expected a better answer, but putting aside a very funny comparison between an external force hitting you and an internal process which actually people have control of, but as you say.
and of course, i meant translation in context of sentences, and the cultural and religious meaning of what it means, that god changes hearts and stuff. That might be a babylonian problem there in communication, since I am not english native.
> Shame an omniscient and omnipotent being such as him never saw that coming. Don’t you think?
just because i would know you want to eat waffels tomorrow morning does not mean, its not you who decides that. If god exists, as I believe him to be, you exist. if god does not exist, either you exist as a soul or are at least the prism of your initial variables resulting in the mechanics you work upon - which basicly means that existence can be even an illusion - to whom?. Maybe life can be explained. Maybe we cannot however break time, and therefore we never can explain the process of our life and the feeling of presence in the world without destroying the experiment. I think I did that quite for some years. You just loose the thing you try to understand. You cant stop your life.
for me however the real interesting question is, if god exists, why on earth would i bother if he is not love?
But love only works in relationships. It is a fact of life we can only witness, accept and give. But not analyze nor understand. Nor enforce. Because relationships do not work that way.
Or: I am wrong, and relationships do not work and are just random, or are an illusion, too. In that case, I love the Illusion.
Just to be clear, I only answer this long this time, if you dont read it TL;DR: just ignore it.
> So if slavery and rape are part of your "cultural" law, Christians just have to be cool with that. No. But just because you are christian, it does not mean you are right. It means, you can do it differently where you have the power to. And Christians did stand up. Just look at your history books, which figures acted as prophets against such things.
> And who came up with the slave trading "laws" in the first instance? Your God. Slavery in jewish culture was regulated by religious law, yes. But you act, as if god has written the bible personally to create the Israelite Religion. he didnt. They wrote it in the process. Jews knew slavery from egypt. So god did not come up with slavery. Mankind did. Dont forget, Torah is written in babylon, most likely to summarize other books until then (since other books like Job might even be older than Abraham) In Jewish culture, you could sell yourself as slave if in dept for a limited time. So it is more comparable to a job contract. They also made laws for divorce, which Jesus strictly condemned. I think, if you wanted to get jesus emotional, you only had to debate about laws with him. The law was given to Israel to show, that mankind is on a dangerous path. After law was there they were even more brutal than any other folk in some cases and even felt right. thats what paul means with "the law brings sin". The only law directly from god in the old testament are the eleven commandments mentioned two times in the Torah.
> Before he apparently changed his mind and made the previously moral, immoral. I don't think gods morale is changing. Does your morale change, if you allow your kids something you dont agree with, because they really want it that way? No. Sometimes they have to find out for themselves. God made his morale clear, after they f***d up. I dunno really, but reading the history of the Israelites, its not really true what they say, that history is just written by the winners, you know...
> Keeping slaves is evil and always has been yes. it is clear to you. it is clear to me. Still slavery booms in the modern world, it just changes its name all the time. We call it human trafficking. We call it exploitation of other countries. We call it bad marriages.
> Luke 12:47-48 - Keeping slaves is evil and always has been. but it is. and it starts with 45, telling about somebody who beats his slaves, who in return earns beating in the end. So it actually displays, that no master will like a servant who acts as master himself and beats his other servants. Now what exactly does that tell us about beating slaves? Do you think it is right to bring children into custody if their father beats em up regularly or is it up to him? Evil is in humanity, no matter if god exists. See Kant. If evil is there, so is guilt.
Gods solution for a christian is albeit a bit shocking. He asks us to forgive others, like he has forgiven us. Because in fact, God does NOT want judgement over us, otherwise Christianity would make no sense. But WE want it, because we know it is unfair to let evil be unpunished. Because we know right from wrong.
Btw. I always thought, that adam would have gotten to eat the forbidden fruit later on, if he was adult enough. But in the end, adam only represents any human no matter if male or female and the birth of distrust to god by wanting to becoming like him on our own. Whatever that means.
> St Paul, the feminist, you're joking right? First off, taking a paul letter and quoting from it is dangerous - paul cant be quoted easily. His letters are quite like spirals reiterating different kinds of conceptions - because he tries to get all of his audience to listen - and bringing it through argumentation to the final things he always writes, where he gets quite poetic. Greeks must have loved him. Paul was no feminist. Paul was no revolter against slavery. Paul was an apostle, not a
>>It's not my problem if they're wrong. =) >Exactly. They're "wrong" because YOU already "know" what is "right". >And if they don't agree with you...
i think he is right too. so does the majority of people i know in my church (baptist, very small in europe). and most of the churches i knew and visited before - from many different denominations (catholics, evangelics, evangelistics, mennonites, charismatics, jesusfreaks,...).
coz actually its pretty much jesus words, and they are kinda in the highest regard for a christian.
talking about myself however, I only realized this half way through. And I think many of my brothers and sisters have the same experience. Getting to know god is something everybody has to decide for themselves.
> And yet around 50% of the US population thinks that "intelligent design" should be taught in schools along with evolution. maybe 50% of the US population thinks, we should be scientific here and keep both models and let people decide about what is right and what is wrong there. of course, radical sunday school education to say something different is the way to go, thats how the fundies will learn that the big quarrel between genesis 1 and genesis 2 is reflected in science in the last 100 years, yes?
