Besides, this is anti-male feminist bullshit. Every woman (except maybe Andrea Dworkin, who's a total loss anyway) wants to be a sex goddess and every man wants to be a sex god.
A man is capable of having children with multiple women. For a woman to do the opposite is not as advantageous. Because of this, the strategies are different.
Women may want love, power, and attention and may enjoy sex. But compared to men there are a minority of women out there who really aspire to be 'sex gods.'
What's with equating sexualization with objectification?
If you're trying to invoke the subject-object dichotomy, you'd have a hard time arguing that women in comic books are seen as property because they're sexualized. There may be some cases of this, but it's not the common theme.
If you think the sexualization of women is disempowering to women and the sexualization of men is empowering to them... well, you're welcome to your own opinion.
Yes "I don't come to destroy the law, I come to change the law." etc. And in some cases, he deliberatly increases the strictness of the law, limiting marriage to one man and one woman or urging people not to use their right to sue one another.
But in the places where he doesn't explicitly try and recast Mosaic law, he tends to be faithful to it. (allowing picking corn on the Sabbath, which is in accordane with mosaic law, but not, if I understand it correctly, Talmudic law)
My view is not so much that Jesus wanted a strict adherance to Mosaic law, but that in disputes between the Talmud (then the Mishna) and Mosaic law, he typically favors Mosaic law, though he did not oppose the Mishna. He did seem to urge distrust of it. What does distrust mean, considering that Jesus claimed that those who know Moses know him?
More specifically, my view is that every time you create a ruling, you create case law which is both falliable as well as inevitable. I've read countless criticisms of this process, but the alternative is worse.
Of course, I'm not a Talmudic scholar by any means, so take anything here with a grain of salt, or better yet an entire Kosher dill.
But both these ideas were Jewish (or shared by the Hebrew peoples) before they were Christian. I realize a lot of Messianic ideals came into Judiasm during the time of Cyrus the Great at the end of the Babylonian captivity (book of Daniel?) The Magi (Zoroastrians) were formed Cyrus's preistly caste. But I'm not sure where the textual support for these ideas comes from in Judiasm. I do believe they have texual support in the Jewish law texts, though. But I'm not sure where.
I agree with most of your post but I've always thought that the 'no power thing' was an odd interpretation of the law.
You're not supposed to work on the Sabbath. What do Jews define as work? Anything that was involved in building the temple, which includes lighting fires.
The 'no power' thing is an attempt to update the old tradition. But is flipping a light switch really 'work' in the same way that starting a fire is?
This is one of the most tired and twisted criticisms I've heard of Judiasm. You're not the first to put it forward.
Do you understand the difference between law and case law? It exists even in the modern American legal system. When you have a law, different judges will end up interpreting that law slightly differently.
Because one of the purposes of law is to establish uniformity of judgements, each ruling sets up a precedent, which can be cited for future cases. In American law, if there are enough divergent precedents the Supreme Court will agree to hear a case in order to set a ruling which will prevent further diverse rulings by the lower courts. Jewish law worked similarly.
The talmud ( or so called 'oral law') which was being written down at the time of Jesus is case law. Jesus was not protesting the Talmud, per se. He was protesting those rulings in the talmud which 'annulled the written law.'
In other words, Jesus was a 'strict constitutionalist' who railed against judges that 'legislated from the bench' and wrote legal interpretations which violated the mosaic laws.
For example, lending at interest was prohibited under mosaic law, but Hillel effectivly allowed it. Mitigation of severe punishments was also common in the Talmud. For example, "an eye for an eye" was interpreted as demanding commesurate monetary compensation. You couldn't actually poke someone's eye out, it was ruled, because that could kill them and their blood would be on the hands of the court. There are also some very out there metaphoric interpretations of the old testament in the Talmud (like arguments that the ancient Egyptians suffered 50 or more plagues pursuing the hebrew peoples towards the red sea.) But the Talmud is ultimatly the work of learned men and it shouldn't be taken for more than that.
Destroying case law doesn't solve anything. You'll still have a diverse range of legal judgements, or else you'll have no law at all.
