This is going to be Marshall Kim's trump card. His troops can just walk into Seoul, while the US won't do a thing, b'cos they obviously don't believe that he's really going to war, regardless of all the missile tests that they've been launching.
"Say they don't believe that there will be a war", "Don't believe that there will be a war", and "Aren't prepared to win a war if it does happen" are three different things. the US government clearly meets the first description, might meet the second, but doesn't meet the third.
If you don't understand the distinction between the second and the third, consider the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982.
And 11 million lives in Seoul that are pretty much forfeit in under 5 minutes when the shelling starts. No profit for Haliburton and other Contractors if all that's left is a smoking hole in the ground.
The US government gave Halliburton and other US contractors plenty of money to rebuild smoking holes in the ground of the country we blew up. You don't think we'd do as much in an allied country after an enemy blew them up?
You know perfectly well why communist (or other) dictatorships go to war. They're close to losing control over their own country, either because the population is rising up (unlikely here)
Actually, regimes with democratically elected leaders (including U.S. regimes in the 21st Century) going to war because the population is "rising up" against the current leaders (which, in a system where the regime can be replaced by an election, can just mean the current leadership dropping precipitously in the polls) and the leadership knows that war tends to produce a "rally-around-the-flag" effect is not at all unheard of.
Second, for the more substantial reason that the Flood wiped out everyone other than Noah, his wife, and his children -- meaning that no one now living is, if one takes the Bible literally, descended from Cain, no matter who or what he mated with.
Well, this leaves out Noah's son's wives. Which could be descended from Cain, but necessarily also from Noah. So I suppose you could suppose that one of them was descended from Cain (given how little Genesis mentions about where most of the women come from, you can pretty much suppose anything you want about them), and that all black people came from her line, but then you've increased the amount by which the invention implies divine endorsement of the whole monkey-marriage thing, since two of the handful of people God protects from the Flood are a part-monkey and a part-monkey-lover.
The second most likely explanation is that Cain's wife was from the "Other People", the Humans "created" on the 6th day of the Genesis 1 creation myth. This would have been before Yahweh decided to try the Eden experiment and make his own line of pet Humans at the end of the second creation myth.
That chronology doesn't work, because Adam in the second myth was created before there were plants, birds, or land animals on Earth, and the humans in the Genesis 1 myth were created after that. If you are going to try to reconcile the two, at a minimum the "Other People" have to be created after Adam (but maybe not after Eve, since Eve is created after the plants, birds, and animals.)
That would explain that first inconsistency, but then we have another problem - there could conceivably be humans descended from the Other People who are not from Cain's family. As such, we don't all have original sin.
Well, no, because of the Flood (I mean, there would be humans descended from the Other People who are not Cain's family, but they'd all be from his youngest-named-brother Seth's family by way of Noah, and thus still have original sin.)
Of course, the Other People hypothesis doesn't actually address the Gen 1 - Gen 2 inconsistency, since its inconsistent with both creation stories.
I am from the deep south and this is what my great aunt told me years ago, about Cain's wife. After Cain killed Abel, he was exiled to Ur. The only thing in Ur to mate with was monkeys. Black people came from Cain & a monkey. No lie. That's what my great aunt believed, which is not to say I believe it.
Well, aside from the whole extrabiblical monkey invention (which, as all the Bible says about her is that she was Cain's wife -- not, say, a monkey which you might think would be notable -- would, if accepted as true, seem to indicate that the "traditional", "biblical" concept of marriage, as well as include polygamy, also includes man-monkey partnerships), this is inconsistent with Biblical literalism.
First, for the nitpicky reason that Cain was exiled to Nod, not Ur. Second, for the more substantial reason that the Flood wiped out everyone other than Noah, his wife, and his children -- meaning that no one now living is, if one takes the Bible literally, descended from Cain, no matter who or what he mated with.
I've always heard that there are solid grounds for debate. a "Long Day Creationist" (one who believes that the world/universe was created in 6 indeterminate periods of time) and a "Short Day Creationist" (one who believes that the world/universe was created in six periods of twenty four hours) both believe that the earth was created by God.
Doesn't explain the difference in the order of creation events between the creation story in Genesis ascribed to the Priestly source and the one attributed to the Yahwist source, though.
Admittedly there's plenty of speculation on my part for this one, but Adam was listed as having lived 913 years, and Eve likely lived somewhere around there as well. I'm certain that they had plenty of other children besides Cain and Abel,
Cain, Abel, Seth, and "other sons and daughters", per Genesis
Cain's wife is a legitimate question (she is expressly mentioned, but no mention is made of where she came from, but, you know, that part of Genesis barely mentions women at all; its really not among the problems that challenge literalism, though, since even most literalists don't hold that the Bible is a complete account that leaves out nothing of historical interest.)