> It's not the "fundies" who are the problem. > It's anyone who believes that his personal religion is "right" and that others are "wrong".
I dont know why you should be right here. Every person develops a personal religion. No matter if he wants to or not. So do you. And you speak for it. And for us christians, yes, the fundies ARE the problem. because many of us have no problem with any of this.
So just lets think we are all right, and silently keep in our hearts, that every one else is wrong, even god. Worked for adam, didnt it.
oh, i just read your first sentence and only answered to that. the rest, about being fundamental and stuff... yeah... good you quit that.
fundamentalism is often an excuse for being self-righteous by citing the bible as a weapon of being right about things.
its like citing a letter of your wife who explains you all the struggle in your common life to the conclusion that she still loves you to explain, that it is written, that she would say this and that in this situation; if you really love your wife, you would even know what she would say without her being there.
without the relationship to the living god, christianity is the dumbest thing ever. believing in not to take revenge, treating others as equally loved and wanted by god, and believing all things will still lead to something better even it looks very grimm, just because that guy died on a cross - like paul writes, all this is complete nonsense without him being real.
paul is the best treatment for fundamentalism. its the books fundamentalists only like to cite in questions of church order, but seldom read completely, because actually paul is absolutely non-fundamentlistic. he did not even know jesus in flesh and blood.
concentrating on peter was the stupidest thing a roman imperial church could do (but indeed very roman). until the (christian!!!) goths conquered them and theyr nobles even invented the "interchristian" police, which again went horribly wrong over history.
if you ever want to have some nice arguments against fundamentalists, i propose you revisit paul for yourself. be surprised.
see jesus on taxes. see paul on slaves and women and laws in general.
christianity already was born in a patriarchic society, with slaves and laws. christianity should not be used as an excuse to rebell against your cultural laws. something paul hammered in his letters, but also he said that in church all are equal.
now how jesus treats women and reminds rabbies that god created both as equal and only our hardened hearts made him make laws about treating them like property (which you can throw away as it does not please you anymore), and how jesus treats slaves, and how jesus answers to "give caesar what is his, give god what is his" (that would be temple coins, too, in that context), is what should lead christianity. since christianity is person cult about jesus, who is believed to be god.
so there we have our morality, and our laws. morality should be lead by a living relationship to god, which is said to be possible, while laws are cultural and were slowly abandoned upon general realisation of them being wrong.
now that the relationship-part escapes us, since we think of christianity as a religion only, is a different matter.
given, god plays puppets with people and the expression "he hardened his heart" is really what he did with purpose, and the pharaoh was only a victim of it. or god did harden his heart, because the pharaoh hardened his heart against god.
ah yes, and the pharaoh lost his first born in the end, so yeah, he did not even move as long as it did not hit him. very human.
but wait! it was god who did this, right? because it says: he actually hardened his heart - with some intention included - and as soon as this is written, we imagine a god who just "rewrites your character magically" like a bad author.
now if you encounter a puppeteer god who plays with you all day, makes you hate people and stuff, or if seeing people love god makes you hate people and stuff (i did feel like that a long time), both times it was god who hardened your heart, so to speak.
it was your relationship to him. may it be ignorance, distrust, fear, disgust or anything else, like the lack of it. how do you react if you see weakness, kindness, wisdom? I for one do not always react how i wanna do.
anybody who was in a relationship already and saw his words even harden the others position knows about it. for the other, YOU hardened the heart. and god did, since he made a jewish criminal command to the pharaoh, who just happened to be his brother in some weird way.
god is very hesitant to take over your strings. well thats my personal experience, and i did not see anybody who had different experience.
the pharaoh challenged god on the cost of his people. this god of jews made him angry, about his own inability. he thought against god, and all god said to him, even hardened his position further.
translation of words is not always the translation of meaning.
god knew, he made the pharaohs heart harder, his words to moses were words of "hope". it was not about him doing magic tricks in human will. thats just a very weird look at god as something which does all, even me writing this and you writing something else, which is more hinduistic than biblical.
if somebody makes your heart harden, its still your friggin heart.
abrahams question is a good one. can i give an answer which i believe to be correct? sorry for sidetracking, but you mentioned it.
the question, why sacrifice is so important in old religions, is a good one. for me it starts with kain and abels story, where they sacrifice, and kain gets jealous, because he thinks, abel is loved more. he even kills his own brother for it. and is protected by god nevertheless.
abraham did not kill his son. but he was already in process to prove himself before god. for him it was a test. in the end, god revealed himself not to agree to such things. i wonder what abraham thought about god, and what he knew about god that evening.
take it personally. if your thoughts about god are, that he challenges you to do such things in his name, you will encounter, that it is the human who would do that to the extent of even getting into the situation, it was never god.
you should not read and judge the old testament like a book which is written by god or in the full understanding of god - especially if you do not believe to be anyway. the bible contains at least 66 books. from eras even before abraham, like job, which was even before the folk of israel was born. it tells you about humans encountering god, learning about him.
those humans had no different struggles, than we have today, to find god, between what we expect him to be, and what we fear him to be - with the greatest fear of him not to be at all. which wasnt that popular back then. they had no science to explain a lot of things.
the expression of killing your own son makes you shiver. even without a son, any human can understand this picture. abraham was not a religious determinist who enjoyed it. he was deeply sorrowed, and still walked in faith. even if his god would do things he would not have agreed to.