Nah, you just keep trying. Here in the Philippines, women are famous for getting pregnant after one 'accident.' Of course, that happens everywhere, but some people have to try for a year or two.
I'd like more non-linear games. I'd like to see more games without a predetermined storyline, set series of enemies, levels, etc. I'd like to be able to build or degrade trust with particular opponents, interact with more complex AI which forces me to use more complex strategies, etc.
Should you help this character or betray her? She'll be loyal to you or betray you depending on how you treat her. She may help or hurt your access to another character, etc.
I usually stick to strategy games now, in 1-2 hour sessions. But I wouldn't mind buying this type of game if someone came out with somthing more than just an 'a, b, or c' fork
Granted, subsidizing food like we do, and meat especially may be a bad idea. It would be better to let the market reflect the true price of things.
But have you ever been to Colorado? You can raise cattle there. Cash crops would be a lot harder and more inefficient.
I agree that stall feeding cattle grain and soybeans is very inefficient. The question, though, is not whether people eat meat or vegetables, but the manner in which meat is raised. Feeding animals crops that humans could consume is inefficient.
Not all land is suitable for raising wheat and corn.
There's a reason why there are some cultures that let animals graze, even cultures without the abundance of food we have. Herding makes good sense in certain arid or rocky terrains. If there's enough water, you can carve a mountain and grow grapes or coffee on the slopes. But that's very labor intensive, which brings a whole new set of problems.
There are crops capable of growing in all the warmer lattitudes. So long as wild strains of the various cash crops are preserved, new seeds can be developed for the new climate.
Rising temperatures and unstable climate can cause problems, yes. But increased pesticide usage? Increased requirements for fertilizer? Um... no.
No worries! Just chuck a bit of this on it! We think it's safe, and you'll improve your productivity and hence income by 500%. You'll need to renew your patent license again next year
Care to elaborate what "this" is? What is the precise chemical that will be used more often if global warming occurs?
Farmers don't 'renew their patent license' on anything. There are people producing seeds who patent them. Is that what you're going for? Corporate ownership of these cultivars is a problem. Hybridization can work as a type of patent and so can patents, with the result being that farmers have to buy more seeds each year, forcing dependance.
If we really wanted to stretch things to reach your conclusion, maybe we could paint this scenario;
"the change in climate would destroy local crops forcing native farmers to use corporate sponsored monoculture which, because of its homogeneity will require more pesticide usage.
That's the closest I can get to what you're trying to say.
But it seems that you're not articulating particular issues in this post so much as regurgitating causes and effects of random environmental problems without knowing which connects to which and by what mechanism.
What about Otto Hahn? He was a chemist on the team, and had done hands on work developing chemical weapons during WWI. Though he seems to have been a pretty poor physicist (not his field.)
As mentioned elsewhere, the diagram is for a plutonium bomb (and according to the earlier poster, the diagram wouldn't have worked.) The Germans hadn't even gotten a fission reaction going by the end of the war, since they didn't know that purified sufficiently purified graphite could be used to produce slow neutrons, and they kept trying to use heavywater.
The German nuclear scientists were rounded up and kept for a few weeks at Farm Hall where they were secretly recorded. The transcripts of this were declassified less than a decade ago, and there's a lot of debate over whether Heisenberg was doing less than his level best to advance the Nazi nuclear project, or whether he had just made mistakes.
When the allied forces let him hear the news of Hiroshiima and Nagasaki, he was able, (several days later) to give a good description of what happened, though he overestimated the amount of fissionable material required.
Historical debate on what Heisenberg knew beforehand tends to focus on the several days he required to figure out how the whole thing was done and whether or not that time span is relevant.
If rocks from Mars can land on Earth, how hard would it be for microbes to move from one planet to another.. I mean, considering that they cover just about everything here.
True, the key being 'as a part of a balanced diet. The american association of pediatrics has stated that fruit juice (even pure fruit juice) has no nutritional benefits over whole fruit.
The AAP state that toddlers and preschool aged children should be limited to just 4-6 ounces of one hundred percent fruit juice. That is a limit though and not a minimum.