Abel is never mentioned as having a wife, so that's not even an issue.
The Hebrew word that was translated to "day" in Genesis actually means more of a period of time, meaning that each period could have lasted thousands or millions of years each
The length of the "days" in the Genesis 1:1-2:3 creation story aren't the big problem with taking Genesis literally.
The inconsistency between the order of creation events in the Genesis 1:1-2:3 story and the one starting at Genesis 2:4 is a bigger problem.
I am one of the few people who actually believes that science and religion can coexist despite the all the backlash.
Lots of people believe that. "Religion" and "biblical literalism" aren't the same thing, though.
I don't agree with the arguments for a literal interpretation of Genesis (few outside the US do), but I do believe in Biblical inerrancy
In other words, you have convinced yourself the logically impossible is possible
Biblical inerrancy without biblical literalism isn't impossible: it just means that whenever what you thought the Bible meant turns out to be false, well, then that's not actually what it meant.
Well, it is generally accepted that we are all matrilinearly decended from the same woman, Mitochondrial Eve, I think this pretty much scientifically disproves there being two women at creation, unless one mothered no daughters.
No, it doesn't. Per Genesis, we're all matrilineally descended from Noah's wife.
You seem to have a reading comprehension impairment. Chapter 1 is an executive summary showing the general chronological order of creation. Chapter 2 goes into detail about the creation of Adam and Eve. Versus 1-3 of Chapter 2 finish up with the 7th day when god rested. Chapter 2 verses 4-6 describe the environment on the surface of the earth just prior to the formation of Adam on the surface. As you can see, it does not recount the creation of light, the heavens, the dry land or the "sky" because it it did, then you could argue that it was a different account of "creation".
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Both creation accounts specifically state when the first plants and animals of various types were created, and in the first account all of them are created before God creates mankind "male and female", and in the second man is created, then plants, then animals, then woman.
Incorrect. Adam and Eve had three sons mentioned by name (Cain, Abel, and Seth), and, additionally, "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (Gen 5:4)
I propose that their children were mother fuckers.
Abel is never identified as having a mate before being killed by Cain. Cain expressly has his own wife, though its not entirely clear where she came from, and following the chronology implied by the order of verses in Gen 4, by the time Seth is born, Cain has five generations of descendants. Though, arguably, the similar names in Gen 5 (which only traces Seth's line) suggest a slightly different chronology (or maybe just name-sharing), because some of the descendants of Cain that appear to precede Seth in Gen 4 appear to also be descendants of Seth in Gen 5, which might suggest that the discussion of Seth after the discussion of Cain's line in Gen 4 isn't chronological.
Chapter 1 - Male and Female are created simultaneously.
Chapter 2 - Adam and Eve are created in that order.
There are clear discrepancies between the creation myth at Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the second one starting at Genesis 2:4, but that's not one of them. Simultaneity between the creation of male and female humans isn't stated explicitly in Genesis 1:26-27.
OTOH, it is explicitly stated in the first creation story that the plants and animals were created before humans -- vegetation on the third day (Gen 1:11-13), sea creatures and flying creatures on the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23), and land creatures on the sixth day (Gen 1:24-25) before humans.
Which is problematic, because the second creation story has man created first (Gen 2:7) before plants (Gen 2:5), then plants are created (Gen 2:8-9), followed by animals (Gen 2:19-20), and then woman (Gen 2:21-23).
Using a combination of relatively low-tech techniques and tools, security researchers have discovered that they can access the contents of one in six Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) buckets whose owners had them set to Public instead of Private.
So, if you want your bucket to be private, you shouldn't actively set it to be Public instead of Private. Okay, I can see that, but I'm trying desperately to figure out how this is news.
Two packages, sent at the exact same time, to the same destination, the only difference was the brand tape. This conducted almost 90 times. It's enough to calculate a lot of useful things.
They performed control experiments where the destination went to other parts of the world without that problem.
The problem clearly starts at the US border.
No, it clearly affects products originating in Berlin and destined for the US.
That doesn't mean that it starts at the US border (and, even if it does start at the US border, it doesn't mean its USPS; US Customs, for instance, could be involved.)
And, even if it does start at the border, its not clear that the problem is with "Atheist". The neutral tape had no branding; it could be a -- and this is a widely recognized issue -- problem with branded vs. unbranded packages.
So perhaps I just don't understand what it takes to carry out a proper experiment? What was done wrong?
Too many uncontrolled-for variables to reach the conclusion (USPS discriminates against Atheist-branded products.)
The samples are not too small -- that's my opinion.
False.
They were not studying things with too many variables.