while humanity tries to grasp what "sin" exactly means over hundreds of years in the old testament, until christianity even mystified it into "bad habits", they always seem to want to sacrifice for god, a personal benefit in front of the mightiest thing they can imagine. its something every human does. god does NOT want sacrifices. he just simply does not. he never wanted and reveals it more than once, that he wants us to live in love to each other, and especially in community with him, which is all he wants. but as a christian i do have the addendum, he did sacrifice himself for this fact, so that once and for all this question is from the table: there is nothing you can do, for god to love you more. there is also nothing you can do for him to love you less, so sin is not guilt. still, you are apart from him and do not listen to him in your life, which is called sin, which in return, creates guilt. thats why "evangelium" was a good message and spread like a wildfire through all pagan religions. it took off a lot of fear from people.
actually we accepted the "not need to sacrifice anymore" over the years through humanism from christianity as something "which is universally correct". and i give you credits, by asking the question, why the hell we even thought about it neccessary.
but if you look closely what people do today, they still try to sacrifice and work for "the right god".
thx for this question tho. i always pondered about it myself.
i hope you still know, religion is not just christianity, and the book is not only the bible.
still, if we stay at the bible for a moment: if studied carefully, it gives you absolutely no chance about the thought, that it wants to battle human science. its the opposite. by declaring "god is not the sun, not the things you see, but who created all that" the biblical faith even encourages "thinking" and "questioning" the creators' creation (no matter which christian or jewish or other bible based religion), in the new testament again you get the impression about "listening to everything and take the good out of it". paul emphasizes this in a lot of social and religious questions too.
where science and religion battles, is, where a form of atheism - as a religion - makes a scientist claim to have science as his "bible", which e.g. happened in the question of creation vs. evolution in a public talk and lead to a century of fight about genesis. if taken seriously, genesis only tries to give one chapter of insight about "the chronological creation", where humans come last, as man and woman, while genesis 2 already starts with a human centred view telling about something else, which could be real or allegorical, it does not make any difference about what it tells. jesus even has a sharp word about treating women and men equally quoting the first creation, declaring, god created humans as man and women.
where a christian must be adamant, is, that human science is not wisdom, it is knowledge.
And now I formally excuse all religious nuts in my churches. They are not different to the myriads of other nuts in the human world. Scientists who take on the role as religous figure and tell about god to the western ingnostic world just use it for PR. As do those, who address their religious followers with "other ideas about scientific questions". That said, christianity in itself is a faith, not a religion, it is expressed through a variety of religions - and the bible is a book about faith, upon which religions were formed. Which humans always do.
you mean like mind easy programming which can be done by cheap labor outsourced?
those people who still think programming is a methodical simple thing which can be learned by anyone, and you can do it as a life job even without passion, they might get outsourced, yes.
if you know that code is like music, the mix of art and maths, you are on the safe side. your job is your calling then. no fear there!
you can only use your past experience next to your intelligence in IT/CS. Where your strengths are, there you should be strong, and where your weaknesses are, there you should be humble.
If anybody closes the doors before you, dont see it as disappointment. See it as an opportunity, that this job might have not been good for you anyway. It sounds stupid. But having fun at work, being challenged, learning new stuff, and being glad that small little project you once did now makes you the expert for a week - that's the fun of being in a geeky job.
Everything else is just nonsense. Even if you are the type of person who is so smart and can get any job (can be through your self-expression and charisma, or in CS also just because of your expressive aura of highspeedbrainz) - you dont have to. And maybe, in some jobs you just suck ass and feel bad, and just burn out. So do, what you love to do, but be prepared to do stuff on the road, which you dont love.
And if you are young, and you want to try IT, and the jobs sounds neat, do it. If you go into CS also highly depends on how much coding you do in your spare time.
Last advice: you even get better at coding if you take a year or two break off it. really.
i am still skeptical, if the youtube data was really completely off limits to the reconstruction, or if the clips only show where things were similar. we speak about tons of data - its enough if the color definitions is taken from the clips "to find them again" as one factor and you are screwed.
it all depends on the theory, that we know how the brain maps the seen things in neurons, and if fmri data does really show this data. i do not think, that is the case. so it seems too biased to say it really was a success.
not to mention: i do hope yes. and now i really have to RTFA.
Oh and by the way, drivers are automatically downloaded upon detection of hardware that the OS didnt originally have drivers packaged for. (ubuntu is trying this with its WIFI and vid card drivers, but it isnt as good)
ubuntu is not trying the same thing, it is trying to circumvent licensing issues, and therefore does not pack its drivers on a standard install medium, which it isnt supposed to do. still, all drivers ubuntu installs from "special repositories", are kernel drivers. there are userspace drivers in linux too, but all windows drivers are mainly userspace drivers, therefore it can easily be a 3rdparty option.
