Posts by EnderX

Given that, in recent history, most attacks on America have been from people who fit that description, I would have to say it isn't an unreasonable choice to hold someone fitting that description under suspicion. Don't go overboard, though. Without further proof, there is no valid reason to go into "OMG he gots a camera he's gunna kill us all!" levels of panic.

Did I say that local governments were introduced by the federal government? No, I said local and state governments derive their power from the federal government..

Unless the lower-area government was set in place by the higher-area government (local-state, local-federal, state-federal), then I fail to see how the lower-area government derives its power from the higher-area one.

What evidence do you have that this usually happens? And did I ever say that I agreed with it? Besides, monopolies are not always bad..

The fact that I cannot recall ever hearing of a single regulated industry where the regulations didn't cause some form of hardship to those who had to deal with them. Perhaps it's not what usually happens, in which case I agree that I am in error.

And if you don't want us to think you agree with something, then it might be a good idea not to describe it in a highly positive light. Simply leave it out of the discussion.

Yes, the bill of rights lists restrictions of the federal government. So, the government gives us these rights, because they have to.. but it is still something that they give us. Look at other governments that are run by corrupt leaders, and who strip their citizens of most rights..

There is a difference between giving something and not taking something. Or would you say that if you were mugged, and the mugger stole your cash, your credit cards, and any other useable/salable goods you possessed, …

I was under the impression that sine and cosine were determined by degrees; after 360, you start cycling again. Ergo, it would seem to me that your 666 degrees would be equal to 360 degrees (one full cycle) plus 306 additional. If any of this is incorrect, please point out to me where I am in error.

I'd have to say that I'm against the idea of funding for embryonic cells, mostly because of the death requirements to it, but also partially due to RoE weakness.

The claims laden out for 'eventually, the e-cells will do all of this!' are always couched as 'eventually'. The actual results for e-cells so far seem to stem more towards teratoma and neurological disfunction, whereas A-cells are already producing numerous useful results. True, A-cells can't produce the same range of types, but they also appear unable to produce the same risks, which I would consider a good thing.

Key: For those to whom it wasn't completely obvious, 'e-cell' is embryonic cells, and 'A-cell' is adult cells.

Wasn't Tesla the one who's supposed to have attempted inventing a death ray? (Note: I'm not saying he actually did this, I'm saying I think he's 'credited' with it historically, and asking if my memory is correct on this.)

Given the way it seems to be going, in the United States at least, I'm suspicious about that. The research may offer support, which I am in favor of, but it may also lead to off-course attempts to cure it becoming entrenched in scientific philosophy. I already suspect that most cancer research is at least partially inaccurate due to HeLa spread.

I think I'm missing something. Shouldn't that be 306 degrees? Or are you just blatantly parodying your own earlier 'God v. Atheism' statement?

Sorry for the triple post; I've been away from the thread too long, it seems.

> a nice $60 tax return,
Hey, I get to invest it now though, don't I? The saved me from going out and wasting it early.

They also prevented you from being able to invest it earlier. In effect, they've stolen from you the interest you would have gained.

And the state and local governments derive their power from who?

Themselves. Remember, the 13 colonies had local and colonial self-government before the Articles of Confederation, and well before the Constitution. For that matter, Virginia's ratification of the Constitution was on the proviso that, should the Federal government in any way impede the State's self-governance, the State of Virginia would have the right to withdraw from the Constitutional Union.

Actually, some cities set up a monopoly and a committee to regulate electricity..

Which usually results in power going unavailable because the distribution companies can't get enough of it from their suppliers to feed the needs/wants of those they supply. You do realize that with each statement, you're sounding less like the capitalist you profess yourself to be?

Really? Then what exactly does the bill or amendments do? It protects us from the federal government by enabling us to possess said rights..

You said it yourself. It protects us from the Federal Government. This isn't something the government gives us, it's something that the government is prevented from taking from us. There's …

What ignorance is this? I don't think it's fair to judge roosevelt as he was not president during the crash. Relative to the first 4 years of the depression, Roosevelt did well with what resources he had. I doubt you could have done much better..

Josh, one of the things FDR did to 'assist' the citizenry during the Great Depression was destroying things. No, I'm not making that up. In an effort to give a boost to the agricultural community, the US Government purchased whatever wheat farmers were willing to sell them, at a price higher than the world's market price. The idea was that once the wheat was taken off the market, the price of wheat would skyrocket, and it could be sold for a greater amount. This didn't happen.

