prev <-> next
[2005-09-19 11:33:47] - *** Paul shakes fist at Dave
[2005-09-19 11:33:35] - a: What if you had a kid that didn't want to be atheist, would you be disappointed and/or upset (etc)? If so, would it matter which religion/nonreligion they decided to follow? -Paul
[2005-09-19 11:32:41] - a: how about you, would you be disappointed / upset if your kid became a right-wing conservative christian? -dave
[2005-09-19 11:29:25] - sam: the same reason he died for everyone else, to save me/them from my/their sin -dave
[2005-09-19 11:27:35] -
~a[2005-09-19 11:27:32] - sam: i like your answer a lot better. ~a
[2005-09-19 11:26:53] - a: i don't think i will be disappointed/upset because he is not a christian. if the religion that he decides to follow causes him to act the way that I don't want him to act, then i would get upset. -sam
[2005-09-19 11:21:28] - sam: what if you had a kid that didn't want to be christian, would you be disapointed and/or upset (etc)? if so, would it matter which religion/nonreligion they decided to follow (for the sake of conversation, ignore cults)? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:20:10] - dave: why did jesus die for you? -sam
[2005-09-19 11:18:53] - aba: yeah, that's what I thought ^_^ -dave
[2005-09-19 11:18:05] - sam: assuming that comment was from you, well, jesus died for you. I know that you appreciate your friends, that's why I was comparing jesus dying to it -dave
[2005-09-19 11:15:26] - aba: including hinduism? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:14:41] - dave: i NEVER said i don't appreciate my friends helping me. you said you love jesus for what he did. what did he do?
[2005-09-19 11:08:19] - dave: "noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object" >> all religions are cults - aba
[2005-09-19 10:45:19] - dave: i was joking. ~a
[2005-09-19 10:20:27] - sam: other than the value that the person cares / thought of you -dave
[2005-09-19 10:19:58] - sam: because obviously the card itself has no value -dave
[2005-09-19 10:19:44] - sam: and I suppose no one should send you birthday cards / e-cards that don't have money or something in them either -dave
[2005-09-19 10:16:38] - sam: then I feel sorry for friends of yours who go through a lot of effort to do things for you that you don't care about -dave
[2005-09-19 10:15:55] - a: really? what defines a cult from a religion? Number of members? -dave
[2005-09-19 10:13:43] - sam: according to modus tollens and assuming your first statement is true: if you cannot live an eternal life in heaven with god, then you do not love jesus because of him dying. ~a
[2005-09-19 10:08:19] - dave: but i think the end result/product still matters. you love jesus because of him dying, you can live an eternal life in heaven with god. if you did not care about living an eternal life in heaven with god, i don't see how you could love jesus. -sam
[2005-09-19 10:04:27] - dave: scientology is a cult
~a[2005-09-19 10:03:55] - dave: judaism? ~a
[2005-09-19 09:44:55] - a: i could probably even understand something like atheism / agnostic better than something like scientology -dave
[2005-09-19 09:42:48] - a: yes I would be upset / disappointed. I'm not sure whether it would matter which religion / non-religion they ended up in. It'd probably depend on what I thought of it - if it was a religion that I thought was entirely illogical to me (like say scientology) then I'd probably be more upset than one that made some sense (like say catholicism, or jehovas witness etc) -dave
[2005-09-19 09:39:49] - sam: or how about this, maybe your friend moves heaven and earth to get you something that he thinks you really want, but actually you don't really care about it - you'd love him because of what he did, his intentions ets, but you could care less about what he actually got you -dave
[2005-09-19 09:39:03] - sam: it's like if you need a kidney transplant, and one of your friends gives one of his up so that you can have it. Yeah you're glad you got the kidney, but it's because of your friend giving it to you that you love him, not because of the end product of the kidney -dave
[2005-09-19 09:37:49] - sam: that's exactly it though, you love him because of what he did, not because you get to go to heaven -dave
[2005-09-19 09:24:22] - off topic: sam/dave, what if you had a kid that didn't want to be christian, would you be disapointed and/or upset (etc)? if so, would it matter which religion/nonreligion they decided to follow (for the sake of conversation, ignore cults)? ~a
[2005-09-19 08:59:52] - dave: but if it isn't for jesus dying for you so that you can go to heaven, why would you love him? -sam
[2005-09-19 08:33:44] - so yeah, we should want to go to heaven because we want to be with God, maybe in a more physical sense than we are now - but it shouldn't be about, oh I want to go to heaven because I won't have to be toasted in Hell there -dave