what ubuntu did was to go forth and integrate the option to install these drivers into the distribution management software - a step needed if you want to have a successful mainstream binary linux distribution targeting the desktop market (something which makes some people still angry, but they are sometimes angry at the wrong thing)
and looks 10 years better than any KDE, Gnome or LXDE desktop can
so 2 of the most eyecandy opensource window managing systems cant look as good as a closed source tied-in part of a graphical OS? you must be kidding me! As somebody who likes to change every bit, every icon of his system until he is pleased with the ergonomics, because I happen to be quite creative in my heart, I cannot agree with you. You are telling me, as an artist, that a coloring book with black and white drawings, i can paint out in my own colors can look better, than a canvas with a set of tools? Never. What is correct, is, that by staying to one design principle you can achieve more "logic" and "comfort" in the overall picture. But after seeing the list of programs you installed, I cannot see the point in that either. At least Apple forces everybody to be appleesque. All your applications will let windows look like "windows with all these apps", and I have most of them installed on my winxp machine too, albeit I do use VLC next to MPC, since VLC can render in a canvas object, while MPC always uses directvideo approaches and therefore does only work at the primary screen (in xp at least). In Linux most of the time you have to cross borders for some application between GTK and QT. Sometimes even the older stuff. That might look orcish, but its the price for having so many painting tools.
So in the end it depends on the user, really. If you like windows, stay with it. But don't you troll about linux, just because you played around with it for a while.
Btw. if you ask me, I can rant about all of em. Really.
while your point is right (truth is better), your view on germany is clouded by your patriotism.
first off, banning nazism is a law made by the allieds. as mentioned in replies.
second, most germans know what you are talking about and would share the same views. they do a lot of work to support minorities, try to keep radical politics down, base their strength on economy. every german is educated in school about the nazi regime. even without laws it would feel awkward to raise a swastika. it feels awkward for us europeans, that people in the states still do that. germany migrated a western and an eastern world into one, while other ex-east-block countries still suffer, even the richer ones, like poland or hungary.
you see, hate is not a german problem. it's a human problem. and hate is only a medium how you get to people. its always power and wealth. greedy people in a system where power is unequally distributed tend to get exceptionally inhumane. atm. i would look closer at the states, where democracy is falling apart, and learn from germanies past, how fast that can lead into becoming eaten by the dark side. hate is just one of many tools of how people can be used by others. there were (and are) also camps in other countries, where hate had/has nothing to do with it.
0. eve runs on stackless python. (server and client. using dx9, not ogl (those bastards!)) 1. stackless is cpython without a stack, hence the name. (one core limitation is not stackless' fault) 2. ironpython is python on.net (web frameworks might also run there, who really knows? or cares?) 3. jython is python on java (at least django runs on that one) 4. these are interpreters. if you dont like it, i have others. also, i have to dock my mackinaw now. ice, ice, baby. 5. ??? 6. CALDARI!!!!!!
had to post on eve thread. my clone wanted me to do it.
it is always the realization of exactly that particular point: it's never about you alone.
so actually the problem which sometimes seems to fade-in into our Wesen (essence / mind) while thinking about management, is mostly based personality issues we unconciously perceive from them.
humans always tend to see positions of decision as something higher, than the positions of creativity or creation (or taking the waste away). i cant think of any better picture, as the one of god being sad about his folks wanting a king like other nations, because kings tend to forget that they serve the whole, instead they start to think, the whole serves them.
we all have our prides. and we all tend to forget the value of others. management is important. but there is no sense in paying them more than double sallaries, or endorsing their ego further. its a job like every other, and it can be a nobrainer job with a lot of social interaction or self presentation only. best managers are the ones, which know, they are supported by their department, know it is not about them, it is their job, so it becomes about them for those, who they represent. being above others means to serve them. But we made a mythos out of this job in the last 50 years. And many management types stop listening and only want to crawl up the ass of the next best guy. This makes the drink bitter.
It's not the science behind it, or any other reason of "we dont need them and would do it better anyway" like "nerdy" cultures might think (and we are part of).
(btw. i am not so sure about "popular culture" (who is that?) condemning nerds at all - it always seemed, like, we do that to ourselves, frankly. and if you think everybody hates you, girls dont want a guy who has brainz as muscles and stuff, no wonder we react so arrogantly to our friendly business school mates, telling them how stupid they are and what they do is trivial and stuffz.)
just a thought....... we live in a different era now. everybody knows how to download and update your machines. not just the IT guys. but everybody who actually "wants to be good at IT". This is the headache for administrators. Not the machines they can safely administer anyway.
Having a good leadership man in an engineering department however is very rare.
good parents encourage kids to do a variety of things in their life, and over time it becomes much more clear what really makes a person happy. Good parents encourage kids to pursue careers that fit their personal interests best.
pushing kids into certain careers is actually happening in every country on this planet and very often ends quite bad for the person. pushing him however to finish certain degrees of school is really helpful.
You are only thankful, if your parents saw what really fitted your personality. Going after "what pays good" is the stupidest pursue of career. Also such parents cause a lot of misery in our world.
Slashdot Mirror
expected a better answer, but putting aside a very funny comparison between an external force hitting you and an internal process which actually people have control of, but as you say.
and of course, i meant translation in context of sentences, and the cultural and religious meaning of what it means, that god changes hearts and stuff. That might be a babylonian problem there in communication, since I am not english native.
> Shame an omniscient and omnipotent being such as him never saw that coming. Don’t you think?
just because i would know you want to eat waffels tomorrow morning does not mean, its not you who decides that. If god exists, as I believe him to be, you exist. if god does not exist, either you exist as a soul or are at least the prism of your initial variables resulting in the mechanics you work upon - which basicly means that existence can be even an illusion - to whom?. Maybe life can be explained. Maybe we cannot however break time, and therefore we never can explain the process of our life and the feeling of presence in the world without destroying the experiment. I think I did that quite for some years. You just loose the thing you try to understand. You cant stop your life.
for me however the real interesting question is, if god exists, why on earth would i bother if he is not love?