Q: How many servings of beverages should a child over the age of two consume?
Children over 2 are supposed to drink 12 ounces or less (and avoid the sugarwater concotions entirely), and usually drink twice that.
Not the end of the world, of course. But when I was growing up, I think my parents and I overestimated how healthy juice was. It would have been better if I ate whole fruit and drank water.
While I agree with you in principle, juice really isn't that healthy. Most juices are not much better than soda, with just a few more nutrients and no caffiene. It's mostly sugar water.
Re:Similar technology - Methane Farming...
on
Filling Up On Algae
·
· Score: 1
the bible proscribes eating a calf
I think you mean prohibits? Not to be a language nazi or anything.
You're right, I overspoke.... but you say you learned useful things about architecture in High School?
I still think that most of what we learned in Geometry, particularly regarding proofs, was pointless especially without historical context.
I'd really like to see geometry either combined with history or deleted entirely.
I guess when I said 'bunk' I meant more along the lines of "information which has no practical value." History class is a good example, though I did have one spectacular AP History teacher.
Another problem would be speech class, where the teacher made us memorize the 'sender receiver' model of communication. When I got to college and did a little research into communications theory, I found that the model, while being the beginning of communications theory, had been developed based on the testing of the early phone system and was now incredibly outdated. It was useful to be able to speak in front of a group and get feedback, though.
High School often taugh facts, but neglected to give those facts the context that was required for any real understanding. In some cases, I think our teachers didn't even know the context.
I guess I'm just pissed because High School could have been a lot better, even though I did have a few very good classes.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, this is anti-male feminist bullshit. Every woman (except maybe Andrea Dworkin, who's a total loss anyway) wants to be a sex goddess and every man wants to be a sex god.
A man is capable of having children with multiple women. For a woman to do the opposite is not as advantageous. Because of this, the strategies are different.
Women may want love, power, and attention and may enjoy sex. But compared to men there are a minority of women out there who really aspire to be 'sex gods.'
What's with equating sexualization with objectification?
If you're trying to invoke the subject-object dichotomy, you'd have a hard time arguing that women in comic books are seen as property because they're sexualized. There may be some cases of this, but it's not the common theme.
If you think the sexualization of women is disempowering to women and the sexualization of men is empowering to them... well, you're welcome to your own opinion.
Yes "I don't come to destroy the law, I come to change the law." etc. And in some cases, he deliberatly increases the strictness of the law, limiting marriage to one man and one woman or urging people not to use their right to sue one another.
h p?t=238&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
But in the places where he doesn't explicitly try and recast Mosaic law, he tends to be faithful to it. (allowing picking corn on the Sabbath, which is in accordane with mosaic law, but not, if I understand it correctly, Talmudic law)
http://forum.jerusalemperspective.com/viewtopic.p
My view is not so much that Jesus wanted a strict adherance to Mosaic law, but that in disputes between the Talmud (then the Mishna) and Mosaic law, he typically favors Mosaic law, though he did not oppose the Mishna. He did seem to urge distrust of it. What does distrust mean, considering that Jesus claimed that those who know Moses know him?
More specifically, my view is that every time you create a ruling, you create case law which is both falliable as well as inevitable. I've read countless criticisms of this process, but the alternative is worse.
Of course, I'm not a Talmudic scholar by any means, so take anything here with a grain of salt, or better yet an entire Kosher dill.
But both these ideas were Jewish (or shared by the Hebrew peoples) before they were Christian. I realize a lot of Messianic ideals came into Judiasm during the time of Cyrus the Great at the end of the Babylonian captivity (book of Daniel?) The Magi (Zoroastrians) were formed Cyrus's preistly caste. But I'm not sure where the textual support for these ideas comes from in Judiasm. I do believe they have texual support in the Jewish law texts, though. But I'm not sure where.
Helluv a reccomendation. I'll check it out.
or the sabbath no power thing come to mind
I agree with most of your post but I've always thought that the 'no power thing' was an odd interpretation of the law.