Yes, they were. Specifically, the setup they have does not distinguish between the explanation they present as their conclusion and: * The actual difference shown being caused by branded vs. non-branded products rather than atheist-branded vs. other-branded products * The actual problem occurring somewhere between the origin point and the arrival in the US but selectively targeting atheist-branded (or just branded, see previous point) products destined for the US * The actual problem occurring in the US by some group or combination of groups other than the USPS (e.g., delay or loss by US Customs and/or package loss due to theft by private criminals at the delivery point.)
The experiment is a reasonable first step motivated by the hypothesis that the USPS discriminates against atheist-branded packages, but its not remotely sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that such discriminatio exists.
It's a buzzword because all of what you said has existed for years already under different names.
No, that's not what makes it a buzzword. "Cloud" -- a word used to sell things because its currently popular that has, increasingly as used, no consistent definition (though it originally had one and is still sometimes used in that sense) is a buzzword.
The main economic advantage to having a single currency within a nation or across a trading bloc is that it increases efficiency somewhat.
That might be the main advantage now, its not the historical motivation. (Though I doubt that its even the main advantage now, and it might not even be true.)
But in terms of stability and robustness, a lot of currencies operating in a free market are clearly better.
Free markets are theoretical ideals, not real-world alternatives.
And private and multiple currencies are a possible solution to many of the economic woes that we are currently seeing in the US and Europe.
Many things are abstractly possible, but I don't see a coherent argument being presented that it is particularly likely that private currencies would solve any actual "economic woes" currently being experienced in the US or Europe.
And they are likely going to happen anyway, whether governments like them or not.
Private issuance of currency happens all the time, and there is historically a cycle where it occurs in a particular form, initially relatively unregulated, becomes more common, the system breaks down because some actors find ways of gaming it and produce widespread harm, and the government moves in and regulates, monopolizes, or bans the particular form. So, yeah, its a no brainer that its going to happen in new forms in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
"Say they don't believe that there will be a war", "Don't believe that there will be a war", and "Aren't prepared to win a war if it does happen" are three different things. the US government clearly meets the first description, might meet the second, but doesn't meet the third.
If you don't understand the distinction between the second and the third, consider the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982.
The US government gave Halliburton and other US contractors plenty of money to rebuild smoking holes in the ground of the country we blew up. You don't think we'd do as much in an allied country after an enemy blew them up?
Actually, regimes with democratically elected leaders (including U.S. regimes in the 21st Century) going to war because the population is "rising up" against the current leaders (which, in a system where the regime can be replaced by an election, can just mean the current leadership dropping precipitously in the polls) and the leadership knows that war tends to produce a "rally-around-the-flag" effect is not at all unheard of.
Christianity, per se, does not, different branches of Christianity disagree rather strongly with each other on both of these points.
Well, this leaves out Noah's son's wives. Which could be descended from Cain, but necessarily also from Noah. So I suppose you could suppose that one of them was descended from Cain (given how little Genesis mentions about where most of the women come from, you can pretty much suppose anything you want about them), and that all black people came from her line, but then you've increased the amount by which the invention implies divine endorsement of the whole monkey-marriage thing, since two of the handful of people God protects from the Flood are a part-monkey and a part-monkey-lover.
Yeah, your right. My bad.
That chronology doesn't work, because Adam in the second myth was created before there were plants, birds, or land animals on Earth, and the humans in the Genesis 1 myth were created after that. If you are going to try to reconcile the two, at a minimum the "Other People" have to be created after Adam (but maybe not after Eve, since Eve is created after the plants, birds, and animals.)
Well, no, because of the Flood (I mean, there would be humans descended from the Other People who are not Cain's family, but they'd all be from his youngest-named-brother Seth's family by way of Noah, and thus still have original sin.)
Of course, the Other People hypothesis doesn't actually address the Gen 1 - Gen 2 inconsistency, since its inconsistent with both creation stories.
Well, aside from the whole extrabiblical monkey invention (which, as all the Bible says about her is that she was Cain's wife -- not, say, a monkey which you might think would be notable -- would, if accepted as true, seem to indicate that the "traditional", "biblical" concept of marriage, as well as include polygamy, also includes man-monkey partnerships), this is inconsistent with Biblical literalism.
First, for the nitpicky reason that Cain was exiled to Nod, not Ur.
Second, for the more substantial reason that the Flood wiped out everyone other than Noah, his wife, and his children -- meaning that no one now living is, if one takes the Bible literally, descended from Cain, no matter who or what he mated with.
Doesn't explain the difference in the order of creation events between the creation story in Genesis ascribed to the Priestly source and the one attributed to the Yahwist source, though.
Cain, Abel, Seth, and "other sons and daughters", per Genesis
Cain's wife is a legitimate question (she is expressly mentioned, but no mention is made of where she came from, but, you know, that part of Genesis barely mentions women at all; its really not among the problems that challenge literalism, though, since even most literalists don't hold that the Bible is a complete account that leaves out nothing of historical interest.)