But love only works in relationships.
It is a fact of life we can only witness, accept and give. But not analyze nor understand.
Nor enforce.
Because relationships do not work that way.
Or: I am wrong, and relationships do not work and are just random, or are an illusion, too. In that case, I love the Illusion.
c ya.
Just to be clear, I only answer this long this time, if you dont read it TL;DR: just ignore it.
> So if slavery and rape are part of your "cultural" law, Christians just have to be cool with that.
No. But just because you are christian, it does not mean you are right. It means, you can do it differently where you have the power to. And Christians did stand up. Just look at your history books, which figures acted as prophets against such things.
> And who came up with the slave trading "laws" in the first instance? Your God.
Slavery in jewish culture was regulated by religious law, yes. But you act, as if god has written the bible personally to create the Israelite Religion. he didnt. They wrote it in the process. Jews knew slavery from egypt. So god did not come up with slavery. Mankind did. Dont forget, Torah is written in babylon, most likely to summarize other books until then (since other books like Job might even be older than Abraham)
In Jewish culture, you could sell yourself as slave if in dept for a limited time. So it is more comparable to a job contract.
They also made laws for divorce, which Jesus strictly condemned. I think, if you wanted to get jesus emotional, you only had to debate about laws with him.
The law was given to Israel to show, that mankind is on a dangerous path. After law was there they were even more brutal than any other folk in some cases and even felt right.
thats what paul means with "the law brings sin".
The only law directly from god in the old testament are the eleven commandments mentioned two times in the Torah.
> Before he apparently changed his mind and made the previously moral, immoral.
I don't think gods morale is changing. Does your morale change, if you allow your kids something you dont agree with, because they really want it that way? No. Sometimes they have to find out for themselves.
God made his morale clear, after they f***d up. I dunno really, but reading the history of the Israelites, its not really true what they say, that history is just written by the winners, you know...
> Keeping slaves is evil and always has been
yes. it is clear to you. it is clear to me. Still slavery booms in the modern world, it just changes its name all the time. We call it human trafficking. We call it exploitation of other countries. We call it bad marriages.
> Luke 12:47-48 - Keeping slaves is evil and always has been.
but it is. and it starts with 45, telling about somebody who beats his slaves, who in return earns beating in the end. So it actually displays, that no master will like a servant who acts as master himself and beats his other servants. Now what exactly does that tell us about beating slaves? Do you think it is right to bring children into custody if their father beats em up regularly or is it up to him?
Evil is in humanity, no matter if god exists. See Kant.
If evil is there, so is guilt.
Gods solution for a christian is albeit a bit shocking. He asks us to forgive others, like he has forgiven us. Because in fact, God does NOT want judgement over us, otherwise Christianity would make no sense. But WE want it, because we know it is unfair to let evil be unpunished. Because we know right from wrong.
Btw. I always thought, that adam would have gotten to eat the forbidden fruit later on, if he was adult enough. But in the end, adam only represents any human no matter if male or female and the birth of distrust to god by wanting to becoming like him on our own. Whatever that means.
> St Paul, the feminist, you're joking right?
First off, taking a paul letter and quoting from it is dangerous - paul cant be quoted easily. His letters are quite like spirals reiterating different kinds of conceptions - because he tries to get all of his audience to listen - and bringing it through argumentation to the final things he always writes, where he gets quite poetic. Greeks must have loved him. Paul was no feminist. Paul was no revolter against slavery. Paul was an apostle, not a
in soviet russia, plancking constantly affects YOU.
>>It's not my problem if they're wrong. =) ...
>Exactly. They're "wrong" because YOU already "know" what is "right".
>And if they don't agree with you
i think he is right too. so does the majority of people i know in my church (baptist, very small in europe). and most of the churches i knew and visited before - from many different denominations (catholics, evangelics, evangelistics, mennonites, charismatics, jesusfreaks, ...).
coz actually its pretty much jesus words, and they are kinda in the highest regard for a christian.
talking about myself however, I only realized this half way through. And I think many of my brothers and sisters have the same experience. Getting to know god is something everybody has to decide for themselves.
> And yet around 50% of the US population thinks that "intelligent design" should be taught in schools along with evolution.
maybe 50% of the US population thinks, we should be scientific here and keep both models and let people decide about what is right and what is wrong there. of course, radical sunday school education to say something different is the way to go, thats how the fundies will learn that the big quarrel between genesis 1 and genesis 2 is reflected in science in the last 100 years, yes?
> It's not the "fundies" who are the problem.
> It's anyone who believes that his personal religion is "right" and that others are "wrong".
I dont know why you should be right here.
Every person develops a personal religion. No matter if he wants to or not. So do you. And you speak for it.
And for us christians, yes, the fundies ARE the problem. because many of us have no problem with any of this.