[2005-09-19 08:32:49] - besides, no one really knows exactly what heaven is like. Yes it says there will be no sin and no tears, but that doesn't mean that there won't be any work to do, or things to learn. All it says is that you will be with God - but in a sense, if you're a Christian, you're already with God right now anyways -dave
[2005-09-19 08:31:44] - going to heaven is more of a reward if you will, not something that you should be making the focus of why you're a christian -dave
[2005-09-19 08:31:18] - sam: wanting to go to heaven and not hell is an inherently selfish motive, something God says not to have -dave
[2005-09-19 08:30:14] - sam: if the only reason you're a Christian is because you don't want to go to Hell when you die, but want to go to Heaven, then I think you're being a Christian for the wrong reasons -dave
[2005-09-19 08:29:25] - sam: the point is you love God enough to want to try to do the things He wants you to do, among which is to try to become more like Him, stop sinning, etc -dave
[2005-09-19 08:28:42] - sam: I don't think it's about you at all, or about a desire to go to heaven (although wanting to go to heaven isn't a bad thing). -dave
[2005-09-19 08:27:25] - sam: which is the entire point. if someone could follow all the rules, you wouldn't need God's grace -dave
[2005-09-19 08:27:01] - sam: so no, you can be saved when you don't "follow the rules" because no one, christian or non-christian, can follow ALL the rules -dave
[2005-09-19 08:26:17] - sam: besides, everyone sins, even Christians who love God. Christians should want to stop sinning and work towards that, but that doesn't mean they will ever stop sinning entirely -dave
[2005-09-19 08:24:24] - sam: it can definitely make you wonder why they're doing all those things if they truly love God, but you can't really judge them and say, you're not a Christian, you're going to Hell -dave
[2005-09-19 08:23:52] - sam: in the end, whether someone is a christian or not is something only God and that person can truly know - so you can't really look at someone and say, this person is doing all these bad things, therefore they don't love God and aren't a christian -dave
[2005-09-19 08:22:37] - sam: yes not all of the "rules" stated in the Bible are literally relevant to modern times. Yes, you are not saved by works, but through faith -dave
[2005-09-19 08:21:36] - sam: yes, bad things are your fault, but it's not as if you're trying to balance "good things" vs "bad things." Technically, if you do a single bad thing, then you're screwed, so in a sense, you're depending on God's grace regardless of how many "bad things" you do -dave
[2005-09-19 08:19:28] - sam: there is a sense that God works through people, but there is never an example of God "working through someone" without that person's decision to "let" God work through them -dave
[2005-09-19 08:18:02] - sam: for all you know, the widow went home and died of starvation -dave
[2005-09-19 08:17:42] - sam: the parable never said that God blessed the widow who gave the rest of her money. Jesus just said that the widow "gave more" than everyone else -dave
[2005-09-19 08:16:24] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/19/korea.north.talks/index.html North Korea agrees to give up nuclear weapons -dave
[2005-09-17 15:05:09] - Commercial for the Nintendo Revolution Controller http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7643&type=wmv -sam
[2005-09-16 17:47:01] - dave: ... i think it's all about you. your desire to go to heaven. -sam
[2005-09-16 17:46:44] - dave: you said it's about the relationship and love for jesus, but you wouldn't love jesus if don't believe that he was the sacrifice for our sins and because of him, we can go to heaven. so unless you are excited about going to heaven, i don't see how you would be loving jesus and having relationship with him...... -sam
[2005-09-16 17:40:57] - dave: i meant you won't be saved if you don't follow the rules, eventhough the bible says you are only saved by faith, not works. -sam
[2005-09-16 17:39:53] - dave: technically, you don't have to follow all the rules in the bible. you are not saved by works, only by faith. but if you don't follow the rules, it means that you don't love jesus, and you have no faith. therefore you are not saved. am i getting this right? -sam
[2005-09-16 17:36:47] - dave: and in everything you do, you are supposed to glorify god. whatever good things you do are not done by you, but rather done by god thru you. but if you do bad things that's your fault -sam
[2005-09-16 17:33:22] - dave: that parable about the poor woman giving all she had, i think that's supposed to mean that you are supposed to give a big portion of your wealth to god. god blessed her because of her generosity. -sam
[2005-09-16 16:44:20] - liar *again*! ~a
[2005-09-16 16:36:34] - a: Great minds... -Paul
[2005-09-16 16:35:24] - pauldave: you two are very creative independent thinkers *again*. ~a
[2005-09-16 16:16:15] - Dave: Holy crap, I was JUST about to post that myself but I couldn't think of how to label it.