Argentina, I know, started shoving their wheat more strongly on the US-free world market. They weren't the only ones, they're just the only ones I can recall at the moment. And everyone knew that, eventually, the US would have to release its stockpiled wheat, dumping the price even lower than the competition already going on. This would have negated the effects of FDR's attempt to help the farmers. So what did FDR do?

He ordered the stockpiles of wheat to be destroyed.

Yes, I said that. In order to artificially keep the price of wheat high, in the middle of the Great Depression, the federal government, during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ordered that the …

Your statement was not correct, though. Your 'opinion' was that the government does not make money on its own.. which is both literally and metaphorically incorrect. (The United States treasury 'makes' money by ordering to be printed;))

Seriously, though. You don't have to pay taxes. Leave the country if you don't like our government/laws. You do have a choice. However, you choose to live in this country and you choose to use government services. So you should be required to pay.

I only bad reped you, because your statement was incorrect, not because I did not agree with your opinion.

If the treasury prints money, that simply dilutes the value of the funds already out there, doesn't it? I mean, it's no longer backed by gold and silver, so it doesn't have any real value, merely the amount we think it should. If more shows up, then the total value of a single given bill ought to drop, shouldn't it? Isn't that the kind of comparison that's always being used about Pre-Nazi Germany, with the (possibly exaggerated) claims of 'a wheelbarrow of deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread'?

And something I've seen elsewhere leads me to believe that even if you leave America, you've still got to pay American taxes for several years. I'll try to look into that further.

Thank you for the clarification.

So you wouldn't count the defense of a friend, or a loved one, in the same category?

Define self-defense, please. Regular, or 'enlightened' version?

That is absolutely ridiculous.. Saying catholicism isn't christianity is like saying physics isn't science. Once again, Catholics were the first christians.

The first Christians weren't 'Catholics', they were 'Followers of the Way'. Then, in the city of Antioch, the term 'Christian' was applied to them; at least some of the sources I've seen indicate that the term was meant as a pejorative, but was instead adopted as a badge of honor.

Peter was the first pope.

On the historical evidence, the first Pope was the Roman Emperor Constantine. And from what I've seen, even to this day the reigning pope bears the imperial roman title 'Pontifex Maximus', which I wouldn't expect if the first pope had been a jewish fisherman, especially one put to death by the roman government. Have you any evidence, other than pronouncements from the Catholic dogma, with which to prove your statement?

The majority of the population of the ENTIRE world is catholic.

So?

13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

(Note for those who dislike parsing Middle English: Strait translates across as narrow, or as affording little space.)

Catholics are just a lot more organized than the protestants.. they have standards and a central point of the church.

What'd you do, ~s.o.s~, edit the code or put your own box in over the 'official' one?

Eh, might want to edit that just a bit...

I think there already is one of those...Anything and Everything.

Nitpicking:
1. It's 'baptist', not 'babtist'. Refer to the gospels for John the Baptist on spelling.
2. 'Protestant' is a generic term for all of the variant denominations that came out of the Reformation. The only one it doesn't historically apply to is the Baptists, who are in the faith lineage of the various Anabaptist groups which existed during the time from Emperor Constantine officially established the State Church (Catholicism) and the Reformation. Subsets would include groups such as the Vaudois of the French/Italian Alps. I say historically because most Baptists these days consider themselves to be part of the Protestant group.
3. Mormons aren't Christians. The addition of the Book of Mormon, as an addition to the scriptures, marks the Mormon religion as a 'Christianity +' group, those who believe that you need something other than Christ, and Him alone, to reach Heavan. Plus Joseph Smith's history of occultism before founding the Mormon religion would tend to cause most Christians to look askance at him and his results.

And JoshSCH is probably going to ream me out on this, as no doubt will plenty of others, but I still say that Catholicism is NOT Christianity. It places too much of an emphasis on works, multiplies the requirements for salvation (example: Seven Sacraments...I can't recall all of them, but I do remember baptism [infant], confession, eucharist [probably not the correct name for the sacrament; I believe the eucharist is the actual wafer itself...], marriage, priesthood, and …

Apparently he can fortell the future. Either that or he got you confused with someone else.

I'm more in favor of the citizens getting to spend the money for themselves than the government doing it for them...I'm not really that fond of the idea of 'leech awareness week' or something like that.

Interesting scale...is this a personal one from that instructor, or one used by your entire school as a unit? Every class I've attended except for one (a college calculus course) was:
A - 90-100%
B - 80-89%
C - 70-79%
D - 60-69%(HS) or 65-69%(Clg)
F - Below a D.
I - Incomplete (courses with work turned in late, mostly...usually ends up translating into a D or an F)

So how come the term 'dehumanize' is normally used to indicate being stripped of dignity, safety, etc...?