So just lets think we are all right, and silently keep in our hearts, that every one else is wrong, even god. Worked for adam, didnt it.
oh, i just read your first sentence and only answered to that. the rest, about being fundamental and stuff... yeah... good you quit that.
fundamentalism is often an excuse for being self-righteous by citing the bible as a weapon of being right about things.
its like citing a letter of your wife who explains you all the struggle in your common life to the conclusion that she still loves you to explain, that it is written, that she would say this and that in this situation; if you really love your wife, you would even know what she would say without her being there.
without the relationship to the living god, christianity is the dumbest thing ever.
believing in not to take revenge, treating others as equally loved and wanted by god, and believing all things will still lead to something better even it looks very grimm, just because that guy died on a cross - like paul writes, all this is complete nonsense without him being real.
paul is the best treatment for fundamentalism. its the books fundamentalists only like to cite in questions of church order, but seldom read completely, because actually paul is absolutely non-fundamentlistic. he did not even know jesus in flesh and blood.
concentrating on peter was the stupidest thing a roman imperial church could do (but indeed very roman). until the (christian!!!) goths conquered them and theyr nobles even invented the "interchristian" police, which again went horribly wrong over history.
if you ever want to have some nice arguments against fundamentalists, i propose you revisit paul for yourself. be surprised.
plainly wrong.
see jesus on taxes. see paul on slaves and women and laws in general.
christianity already was born in a patriarchic society, with slaves and laws. christianity should not be used as an excuse to rebell against your cultural laws. something paul hammered in his letters, but also he said that in church all are equal.
now how jesus treats women and reminds rabbies that god created both as equal and only our hardened hearts made him make laws about treating them like property (which you can throw away as it does not please you anymore), and how jesus treats slaves, and how jesus answers to "give caesar what is his, give god what is his" (that would be temple coins, too, in that context), is what should lead christianity. since christianity is person cult about jesus, who is believed to be god.
so there we have our morality, and our laws. morality should be lead by a living relationship to god, which is said to be possible, while laws are cultural and were slowly abandoned upon general realisation of them being wrong.
now that the relationship-part escapes us, since we think of christianity as a religion only, is a different matter.
given, god plays puppets with people and the expression "he hardened his heart" is really what he did with purpose, and the pharaoh was only a victim of it. or god did harden his heart, because the pharaoh hardened his heart against god.
ah yes, and the pharaoh lost his first born in the end, so yeah, he did not even move as long as it did not hit him. very human.
but wait! it was god who did this, right? because it says: he actually hardened his heart - with some intention included - and as soon as this is written, we imagine a god who just "rewrites your character magically" like a bad author.
now if you encounter a puppeteer god who plays with you all day, makes you hate people and stuff, or if seeing people love god makes you hate people and stuff (i did feel like that a long time), both times it was god who hardened your heart, so to speak.
it was your relationship to him. may it be ignorance, distrust, fear, disgust or anything else, like the lack of it. how do you react if you see weakness, kindness, wisdom? I for one do not always react how i wanna do.
anybody who was in a relationship already and saw his words even harden the others position knows about it. for the other, YOU hardened the heart. and god did, since he made a jewish criminal command to the pharaoh, who just happened to be his brother in some weird way.
god is very hesitant to take over your strings. well thats my personal experience, and i did not see anybody who had different experience.
the pharaoh challenged god on the cost of his people.
this god of jews made him angry, about his own inability.
he thought against god, and all god said to him, even hardened his position further.
translation of words is not always the translation of meaning.
god knew, he made the pharaohs heart harder, his words to moses were words of "hope". it was not about him doing magic tricks in human will. thats just a very weird look at god as something which does all, even me writing this and you writing something else, which is more hinduistic than biblical.
if somebody makes your heart harden, its still your friggin heart.
abrahams question is a good one. can i give an answer which i believe to be correct? sorry for sidetracking, but you mentioned it.
the question, why sacrifice is so important in old religions, is a good one. for me it starts with kain and abels story, where they sacrifice, and kain gets jealous, because he thinks, abel is loved more. he even kills his own brother for it. and is protected by god nevertheless.
abraham did not kill his son. but he was already in process to prove himself before god. for him it was a test. in the end, god revealed himself not to agree to such things. i wonder what abraham thought about god, and what he knew about god that evening.
take it personally. if your thoughts about god are, that he challenges you to do such things in his name, you will encounter, that it is the human who would do that to the extent of even getting into the situation, it was never god.
you should not read and judge the old testament like a book which is written by god or in the full understanding of god - especially if you do not believe to be anyway. the bible contains at least 66 books. from eras even before abraham, like job, which was even before the folk of israel was born. it tells you about humans encountering god, learning about him.
those humans had no different struggles, than we have today, to find god, between what we expect him to be, and what we fear him to be - with the greatest fear of him not to be at all. which wasnt that popular back then. they had no science to explain a lot of things.
the expression of killing your own son makes you shiver. even without a son, any human can understand this picture. abraham was not a religious determinist who enjoyed it. he was deeply sorrowed, and still walked in faith. even if his god would do things he would not have agreed to.
while humanity tries to grasp what "sin" exactly means over hundreds of years in the old testament, until christianity even mystified it into "bad habits", they always seem to want to sacrifice for god, a personal benefit in front of the mightiest thing they can imagine. its something every human does. god does NOT want sacrifices. he just simply does not. he never wanted and reveals it more than once, that he wants us to live in love to each other, and especially in community with him, which is all he wants. but as a christian i do have the addendum, he did sacrifice himself for this fact, so that once and for all this question is from the table: there is nothing you can do, for god to love you more. there is also nothing you can do for him to love you less, so sin is not guilt. still, you are apart from him and do not listen to him in your life, which is called sin, which in return, creates guilt. thats why "evangelium" was a good message and spread like a wildfire through all pagan religions. it took off a lot of fear from people.