-Paul[2005-09-16 16:09:43] - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050916a ehhehehe -dave
[2005-09-16 16:05:14] - interesting ~a
[2005-09-16 16:02:47] - a: <nod nod> -dave
[2005-09-16 15:54:35] - "knowhow to reverse-engineer XXX" is always a bad argument because knowhow can be programmed into a nice little .exe and distributed all over the web in seconds (and would be legal too if it weren't for the over-correcting: dmca) ~a
[2005-09-16 15:54:27] - pierce: <nod nod> -dave
[2005-09-16 15:54:18] - a: ahh, I see. yeah, makes sense -dave
[2005-09-16 15:53:04] - dave: at least with win2k. ~a
[2005-09-16 15:52:33] - dave: yes, that's in the right direction *i believe* but it's more complicated than that. remember that any directory encrypted by one user must be decryptable by another user that has permissions to read the directory. i believe there is some sort of table of keys that is encrypted with some sort of master key. i also know that the system is fallable. ~a
[2005-09-16 15:50:52] - a: so yes, I think it's probably insecure. but again, it might just be so that people can't search right through it without having the knowhow to reverse-engineer XP's encryption. - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:48:49] - dave: I don't think that's it either... if that were the case, then it would have to decrypt and reencrypt all those directories every time you changed your password. I assume it doesn't do that, because that would be a performance nightmare. - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:46:43] - ahahahaa... mass email to my company: "FOUND: Prescription pills in a plastic bag. If yours please see Security Front Desk." - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:44:17] - a: that way someone with just the HD wouldn't see it -dave
[2005-09-16 15:44:02] - a: maybe after you login it stores a hash or something of your pw in RAM that it uses decrypt for that session? -dave
[2005-09-16 15:42:55] - mig: but regardless of the permissions, it still has to encrypt it so that only the person with the correct permission can see it, so what does it encrypt it with? -dave
[2005-09-16 15:42:49] - i.e. if XP can decrypt it (and not let you look at it) then anybody can decrypt it (and look at it) ~a
[2005-09-16 15:42:15] - dave: i doubt that's it because the admin password is not stored in plaintext anywhere. ~a
[2005-09-16 15:42:00] - mig: but if you LOOK AT THE DATA outside of the operating system, how is the data encrypted? ~a
[2005-09-16 15:40:40] - my dad ran into that problem trying to retrieve some stuff he had protected when he was trying to migrate his stuff into a another hard drive. - mig
[2005-09-16 15:37:44] - dave: i believe the way it works is it relies on owner permissions, so if you set a file to be owned by person "a" and he only has read permissions then it won't let you read the file if you are person "a". - mig
[2005-09-16 15:37:24] - dave: that's my point. ~a
[2005-09-16 15:35:56] - a: maybe it's encrypted with your admin pw ? -dave
[2005-09-16 15:35:48] - a: so how does that protect it from being lifted if someone grabs your HD (which is what it is supposed to do I think) ? -dave
[2005-09-16 15:26:17] - you right click on a directory -> properties -> advanced -> encrypt. to answer your question: it is NOT password-protected. somehow the OS knows how to decrypt it so either XP saves my cleartext login password and uses it to decrypt the directory (unlikely) or the key to decrypt is somewhere else on the harddrive. ~a
[2005-09-16 15:21:26] - a: I've never (knowingly) used ntfs encryption... is it password-protected or does NT/2k/XP know how to decrypt it? - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:20:30] - ...but the "weak" encryption and hashing algorithms that microsoft is removing are all for network transfers, which can be made secure. - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:20:24] - pierce: i've thought about that thing exactly. so . . . in windows (under ntfs) when i encrypt a directory, you're saying i could easily decrypt the directory without being logged in, right? ~a
[2005-09-16 15:17:46] - granted, there's some practical level of encryption where the reverse-engineering process more of a hassle than it's worth for the encrypted data, but that's not something that can be measured or relied upon. - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:16:36] - Someone searching your registry for "birdman" wouldn't find it, but if they new where to look for it, then they could just reverse engineer the application's own method of decrypting it no matter what algorithm was used. - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:16:27] - more of them -dave