Not in times of recession when unemployment is high. World War II helped end the Great Depression b/c of the high spending.

Actually, a case could be argued against that.

True, in WW2, some of the effects of the Depression were apparently negated. Wealth was produced, at least on paper, and goods were being produced. Unemployment shrank drastically. Sounds good, right?

Look again. The 'paper wealth' wasn't much good, because production of civilian goods wasn't really increasing. The vast amount of the increase was in military goods...and hummers and the like aside, when's the last time you saw the average working man go buy a piece of military ordinance, or a tank or helicopter, or...you get the idea. Things didn't really settle until after the war, when the production went back to civilian goods and there was finally something to spend all that accrued paper wealth on.

As to the unemployment issue, well, yeah. Unemployment went down. That's what happens when you suddenly swell the size of your armed services; people who weren't employed elsewhere can be employed by the military.

And don't get me started on the Great Depression. (Or do, if you want to take this thread on another tack. Alternately, yell at me, and I'll move it to the history thread.)

Been looking at it; without knowing what verse everyone thinks they're discussing, all I can do is follow what leads I have. I haven't exactly read the whole thing through, but the only thing I can come up with so far is Genesis 38, which covers something that might look simular to the casual observer. If any of the others considering the question have a better verse reference, I'd be happy to check that (or those) out as well.

Cool. I wish you well with your training, education, and career.

At the risk of getting ridiculed, why do some people consider Linux as 'sissy'?

Monopolies are bad because they prevent small businesses from becoming involved in the industry. They also can charge whatever price they want but why would they? They have no competition so they can dramatically overprice their products and/or servieces and consumers will have no other choice.

No, they can't. If they tried to do so at a price high above the true market value, someone else would come in and undercut them. It might take time, but eventually they would have to do one of the following:
1. Get the other company put out of business somehow. (Usually by 'violation' of some absurd business law. For example, too much sand on the premises; at least at one point [don't know about today, sadly] sand was considered to be an OSHA hazardous material. No, I don't know why.)
2. Cut prices to a reasonable level in order to stay competitive. After all, if Company 'A' is selling, say, kumquats at $50.00/lb, and Company 'K' comes along and sells them for $17.00/lb, then people will buy from Company 'K' whenever they need kumquats. If 'A' doesn't meet or beat the $17.00/lb price, 'A' eventually will go out of business for lack of customers.
3. Attempt 'Predatory Pricing', the usual reason given that monopolistic corporations are bad. 'Oh, they'll sell for pennies on the dollar until nobody else can compete, then once everyone else is gone, they'll jack the prices sky-high!' For a bit of history on why that wouldn't …

I believe that you are actually proving my point of morality. What you are implying is that conscience is not enough to keep a person good; he needs the presents of a God to do it for him.

Sort of; you're again confusing terms, good and moral. A person's own conscience can keep them on the 'moral' path. However, there is a difference between what the world views as 'moral' and what is right. After all, at one time slavery, for example, was viewed as being 'moral'. Did that make slavery right? No.

I also believe that you are underestimating society and overestimating public aproval. No I am not contradicting myself. Society at large tends to be good. Of course you will always get the bad individuals but they tend to be in the minority. It is true that public approval will prevent some evil but if a truly bad person wants to do bad he will go clandestine.

Quick request. Please take a look at societies throughout history and then tell me that you really believe that society is good. Mankind is not, and societies are made up of men. So where does this mysterious 'goodness of society' come from?

Begging God. What can I say. If a child asks a parrent for a car( or even if he demands ) it is a valid action in the sense that there actually does exists parrents.

However asking God to savegaurd you on a journey while you have …

Tried that; I think I prefer the sarcasm tag quote better. It actually makes a formatting difference.

Although if you could come up with something that would change the actual formatted output when <sarcasm/> or [sarcasm/] got used, I'd probably go for that as well...

Nah, I'd say that one's more likely to be pinned on Reagan|Bush(41) instead.

And then Mr. Miracle Man Clinton came down, and waved his magic veto, and everyone was happy except for the rich ol' meanie Rethuglicans, so they snuck some of their spies into Poor Mr. Clinton's glorious government and started saying bad names and calling him a liar. And when that didn't work for them, they sent in their biggest, strongest Rethuglican, Junior, to get rid of anybody who'd helped Miracle Man take care of the people of Lala land...er, America.

And on another note, I've sort of found a way to create a working sarcasm tag...

You're mixing things up a bit.