actually we accepted the "not need to sacrifice anymore" over the years through humanism from christianity as something "which is universally correct". and i give you credits, by asking the question, why the hell we even thought about it neccessary.
but if you look closely what people do today, they still try to sacrifice and work for "the right god".
thx for this question tho. i always pondered about it myself.
i hope you still know, religion is not just christianity, and the book is not only the bible.
still, if we stay at the bible for a moment: if studied carefully, it gives you absolutely no chance about the thought, that it wants to battle human science. its the opposite. by declaring "god is not the sun, not the things you see, but who created all that" the biblical faith even encourages "thinking" and "questioning" the creators' creation (no matter which christian or jewish or other bible based religion), in the new testament again you get the impression about "listening to everything and take the good out of it". paul emphasizes this in a lot of social and religious questions too.
where science and religion battles, is, where a form of atheism - as a religion - makes a scientist claim to have science as his "bible", which e.g. happened in the question of creation vs. evolution in a public talk and lead to a century of fight about genesis. if taken seriously, genesis only tries to give one chapter of insight about "the chronological creation", where humans come last, as man and woman, while genesis 2 already starts with a human centred view telling about something else, which could be real or allegorical, it does not make any difference about what it tells. jesus even has a sharp word about treating women and men equally quoting the first creation, declaring, god created humans as man and women.
where a christian must be adamant, is, that human science is not wisdom, it is knowledge.
And now I formally excuse all religious nuts in my churches. They are not different to the myriads of other nuts in the human world. Scientists who take on the role as religous figure and tell about god to the western ingnostic world just use it for PR. As do those, who address their religious followers with "other ideas about scientific questions". That said, christianity in itself is a faith, not a religion, it is expressed through a variety of religions - and the bible is a book about faith, upon which religions were formed. Which humans always do.
Coding and developing is a really creative and cool process.
If you think, loving this makes somebody an elitist, and you call the programming "ground work" or "field work", you might be the elitist in the room.
you mean like mind easy programming which can be done by cheap labor outsourced?
those people who still think programming is a methodical simple thing which can be learned by anyone, and you can do it as a life job even without passion, they might get outsourced, yes.
if you know that code is like music, the mix of art and maths, you are on the safe side. your job is your calling then. no fear there!
i think this long post just nails it.
you can only use your past experience next to your intelligence in IT/CS. Where your strengths are, there you should be strong, and where your weaknesses are, there you should be humble.
If anybody closes the doors before you, dont see it as disappointment. See it as an opportunity, that this job might have not been good for you anyway.
It sounds stupid. But having fun at work, being challenged, learning new stuff, and being glad that small little project you once did now makes you the expert for a week - that's the fun of being in a geeky job.
Everything else is just nonsense. Even if you are the type of person who is so smart and can get any job (can be through your self-expression and charisma, or in CS also just because of your expressive aura of highspeedbrainz) - you dont have to. And maybe, in some jobs you just suck ass and feel bad, and just burn out. So do, what you love to do, but be prepared to do stuff on the road, which you dont love.
And if you are young, and you want to try IT, and the jobs sounds neat, do it.
If you go into CS also highly depends on how much coding you do in your spare time.
Last advice: you even get better at coding if you take a year or two break off it. really.
i am still skeptical, if the youtube data was really completely off limits to the reconstruction, or if the clips only show where things were similar.
we speak about tons of data - its enough if the color definitions is taken from the clips "to find them again" as one factor and you are screwed.
it all depends on the theory, that we know how the brain maps the seen things in neurons, and if fmri data does really show this data. i do not think, that is the case. so it seems too biased to say it really was a success.
not to mention: i do hope yes. and now i really have to RTFA.
Oh and by the way, drivers are automatically downloaded upon detection of hardware that the OS didnt originally have drivers packaged for. (ubuntu is trying this with its WIFI and vid card drivers, but it isnt as good)
ubuntu is not trying the same thing, it is trying to circumvent licensing issues, and therefore does not pack its drivers on a standard install medium, which it isnt supposed to do. still, all drivers ubuntu installs from "special repositories", are kernel drivers. there are userspace drivers in linux too, but all windows drivers are mainly userspace drivers, therefore it can easily be a 3rdparty option.
what ubuntu did was to go forth and integrate the option to install these drivers into the distribution management software - a step needed if you want to have a successful mainstream binary linux distribution targeting the desktop market (something which makes some people still angry, but they are sometimes angry at the wrong thing)
and looks 10 years better than any KDE, Gnome or LXDE desktop can
so 2 of the most eyecandy opensource window managing systems cant look as good as a closed source tied-in part of a graphical OS? you must be kidding me! As somebody who likes to change every bit, every icon of his system until he is pleased with the ergonomics, because I happen to be quite creative in my heart, I cannot agree with you. You are telling me, as an artist, that a coloring book with black and white drawings, i can paint out in my own colors can look better, than a canvas with a set of tools? Never.
