the quality of life for many others) about their work. Interestingly, none of them was concerned about protecting their work or losing control of it.
Sure you have free speech, but you also have a right to protection from attacks upon your honour and reputation.
If I repeatedly post that you are a craven traitor, that would be an attack on your honour. If I repeatedly post that you rape baby seals, that would be an attack on your reputation. If I call you a fucking moron who quotes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without having a clue what the text means, that would be neither.
And if you choose to use your free speech to express hate for innocent people, I sincerely hope any judge will hold the right for protection against such attacks higher than your right to express your hate.
The fucking law of the land decides, you utter moron.
They didn't just make up a law on he spot to convict this cuntbag troll, you know. He broke a real law, and yes, here in the socialist UK we don't have the right to do things like disrupt militay funerals by shouting abuse at the dead soldier's relatives. Sorry.
The law of the land is vague enough for you to serve six months in prison (if you get an unsympathetic judge on an off day) for posting your reply. Don't have a problem with that?
Slashdot Mirror
Still, Tomato supports a very limited number of 802.11n routers, particularly the simultaneous dual band ones.
Tomato supports a very limited number of 802.11n routers, particularly the simultaneous dual band ones.
If a voice in your head told you to kill your own child, would you do it? Let's say at the last minute, the voice says "just joking!", but you were *really* gonna do it. Am I supposed to think you did a morally righteous thing by fully intending to kill your own child to prove your loyalty to someone?
Why not? After all, that same voice followed through with his own son some 2K years later.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
* God doesn't prevent "evil" for the same reason you allow you child to fall sometimes. Kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk.
Methinks you either fail to grasp the meaning of "evil" or intentionally misconstrue it.
Let me give you an example in two parts.
Assume you have two kids, a 5 year old daughter and a newborn son.
Your daughter gets jealous of all the attention that her baby brother gets, so she takes a knitting needle and attempts to stab him in the face.
Question for part 1: will you stop her or will you let her poke your son's eye out because you believe that "kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk"?
But wait, that's not truly "evil" yet, so let's adjust the setting a little.
Assume that the daughter is not 5 but 25. She is fully aware of the consequences of her actions and her motivation in trying to blind (or kill) her brother is not a juvenile spur-of-the-moment, jealousy-induced rage but something that was thought through to some extent.
Question for part 2: Will you stop her now?
Apparently, this construct which you refer to as "God" does not prevent infanticide. It also does not prevent wars, genocides and other massacres, or, come tho think of it, natural disasters.
Home assignment for part 3: read this, this and this, then correct your post to make it look less idiotic. In particular, consider your assertion that
"Evil" is unfortunately a prerequisite for learning. One of the most important things to learn in this life is that many things a child sees as "evil" are in fact "good"
in light of the aforementioned links.
Provincial elections are about a week away.
If you really want to ensure that politicians listen to the electorate, send a clear message to the PC party by voting AGAINST them.
Otherwise, stop complaining.
(Yes, I know the difference between the provincial and federal governments, but it's still the same parties with the same people effectively calling the shots.)
CEOs sit on each others' boards.
Red, you've been on /. for, what, 2.5 years and still haven't figured out that the purpose of the site is to generate discussion?
For example, while I could not care less about the submitter's thesis, not to mention the copyright terms it is released under, I appreciated reading this comment.
So lay down your flamethrower and either contribute something valuable to the topic or move on to whatever holds your interest.
No, they don't. whois is your friend.
You are, of course, completely right. It has nothing to do with people getting sick of being locked out of their culture. The fact that we can't sing "Happy Birthday" when we celebrate our children's birthdays in a public place is completely coincidental.
And two Wrights make an airplane.
It's a question of optimally allocating scarce resources. Let the feds deal take care of the "mafia, drug lords, and crazy dictators with nukes" and leave the "shoplifters, hackers, and wife beaters" to local law enforcement.
I suspect that "the kiddies" lack the resources that "the Russian mafia" et al have, and therefore are unable to offer law enforcement the same incentives to look the other way.
Sturgeon's law applies.
The assertion is that we don't have such capabilities either because mutations to that effect did not randomly happen (oxygen-less survival) or because they did not have a significant positive effect on our ability to reproduce (perfect memory).
Hello FF dev,
Please stop trying to change the paradigm and go fix some bugs.
Sincerely,
An ex FF user.
Pokerstars, the other company hit by the "Black Friday" indictment, was able to reach an agreement with the US government that allowed them to refund all the US players' money.
They were able to do that because they are holding players' funds in separate accounts.
I had lots of discussions with my relatives (all medical doctors who saved many lives and/or improved the quality of life for many others) about their work. Interestingly, none of them was concerned about protecting their work or losing control of it.
OK, let's "conpare" [sic].
InternetExplorer vs. Mozilla - IE is a product, Mozilla is a corporation. Not "conparable".
PaintShopPro vs. Gnu Image Manipulation Program. The open source product name is more descriptive.
MediaPlayer vs. VideoLAN Client. I'd call it a tie.
Do you agree that, for many people who are wrongly accused, it is cheaper to settle or plea than to fight and win?
And if you do, how will you suggest to fix the system?
I'll take the one made by Amstel.
Personally, I found the 6809 more compelling at the time.
What about phones with physical (slider) keyboards?
Some of them are not much thicker than the keyboardless ones.
If I repeatedly post that you are a craven traitor, that would be an attack on your honour.
If I repeatedly post that you rape baby seals, that would be an attack on your reputation.
If I call you a fucking moron who quotes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without having a clue what the text means, that would be neither.
See above.
The law of the land is vague enough for you to serve six months in prison (if you get an unsympathetic judge on an off day) for posting your reply. Don't have a problem with that?
The Canadian Human Rights Commission?