You're not supposed to work on the Sabbath. What do Jews define as work? Anything that was involved in building the temple, which includes lighting fires.
The 'no power' thing is an attempt to update the old tradition. But is flipping a light switch really 'work' in the same way that starting a fire is?
This should make for some great arguing. :)
This is one of the most tired and twisted criticisms I've heard of Judiasm. You're not the first to put it forward.
Do you understand the difference between law and case law? It exists even in the modern American legal system. When you have a law, different judges will end up interpreting that law slightly differently.
Because one of the purposes of law is to establish uniformity of judgements, each ruling sets up a precedent, which can be cited for future cases. In American law, if there are enough divergent precedents the Supreme Court will agree to hear a case in order to set a ruling which will prevent further diverse rulings by the lower courts. Jewish law worked similarly.
The talmud ( or so called 'oral law') which was being written down at the time of Jesus is case law. Jesus was not protesting the Talmud, per se. He was protesting those rulings in the talmud which 'annulled the written law.'
In other words, Jesus was a 'strict constitutionalist' who railed against judges that 'legislated from the bench' and wrote legal interpretations which violated the mosaic laws.
For example, lending at interest was prohibited under mosaic law, but Hillel effectivly allowed it. Mitigation of severe punishments was also common in the Talmud. For example, "an eye for an eye" was interpreted as demanding commesurate monetary compensation. You couldn't actually poke someone's eye out, it was ruled, because that could kill them and their blood would be on the hands of the court. There are also some very out there metaphoric interpretations of the old testament in the Talmud (like arguments that the ancient Egyptians suffered 50 or more plagues pursuing the hebrew peoples towards the red sea.)
But the Talmud is ultimatly the work of learned men and it shouldn't be taken for more than that.
Destroying case law doesn't solve anything. You'll still have a diverse range of legal judgements, or else you'll have no law at all.
Can you cite a source that Judiasm believes in more than one ressurection or rebirth?
Where does the belief in the transmigration of souls and a general ressurection in the time of the messiah come from then?
The first, I can see perhaps seeping in from surrounding cultures. But the second?
Nah, you just keep trying. Here in the Philippines, women are famous for getting pregnant after one 'accident.' Of course, that happens everywhere, but some people have to try for a year or two.
real life games played with cell phones and such. Like a 24-7 game of 'assassains.'
I'd like more non-linear games. I'd like to see more games without a predetermined storyline, set series of enemies, levels, etc. I'd like to be able to build or degrade trust with particular opponents, interact with more complex AI which forces me to use more complex strategies, etc.
Should you help this character or betray her? She'll be loyal to you or betray you depending on how you treat her. She may help or hurt your access to another character, etc.
I usually stick to strategy games now, in 1-2 hour sessions. But I wouldn't mind buying this type of game if someone came out with somthing more than just an 'a, b, or c' fork
This 'factoid' is a little simplistic.
Granted, subsidizing food like we do, and meat especially may be a bad idea. It would be better to let the market reflect the true price of things.
But have you ever been to Colorado? You can raise cattle there. Cash crops would be a lot harder and more inefficient.
I agree that stall feeding cattle grain and soybeans is very inefficient. The question, though, is not whether people eat meat or vegetables, but the manner in which meat is raised. Feeding animals crops that humans could consume is inefficient.
Not all land is suitable for raising wheat and corn.
There's a reason why there are some cultures that let animals graze, even cultures without the abundance of food we have. Herding makes good sense in certain arid or rocky terrains. If there's enough water, you can carve a mountain and grow grapes or coffee on the slopes. But that's very labor intensive, which brings a whole new set of problems.
You're mixing issues here.
There are crops capable of growing in all the warmer lattitudes. So long as wild strains of the various cash crops are preserved, new seeds can be developed for the new climate.
Rising temperatures and unstable climate can cause problems, yes. But increased pesticide usage? Increased requirements for fertilizer? Um... no.
No worries! Just chuck a bit of this on it! We think it's safe, and you'll improve your productivity and hence income by 500%. You'll need to renew your patent license again next year
Care to elaborate what "this" is? What is the precise chemical that will be used more often if global warming occurs?