[2005-09-16 15:16:24] - sam: there's actually a famous parable in the Bible about giving - a rich guy gives a huge bag of money, but does it in such a way that everone sees him giving. then poor widow goes up and puts in like a penny. Then Jesus says that the widow was the one who gave more, because she gave out of her love for God, but the other people gave so that people would think... -dave
[2005-09-16 15:15:20] - a: nothing on your hard drive that is automatically read from applications without a user input of some sort (password, decryption key, etc) can be considered to have strong encryption. thus, the only reason to add that sort of protection is to prevent raw text searches for that content. - pierce
[2005-09-16 15:12:35] - also, say a dad has two kids, each kid probably has their own personality and ability to appreciate or use a certain thing. So the dad will give one kid one thing and the other kid something else -dave
[2005-09-16 15:11:22] - the same with the blessing thing - a parent loves a kid, and so wants to give the kid what will make him happy. However, the parent also knows that just giving the kid whatever he wants is not the best thing for him, so he won't do that -dave
[2005-09-16 15:10:23] - but by not giving him a present, the kid demonstrates the depth of his love for his dad, which apparently wasn't enough for him to give him a present -dave
[2005-09-16 15:09:39] - sam: it's not a tit-for-tat kind of thing. It's about a relationship and love, a good example being a kid and his dad. The dad loves the kid so he will try to do what's best for the kid. The kid loves the dad so he tries to show his appreciation for the dad. Just because the kid doesn't give his dad a present on his birthday doesn't mean the dad will stop loving the kid -d
[2005-09-16 15:06:19] - anon: sarcasm? ~a
[2005-09-16 15:02:36] - Oi, that's embarassing.
[2005-09-16 14:56:33] - wtf, microsoft is abandoning MD5 and they still use ROT13?! ~a
[2005-09-16 14:56:24] - well supposedly (as another user contributed) XP IS ACTUALLY STILL USING ROT13! regedit => HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\UserAssist\*\Count. See keys like HRZR_EHACNGU:\\oveqzna\funerq\... which is translated to UEME_RUNPATH:\\birdman\shared\ (birdman\shared being a computer and share on my computer)! ~a
[2005-09-16 14:56:23] - i was reading a slashdot article that said for vista, microsoft has abandoned DES, MD4, and MD5 because they were 'extremely weak'. well a user jokingly responded "Presumably they haven't banned ROT13 then." (rot13 isn't really even considered encryption. A becomes M, B becomes N, C becomes O, ... ) ~a
[2005-09-16 14:53:45] - Paul: ask mamet. - pierce
[2005-09-16 14:53:36] - title-changer: I think you have to use the other slash. -Paul
[2005-09-16 14:53:11] - Dave: I doubt a lot of people will be less inclined to see his movies, but I'm sure some will. -Paul
[2005-09-16 14:52:59] - \title Hello
[2005-09-16 14:51:33] - dave: then what if you are a christian but poor. why wouldn't god bless everyone equally? does it depend on how much you glorify him? -sam
[2005-09-16 14:51:33] - Pierce: How exactly was the 2000 election a sure-thing? -Paul
[2005-09-16 14:49:39] - I wonder whether people will be less inclined to see movies he's in if he takes acting back up -dave
[2005-09-16 14:49:22] - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/national/16cnd-gov.html?hp&ex=1126929600&en=04fcc721b193c8cb&ei=5094&partner=homepage arnold to run for re-election, tho it doesn't appear as if he'll win -dave
[2005-09-16 14:47:54] - in only the democrats played more poker... http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mamet16sep16,0,4469455.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions - pierce
[2005-09-16 14:41:58] - sam: it's like if you're a little kid, and you work hard to make some money, and then you buy a present for your Dad. It's not like your dad needs your money or the present, it's about the thought/feeling behind it -dave
[2005-09-16 14:37:50] - sam: so yeah, if you don't feel that, then I don't see much a point in you tithing anything -dave
[2005-09-16 14:37:14] - sam: it's not really about the money, or who really got the money anyways. It's more about a personal relationship with God. The impetus for the tithe comes from you being grateful to God for stuff he's done for you, so you want to give back a token amount to Him -dave