Yes, warning someone else of hell is one way to lead them toward the Lord. Not necessarily the best, but a valid one. However, at that point in time, the individual in question has no reason not to be immoral (more specifically, not to pursue their own desires at the expense of others) other than their own conscience or public disapproval, neither of which seems to be very strong most of the time. Remember, this individual does not believe in God at this point.

After begin saved, the individual now honors God. At this point, he does have a valid reason to trust in God, and to do what is right; this reason is the individual's love for the One Who not only saved him from hell, but granted him far more than just salvation.

Begging is a bit closer; I'd simply call it asking in the scenario you present. 'Prayer', however, is simply speaking with God. Most people, sadly, do only pray when they need/want something (far to many on the 'want' side...), but that's not all there is to it.

Even assuming the scenario you present, however, it's asking for something, not demanding it. It's the difference between, say, asking your parents for a car on your 16th birthday and shoving your face in theirs and going 'Gimme a Car!'. It's not a matter of control, it's a matter of trust.

It's not the fear of God that keeps us moral/humane, it's love for God. There is a difference.

And if someone's praying thinking they can control what's going to happen, either directly or indirectly as you stated, they've strayed away from faith and into magic. We cannot command God.

:-/

Actually, atheism is the lack of faith. There is a difference.

You don't live by it either.. explain what you mean by this.

Naw, I just get tired of debating with 20 Christians when we only have 2-3 atheists..

Atheism may be a religion of sorts, depending on how you define 'religion'. After all, it is a statement of beliefs, even though what you believe is 'nothing'. It's as much a religious belief as [not(x==8)] is a computational statement...both are focused on negation.

And any kind of belief, whether overtly 'religious' or not, is something you live by. If you didn't believe it, then it wouldn't affect you, but because you do, it does. See?

And I don't think there are twenty of us here; we're just synergistic in debate.

Meh. Ignorance is bliss :)

Nah, we just don't know any better.

Has communism ever been successfully achieved? It's great in theory, but every attempt I know of has failed due to corrupt leadership.

As far as I can tell, an apparently socialist government of any form appears to have successfully existed exactly once in human history, and it's one that Sturm will probably refuse to accept.

And as for capitolism, no I'm against it. It supports child labor, outsourcing of jobs, monopolizing etc. Although there are good things about it, I myself think that the negatives outweigh the positives, but at the same time I've yet to see a true nationalized economy that has been successful without depriving its citizens of their rights. That may be because I don't know a lot about foreign governments though. I know more about America's government. I also think a transition would be difficult, but not impossible.

I'll give you the outsourcing, because it's a way to quickly reduce the available price. However, I'm willing to take umbrage at the others.

Child Labor is an interesting, somewhat finicky term. You do realize that, until relatively recently, the average child put in a great deal of labor simply as part of their everyday life? And that in many places, this is still the case, and would be even if the people of America or any other industrialized nation had never heard of the location? Or, for that matter, how about 'adolescence', a concept that really didn't even exist until the last several decades, yet now seems to get grandfathered into the discussions on child labor? I'd appreciate it if you'll please define what you mean by 'child labor' rather than simply tossing out a semi-loaded phrase.

And as to monopolization, a capitalist structure is about the best way to avoid such. There are really only two ways a company …

Quick question, Sturm.

If we (Americans) are all so stupid, then why do the individuals you just mentioned come here to enter the academic world?

I have never heard a democrat saying that. I do not believe america has the right or authority to order other countries. Who made us the Ruler of the World? 60% of the budget goes to national security. That is completely ridiculous! How about spending some money on education Mr. President? Guess it never crossed your mind (not that he has one :-p).

Don't have time at the moment to respond to the 14 points you just listed; I'll get back to them later. As to the 'education spending' issue, what's the per-student-capita spending on government-run or government-funded schools for grades K-12?

..and if I recall correctly, we won those wars.. did we not?

Let's just say I'm verifying your point, while lamenting the fact it is now politically incorrect to fight back effectively.

War is never a good option. Second of all countries might like us more if we did not invade so many countries for no reason. Good thing is, since Iraq is a mess, the american public will not stand for another war.

War may not be a good option, but as far as I'm concerned, defending ourselves is a much better option than just sitting by like helpless sheep waiting for the butcher.

America is screwed up and bush knows it. No longer is he and his increasingly uneasy republican party screaming statements such as "cut and run" and "we must stay the course". You know why? Because america is tired of that propaganda. The was in Iraq is a failure, and thus the Bush administration.

If America is tired of the propaganda, then why haven't the Democrats shut up as well? Let us assume for a moment that the Republican party has laden forth propaganda, something I'm still holding doubts about. So has the Democratic party, with their 'America deserves to lose' propaganda. If the Republicans need to quit speaking, then so do the Democrats.