Farmers don't 'renew their patent license' on anything. There are people producing seeds who patent them. Is that what you're going for? Corporate ownership of these cultivars is a problem. Hybridization can work as a type of patent and so can patents, with the result being that farmers have to buy more seeds each year, forcing dependance.
If we really wanted to stretch things to reach your conclusion, maybe we could paint this scenario;
"the change in climate would destroy local crops forcing native farmers to use corporate sponsored monoculture which, because of its homogeneity will require more pesticide usage.
That's the closest I can get to what you're trying to say.
But it seems that you're not articulating particular issues in this post so much as regurgitating causes and effects of random environmental problems without knowing which connects to which and by what mechanism.
What about Otto Hahn? He was a chemist on the team, and had done hands on work developing chemical weapons during WWI. Though he seems to have been a pretty poor physicist (not his field.)
As mentioned elsewhere, the diagram is for a plutonium bomb (and according to the earlier poster, the diagram wouldn't have worked.) The Germans hadn't even gotten a fission reaction going by the end of the war, since they didn't know that purified sufficiently purified graphite could be used to produce slow neutrons, and they kept trying to use heavywater.
The German nuclear scientists were rounded up and kept for a few weeks at Farm Hall where they were secretly recorded. The transcripts of this were declassified less than a decade ago, and there's a lot of debate over whether Heisenberg was doing less than his level best to advance the Nazi nuclear project, or whether he had just made mistakes.
When the allied forces let him hear the news of Hiroshiima and Nagasaki, he was able, (several days later) to give a good description of what happened, though he overestimated the amount of fissionable material required.
Historical debate on what Heisenberg knew beforehand tends to focus on the several days he required to figure out how the whole thing was done and whether or not that time span is relevant.
Mmm.. megafauna. :)
Good ground up with macroketchup and hypermayonise with a superpickle on top.
And then there's Rasputin...
If rocks from Mars can land on Earth, how hard would it be for microbes to move from one planet to another.. I mean, considering that they cover just about everything here.
True, the key being 'as a part of a balanced diet. The american association of pediatrics has stated that fruit juice (even pure fruit juice) has no nutritional benefits over whole fruit.
f ull/pediatrics;107/5/1210
m ?site=http://www.appleproducts.org/qanda.html
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/
The AAP state that toddlers and preschool aged children should be limited to just 4-6 ounces of one hundred percent fruit juice. That is a limit though and not a minimum.
Q: How many servings of beverages should a child over the age of two consume?
Children over 2 are supposed to drink 12 ounces or less (and avoid the sugarwater concotions entirely), and usually drink twice that.
http://pediatrics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.ht
Not the end of the world, of course. But when I was growing up, I think my parents and I overestimated how healthy juice was. It would have been better if I ate whole fruit and drank water.
Even worse are the laws about what a person can bring on a flight that can't even be discussed.
While I agree with you in principle, juice really isn't that healthy. Most juices are not much better than soda, with just a few more nutrients and no caffiene. It's mostly sugar water.
the bible proscribes eating a calf
I think you mean prohibits? Not to be a language nazi or anything.
You're right, I overspoke. ... but you say you learned useful things about architecture in High School?
I still think that most of what we learned in Geometry, particularly regarding proofs, was pointless especially without historical context.
I'd really like to see geometry either combined with history or deleted entirely.
I guess when I said 'bunk' I meant more along the lines of "information which has no practical value." History class is a good example, though I did have one spectacular AP History teacher.
Another problem would be speech class, where the teacher made us memorize the 'sender receiver' model of communication. When I got to college and did a little research into communications theory, I found that the model, while being the beginning of communications theory, had been developed based on the testing of the early phone system and was now incredibly outdated. It was useful to be able to speak in front of a group and get feedback, though.
High School often taugh facts, but neglected to give those facts the context that was required for any real understanding. In some cases, I think our teachers didn't even know the context.
I guess I'm just pissed because High School could have been a lot better, even though I did have a few very good classes.