[2005-09-16 14:35:21] - sam: <shrug> well, that's your perogative. I can definitely understand how someone would think that. For me though, I know that I've been blessed with a family that has set me up well financially, and blessed with God helping me get the job I have -dave
[2005-09-16 14:33:44] - Paul: Yeah, I guess. Definitely from the perspective that God has blessed you with the stuff you have, so it's kinda ungrateful if you don't acknowledge that he gave it to you and be willing to give some back -dave
[2005-09-16 14:32:26] - dave: i believe it wasn't all god's blessing. if i didn't put effort into making money, i don't think i would have the money i have now. -sam
[2005-09-16 14:32:20] - sam: and the guy saying more than 10% is probably because the guy feels like 10% has become sort of a status quo, and that people give it without really thinking about it. But since it's supposed to mean something to you, it sounds like his solution is to try to get people to give enough so that it truly means something to them -dave
[2005-09-16 14:31:14] - Dave: Could you say everything belongs to God anyway so you're just giving a little bit back to him? -Paul
[2005-09-16 14:30:57] - sam: it's not like God's going to suffer if you don't give the money - so it's more for you than for Him. Kinda like a reminder sorta thing -dave
[2005-09-16 14:30:15] - sam: well, God doesn't exactly demand that you give 10% back to the church. The 10% tithe is something that you're supposed to give because you're grateful for everything God has done for you, including give you the money in the first place -dave
[2005-09-16 14:29:03] - sam: no, He doesn't curse you. It'd be sin - something you would need to try to correct in your life. -dave
[2005-09-16 14:28:19] - to me, all the services provided by the christians should be voluntary. -sam
[2005-09-16 14:27:54] - Paul: huh, that's interesting. -dave
[2005-09-16 14:23:11] - Sam: Sounds like the government to me.
-Paul[2005-09-16 14:22:46] - Dave: Interestingly, you remember the thing you and I were talking about yesterday? I think Vox agrees with you. -Paul
[2005-09-16 14:22:02] - I remember Lon Solomon of McLean Bible Church saying that 10% is not enough. In fact 10% is an insult to God. You should pay to the point where it would almost hurt you. What do you think about that? -sam
[2005-09-16 14:19:40] - dave: why does god want you to give money to the church? -sam
[2005-09-16 14:12:08] - dave: what if you don't fight the goverment that conflicts god's laws? god curses you? -sam
[2005-09-16 14:05:51] - Dave: No, sorry, it wasn't really. I kinda threw that in there unnecessarily. My bad.
-Paul[2005-09-16 14:02:21] - Paul: ahh ok. The way you said it made me think it was a direct connection -dave
[2005-09-16 14:00:46] - Dave: Oh, no, I guess he made a number of other points which led into that. I just remember that he was in the process of explaining why he considered himself a libertarian and that was a part of his point. -Paul
[2005-09-16 13:59:59] - Dave: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/02/god-and-governments.html This is the closest I can come to finding what I was talking about. -paul
[2005-09-16 13:58:44] - Paul: right, but the problem is that doesn't translate into "you should be a libertarian" does it? -dave
[2005-09-16 13:57:30] - Dave: I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he was trying to make the point that the bible doesn't tell us that we should always obey the government no matter what. -Paul
[2005-09-16 13:52:15] - \title Libertarian Party = Dead
[2005-09-16 13:51:23] - Paul: well, he's grossly misinterpreting if he's saying that he shouldnt' have to follow any US laws because of it -dave
[2005-09-16 13:49:04] - Paul: and even whether they conflict is up to interpretation. Like would having an abortion after your first kid (if you lived in China) be against "God's law" ? Open to interpretation -dave
[2005-09-16 13:48:14] - Paul: Then he's grossly misinterpreting the Bible. I believe it does say that or something very close to that, but if I remember correctly it's in reference to when the "laws of man" conflict with the "laws of God" -dave
[2005-09-16 13:47:04] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/funonwheels/09/16/bugatti_veyron/index.html 1001 Hp car, only 1.24 Mil -dave
[2005-09-16 13:41:02] - Dave: I'm sure you're right and I don't pretend to be an expert at the bible at all, but I just remember a christian quoting the bible which basically said that the law of God is greater than the law of man and that was his reasoning for being a libertarian. -Paul
[2005-09-16 13:39:42] - aba: I assume you were lying when you said you would take up arms for the US?