What is correct, is, that by staying to one design principle you can achieve more "logic" and "comfort" in the overall picture. But after seeing the list of programs you installed, I cannot see the point in that either. At least Apple forces everybody to be appleesque. All your applications will let windows look like "windows with all these apps", and I have most of them installed on my winxp machine too, albeit I do use VLC next to MPC, since VLC can render in a canvas object, while MPC always uses directvideo approaches and therefore does only work at the primary screen (in xp at least).
In Linux most of the time you have to cross borders for some application between GTK and QT. Sometimes even the older stuff. That might look orcish, but its the price for having so many painting tools.
So in the end it depends on the user, really. If you like windows, stay with it. But don't you troll about linux, just because you played around with it for a while.
Btw. if you ask me, I can rant about all of em. Really.
never! EVE is who bit the first chunk of the apple!
while your point is right (truth is better), your view on germany is clouded by your patriotism.
first off, banning nazism is a law made by the allieds. as mentioned in replies.
second, most germans know what you are talking about and would share the same views. they do a lot of work to support minorities, try to keep radical politics down, base their strength on economy. every german is educated in school about the nazi regime. even without laws it would feel awkward to raise a swastika. it feels awkward for us europeans, that people in the states still do that.
germany migrated a western and an eastern world into one, while other ex-east-block countries still suffer, even the richer ones, like poland or hungary.
you see, hate is not a german problem. it's a human problem. and hate is only a medium how you get to people. its always power and wealth. greedy people in a system where power is unequally distributed tend to get exceptionally inhumane. atm. i would look closer at the states, where democracy is falling apart, and learn from germanies past, how fast that can lead into becoming eaten by the dark side. hate is just one of many tools of how people can be used by others. there were (and are) also camps in other countries, where hate had/has nothing to do with it.
agreed. i usually started to write pseudocode in python. which is handy. since you can run your pseudocode.
yeah, lets summarize all of it. for fun.
0. eve runs on stackless python. (server and client. using dx9, not ogl (those bastards!)) .net (web frameworks might also run there, who really knows? or cares?)
1. stackless is cpython without a stack, hence the name. (one core limitation is not stackless' fault)
2. ironpython is python on
3. jython is python on java (at least django runs on that one)
4. these are interpreters. if you dont like it, i have others. also, i have to dock my mackinaw now. ice, ice, baby.
5. ???
6. CALDARI!!!!!!
had to post on eve thread. my clone wanted me to do it.
it is always the realization of exactly that particular point: it's never about you alone.
so actually the problem which sometimes seems to fade-in into our Wesen (essence / mind) while thinking about management, is mostly based personality issues we unconciously perceive from them.
humans always tend to see positions of decision as something higher, than the positions of creativity or creation (or taking the waste away).
i cant think of any better picture, as the one of god being sad about his folks wanting a king like other nations, because kings tend to forget that they serve the whole, instead they start to think, the whole serves them.
we all have our prides. and we all tend to forget the value of others. management is important. but there is no sense in paying them more than double sallaries, or endorsing their ego further. its a job like every other, and it can be a nobrainer job with a lot of social interaction or self presentation only. best managers are the ones, which know, they are supported by their department, know it is not about them, it is their job, so it becomes about them for those, who they represent. being above others means to serve them.
But we made a mythos out of this job in the last 50 years. And many management types stop listening and only want to crawl up the ass of the next best guy. This makes the drink bitter.
It's not the science behind it, or any other reason of "we dont need them and would do it better anyway" like "nerdy" cultures might think (and we are part of).
(btw. i am not so sure about "popular culture" (who is that?) condemning nerds at all - it always seemed, like, we do that to ourselves, frankly. and if you think everybody hates you, girls dont want a guy who has brainz as muscles and stuff, no wonder we react so arrogantly to our friendly business school mates, telling them how stupid they are and what they do is trivial and stuffz.)
viruses do not only transport personal data out of your pc.
sometimes viruses do different things. like particullary delete the personal data right where they are.
actually, viruses were around before the internet, even if it sounds pretty unbelievable.
oh back in the days, something that transported out data was called a trojan.
and worse... most clients have laptops now... and everybody installs it without asking you anyway... ignoring roundmails...
you can always reroute the installer image http location internally to an internal site however of course. but thats considered bad practice :)
just a thought.... ... we live in a different era now. everybody knows how to download and update your machines. not just the IT guys. but everybody who actually "wants to be good at IT". This is the headache for administrators. Not the machines they can safely administer anyway.
Having a good leadership man in an engineering department however is very rare.
(btw. most pennyless actors who just wanted attention have quite big parents issues)
I disagree.
good parents encourage kids to do a variety of things in their life, and over time it becomes much more clear what really makes a person happy. Good parents encourage kids to pursue careers that fit their personal interests best.
pushing kids into certain careers is actually happening in every country on this planet and very often ends quite bad for the person. pushing him however to finish certain degrees of school is really helpful.
You are only thankful, if your parents saw what really fitted your personality. Going after "what pays good" is the stupidest pursue of career. Also such parents cause a lot of misery in our world.
Work is about fullfillment.Not about money.
the problem is, that wine aint an emulator (its also the backronym of the product). so code compiled for x86 still wont work on wine on ARM.
you can find more about the topic here: http://wiki.winehq.org/ARM
You can still use qemu or another virtual machine to emulate x86 and run stuff with it.