Abel is never mentioned as having a wife, so that's not even an issue.
The length of the "days" in the Genesis 1:1-2:3 creation story aren't the big problem with taking Genesis literally.
The inconsistency between the order of creation events in the Genesis 1:1-2:3 story and the one starting at Genesis 2:4 is a bigger problem.
Lots of people believe that. "Religion" and "biblical literalism" aren't the same thing, though.
Which is inconsistent with Genesis 1, since there, water (Genesis 1:2) exists before God creates light (Genesis 1:3).
Biblical inerrancy without biblical literalism isn't impossible: it just means that whenever what you thought the Bible meant turns out to be false, well, then that's not actually what it meant.
No, it doesn't. Per Genesis, we're all matrilineally descended from Noah's wife.
Then the account at Gen 2:4-25 disproves the account at Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3, and vice versa.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Both creation accounts specifically state when the first plants and animals of various types were created, and in the first account all of them are created before God creates mankind "male and female", and in the second man is created, then plants, then animals, then woman.
Incorrect. Adam and Eve had three sons mentioned by name (Cain, Abel, and Seth), and, additionally, "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (Gen 5:4)
Abel is never identified as having a mate before being killed by Cain. Cain expressly has his own wife, though its not entirely clear where she came from, and following the chronology implied by the order of verses in Gen 4, by the time Seth is born, Cain has five generations of descendants. Though, arguably, the similar names in Gen 5 (which only traces Seth's line) suggest a slightly different chronology (or maybe just name-sharing), because some of the descendants of Cain that appear to precede Seth in Gen 4 appear to also be descendants of Seth in Gen 5, which might suggest that the discussion of Seth after the discussion of Cain's line in Gen 4 isn't chronological.
There are clear discrepancies between the creation myth at Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the second one starting at Genesis 2:4, but that's not one of them. Simultaneity between the creation of male and female humans isn't stated explicitly in Genesis 1:26-27.
OTOH, it is explicitly stated in the first creation story that the plants and animals were created before humans -- vegetation on the third day (Gen 1:11-13), sea creatures and flying creatures on the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23), and land creatures on the sixth day (Gen 1:24-25) before humans.
Which is problematic, because the second creation story has man created first (Gen 2:7) before plants (Gen 2:5), then plants are created (Gen 2:8-9), followed by animals (Gen 2:19-20), and then woman (Gen 2:21-23).
Private is the default setting. Which is why TFS notes that this is about buckets who users had set them to Public instead of Private.
So, if you want your bucket to be private, you shouldn't actively set it to be Public instead of Private. Okay, I can see that, but I'm trying desperately to figure out how this is news.
No, it clearly affects products originating in Berlin and destined for the US.
That doesn't mean that it starts at the US border (and, even if it does start at the US border, it doesn't mean its USPS; US Customs, for instance, could be involved.)
And, even if it does start at the border, its not clear that the problem is with "Atheist". The neutral tape had no branding; it could be a -- and this is a widely recognized issue -- problem with branded vs. unbranded packages.
Too many uncontrolled-for variables to reach the conclusion (USPS discriminates against Atheist-branded products.)
False.
Yes, they were. Specifically, the setup they have does not distinguish between the explanation they present as their conclusion and:
* The actual difference shown being caused by branded vs. non-branded products rather than atheist-branded vs. other-branded products
* The actual problem occurring somewhere between the origin point and the arrival in the US but selectively targeting atheist-branded (or just branded, see previous point) products destined for the US
* The actual problem occurring in the US by some group or combination of groups other than the USPS (e.g., delay or loss by US Customs and/or package loss due to theft by private criminals at the delivery point.)
The experiment is a reasonable first step motivated by the hypothesis that the USPS discriminates against atheist-branded packages, but its not remotely sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that such discriminatio exists.
No, that's not what makes it a buzzword. "Cloud" -- a word used to sell things because its currently popular that has, increasingly as used, no consistent definition (though it originally had one and is still sometimes used in that sense) is a buzzword.
No, its historical fact.
That might be the main advantage now, its not the historical motivation. (Though I doubt that its even the main advantage now, and it might not even be true.)
Free markets are theoretical ideals, not real-world alternatives.
Many things are abstractly possible, but I don't see a coherent argument being presented that it is particularly likely that private currencies would solve any actual "economic woes" currently being experienced in the US or Europe.
Private issuance of currency happens all the time, and there is historically a cycle where it occurs in a particular form, initially relatively unregulated, becomes more common, the system breaks down because some actors find ways of gaming it and produce widespread harm, and the government moves in and regulates, monopolizes, or bans the particular form. So, yeah, its a no brainer that its going to happen in new forms in the future.
Yes, nobody bothers to copy-edit these things before they go live.
Exactly, which explains the previous answer.