I do agree, America cannot win the war on terror by playing by the rules. We can win if we use our strong and technologically advanced military to its full efficiency. IE, killing innocent civilians, using neutron bombs, bombing the **** out of every city, using more advanced missiles and state-of-the-art weaponry. We have yet to utilize our military strength, because people back home might consider it 'wrong'. However, we are at WAR. We should do whatever necessary to make sure we win quickly. None of this 'civilized' rules of war bs.. there are no rules in war.

At one time, what you just listed were the rules. Think about WW1, WW2. Heck, remember what happened in a some little places called Dresden and Hiroshima?

Since you're pulling toward that topic again, have you had a chance to track down those books yet?

Actually, since ancient Greece it's been fairly well known that the earth was round; they'd (can't recall actual individual's name) actually come pretty close to the real size by applying math to the situation.

I don't know of anything wrong with it, it's just one of those things that become sort of infamous for not being liked. I needed some kind of an example, and that's what presented itself to me.

Several points:

1. 'Good' for a nation is in many ways meaningless; even more so when you consider that it's generally also a worthless term when applied to individuals. 'Good' usually means 'I agree with that person|statement|idea'.

2. We aren't really democratic, no. We're a republic. If America were a true democracy, then it would take forever for any decisions to be made; I think I prefer things the way they are. It's worked out quite well so far.

3. Freedom includes the freedom to take the consequences. If the actions someone takes, or the views someone espouses, are seen to present a danger to the safety or livelihood of those around him, then he can be penalized for that. Or would you prefer to just give a lifetime guaranteed 'get out of jail free' card to everyone and let them do whatever they want?

4. Exactly which elections are you referring to? The only rigging I can think of in recent or semi-recent history was when Al Gore tried to claim Florida in the 2000 election by 1) Requesting recounts in only strongly-democratic-oriented voting precincts, 2) Attempted to violate Florida State Law by insisting that recounts be run beyond the mandatory deadline established in the state laws concerning elections.

5. If someone gives a statement with a truth-value of '0', but they believe, on the best evidence they have, that the statement has a truth-value of '1', it's not a lie. It is simply …

>> "yeah well ur mum!"
I hate those ones. Some friends of mine brought it to such a level that no matter how well humoured the joke I have to punch someone very hard. Or at least I want to. Or I get out of the room and play loud music.

Do you play the music in an attempt to rid yourself of the desire to cause pain to them, or do you do something like cranking the volume to the max, pointing the speakers at them, and then putting on something like 'Greatest Polka Hits of 1973' and shoving a set of earplugs in?

:-/ That's true; however, I thought you were referring to ebooks or an online source..

I read a lot. Dead-tree format is often easier to carry around, and can even be read while an airplane is taking off or landing.

ahh hell.. books? You expect me to go and check out books from a library? What is this, the 19th century? lol... I guess I can try to acquire an ebook..

If you'll recall, I originally asked whether or not books would be acceptable; you replied that you'd attempt to disprove anything I tossed your way.

Have fun.

In java, "==" is used as an "equal to" operator, and thus is used for comparison. The "=" is used to assign a value..

Ditto for C. Which makes things interesting for me, because while I'm trying to learn that, I'm also programming with Delphi, which uses the Pascal syntax for those.

Pascal -
Assignment Operator is :=
Equality test is =

I've found myself using := and == within a couple of lines of one another, in both.

>> back to "Destiny"
On a side track, you reckon threads on daniweb have destinies to become the best threads there are?

If you look at any thread they're made up of sentences, words, letters, characters, symbols, atoms, dark matter etc etc. In English whenever something happens there's always a 100% chance that someone will misinterpret the underlying meaning. This is unless someone interprets the meaning for people. Since each thread is made up from atoms then everything that happens inside them is predetermined by the font, language and the speed at which someone types out the thread or post. Now, think of the brain of the thread - it is also made up out of chemicals, and atoms and dark matter. Everything it thinks, everything it instantiates, everything is is determined by the chemicals and the chemical reactions that happen. Every day. Every moment. Every semi-planck-second. It's all cause and effect.

Is it fair to say that a thread is composed of physical matter? It's not 'real', in the way that, say the keyboard I'm typing on is real; it has no inherent physical existence, indeed no existence at all apart from the minds of those who look at it. After all, if someone who [literally] neither spoke nor read the english language were to look at this, the thread would have no meaning for them. And the physical constraints of the thread, on the systems hosting the server and the systems looking at it, are marked in …