On 4/14/2011 11:52, Warp wrote:
>    When will the Americans realize that a two-party system does not work
> very well?

Oh, I think we figured that out a while ago. (Actually, it's not a two-party 
system. It just devolved into that. There's nothing in the original 
constitution about political parties at all, and it was one of the early 
amendments that said the president and vice president had to come from the 
same party.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In any case, the real problem (as in any government) is when you realize 
it's broken, it's the people already in power who have to make the change. 
If you don't get it right to start with, it stays broken in any way that 
benefits the continuance of the power of people in power.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 12:04, Warp wrote:
>    Burning coal is only a temporary solution, and a bad one. I don't think
> poor countries need any more pollution than they already have.

Suggest an alternative. Note that "ox-driven pumps" is not an alternative. :-)

 > (After all,
> many parts of eg. Africa are already really polluted. For example, many
> rivers that used to be pristine 100 and even 50 years ago are nowadays so
> polluted that you could clean your paintbrushes in them. You certainly
> wouldn't want to swim in them.)

Sure. And some rivers in India are also polluted just because of how many 
people live and bathe and crap in them. The problem is less "industry" and 
more "people". Industry just lets you put too many people in too small a place.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 11:55, Warp wrote:
>    I don't understand how it can be legal to expel someone for the sole
> reason of wearing a t-shirt that says you're an atheist.

The authorities treated it the same as someone wearing a shirt that said 
"nigger" on it or something. Basically, it was insulting and harassing the 
people who aren't atheists. They treated it the same way as they would have 
treated someone religious preaching at you during class.

The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that they 
can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way they are, 
and that's somehow harmful to them. Of course, it *is* harmful to their 
beliefs, but they're not going to argue "it points out how wrong we are" as 
a bargaining point, so instead you get this generalize "offends me" kind of 
argument.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:04:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

>> A solution to global warming? No.  A solution to running out of oil?
>> Quite possibly.  A solution to having a power generation technology
>> that a poor uneducated population can use without fear of actually
>> killing people on the other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.
> 
>   Burning coal is only a temporary solution, and a bad one.

I'd have to agree with Darren here, it may be a bad solution, but unless 
there is another solution, the alternative is "well, it sucks to be you 
since you won't have power - deal with it."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:52:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Now *that* is a good question.  There are many followers of the
>> Republican party that I know of who think the religious fundamentalist
>> whackjobs are out of their minds, but they want fiscal conservatism and
>> the only way to get that (that they can see) is to vote for the
>> religious fundamentalist whackjobs because the alternative are those
>> "pinko-commie- socialist liberals" in the Democratic party.
> 
>   When will the Americans realize that a two-party system does not work
> very well?

Some of us realise that already - but unfortunately, what Douglas Adams 
observed in one of the Hitchhiker's books rings very true over here:

http://www.elorasoap.com/working_k/karensloop/lizard.html

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:16:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them.

Except that that didn't work in the appeal on Prop 8, as I understand it 
- didn't the court find that those who claimed that gay marriage harmed 
them didn't actually have standing to sue because they couldn't 
demonstrate how they were harmed?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 06:56 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 10:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, yeah, obviously. I'm sure there are remote countries that nobody
>> has
>> ever heard of where people still regularly get stonned to death.
>
> Like, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc?

Yes, like those.

> Please tell me you've heard of at least one of those countries.

*sigh* It appears I am doomed to forever be taken literally.

> Contrast with
>
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom#20th_and_21st_centuries>
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States#Prosecution_for_blasphemy>

Damn. I had no idea the country I live in is so stupid...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> decide between two competing products,
>
> He asks his experts and evaluates their response. *His* job is to
> evaluate which experts to hire.

I don't think he knows that. He seems to think is job is "to be in 
control of *everything*, so I look as important as possible".

> Now, it's entirely possible he can't do
> his job either, but that's a different thing there.

;-)

>> been a complex, twisted mess of poor grammer, ambiguous phrases and
>> confusing sentence structure. WTF, people?
>
> I've noticed that sort of thing, yes.

To be completely fair, you *could* imagine that the guy wrote a document 
that was clean and simple, and then a dozen people said "change X, take 
out Y, add Z, rearrange these two sections..." and it ended up being 
spaghetti.

Then again, this person's entire job function is to make it *not* be 
spaghetti, so... that's not really much of a defense.

> It's possible your company hires lots of stupid people. It's possible
> your preconceptions make you notice their stupid bits and forget their
> smart bits. But generalizing that to an entire country makes *you* sound
> stupid even when you're not. See how that works? :-)

Well, I did point out it was a small sample size...

You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing 
that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people 
live there. Then again, I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world 
thinks us British people still wonder around wearing top hats and 
tailcoats...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 12:53, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:23:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>>> It's a fairly fine distinction, I think.
>>>
>>>
>> Not that fine IMO
>
> How so?
>
> Jim

You can beleive something based on knowlege, but you can also beleive in 
something outside of any knowlege.

Strictly, beleif don't need to rely on knowlege and knowlege don't lead 
to beleiving.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:53:16 -0400, Alain wrote:

> You can beleive something based on knowlege, but you can also beleive in
> something outside of any knowlege.
> 
> Strictly, beleif don't need to rely on knowlege and knowlege don't lead
> to beleiving.

I can see that - and in the broader discussion of what is antithetical to 
knowledge, "faith" is a better answer than "belief".

But belief and faith are similar if belief isn't based on knowledge; the 
'fine distinction' I'm referring to is that faith implies no (need for) 
knowledge, whereas belief has no such inference.

I guess in some ways it depends on which definition of 'belief' you're 
using (much the same as my earlier discussion on the proper usage of 
'theory' by creationists).

OED says there are several definitions; the definition that requires 
knowledge (or one of them, in any event) has to do with 'mental 
acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground 
of authority or evidence.'.  That differs from definitions pertaining to 
religious belief, or the 'trust in God'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message