-Paul[2005-09-16 13:36:15] - aba: Ok, that makes sense to me. Thanks! -Paul
[2005-09-16 13:30:59] - sam: yeah -dave
[2005-09-16 13:23:45] - a: the benefit of being a citizen outweighed the benefit of protesting (imo) whereas with the pledge there really was no benefit in saying it. just like when i took the oath, i pledged to take up arms if the US asked me to. - aba
[2005-09-16 13:09:55] - a: I believe it's not unfair to characterize this as "Ooh, look, we have four years worth of data indicating a climate shift which is going to affect thousands of years." I don't buy it. It could be, but the actual cause is likely far more random. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-16 13:07:56] - slashdot covered a "$10,000 bet that a pair of Russian scientists have entered with British climate expert James Annan. According to [an] article, the Russians believe the world will be cooler in 10 years. 'If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 ... in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.'" ~a
[2005-09-16 13:07:13] - Sam: Yes, a true patriot zealot could easily be an idolatrist. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-16 13:06:47] - sam: that would be my interpertation. and IMO i believe a majority of the GOP is guilty of that. - mig
[2005-09-16 13:04:29] - aba: i assume you didn't protest? ~a
[2005-09-16 13:03:56] - a: "so help me god" at the end. i heard that they changed the rest of it a few years ago but im not sure what happened. - aba
[2005-09-16 12:59:50] - dave: then if you are placing your country before god, it could be idolatry, right? -sam
[2005-09-16 12:58:30] - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece global warming is now unstoppable?! ~a
[2005-09-16 12:57:13] - aba: you need to reaffirm your position. people change their minds on things and they want to make sure that you don't sway. so by saying these few words they have your soul. . . . just curious, did your blood-citizen-oath have anything about god in it? ~a
[2005-09-16 12:48:40] - hah. that should be *shrug* - aba
[2005-09-16 12:48:04] - paul: pretty much. i think pledging allegiance to the flag is dumb. i already had to take an oath to become a citizen, so i dont really see the point. *shurg* - aba
[2005-09-16 12:42:42] - sam: <shrug> I would say no, but it probably depends - idolatry is really linked to whether you're placing something before God or not. So it's not really what you say or linked to specific words, it's more about where your priorities are -dave
[2005-09-16 12:28:16] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/09/16/techbits.ap/index.html vw to support usb in some 2006 models - aaron
[2005-09-16 12:23:54] - It's the old giving to Ceaser what is Ceasar's. I don't see pleding allegiance as idolotry, though that's a good point. Idolotry involves worship, which the lip-service of allegiance is far from. Consider the Wall Street Banker and money to get a better picture of idolotry -- Xpovos
[2005-09-16 12:15:56] - dave: do you think pledging allegiance to the flag is idolatry? -sam
[2005-09-16 12:13:14] - Paul: actually, in the case of christianity, the bible espouses following the laws of whatever country you are in, unless they explicitly conflict with the laws of christianity -dave
[2005-09-16 12:13:01] - a: for some reason, if i look at the keyboard, i'm Q or D mode and i can't switch out of it. it's very very hard for me to, even if i close my eyes. it's like i have to get my bearings by looking at the keys. -amy
[2005-09-16 12:12:34] - Dave: *Nod* I know that's how a lot of people see it, I was just saying I've also read stuff that would support christianity being against it. -Paul
[2005-09-16 12:11:44] - Sam: I would say most are, but not all. -Paul
[2005-09-16 12:11:17] - Paul: I would think it'd be viewed as a patriotic sort of things where you're kind of re-affirming your allegiance to your country, or at least that's how I'd perceived it -dave
[2005-09-16 12:10:41] - paul: i thought christians were fighting to have pledge of allegiance in schools. -sam
[2005-09-16 12:10:34] - Paul: I don't think christianity has any problem with people pledging their allegiance to the flag, or the "republic for which it stands" -dave
[2005-09-16 12:06:19] - Sam: You would have to talk to a believer about that kind of thing. I personally think the Bible seems to support not pledging allegiance to the laws of man like that even if it is "under God" but I'm sure others disagree. -Paul
[2005-09-16 11:59:23] - paul: you made a good point. pledging allegiance to a flag sounds like idolatry. But aren't the Christians supporting the pledge of allegiance because it contained "under God?" -sam
[2005-09-16 11:55:15] - aba: I'm not trying to make fun or anything, because I also no longer approve of saying it, I just was wondering what your reasons were (since I think they're probably different from my own). -Paul
[2005-09-16 11:54:31] - amy: Especially since it's pledging allegiance to an item (the flag). Isn't that idolatry to some people? -paul
[2005-09-16 11:46:13] - amy: "i'm fluent in both and i will glance down at the keyboard and type in whatever's there". i am too. but i don't glance at the keyboard to figure out which to type in. either 1. i just know which keyboard is which and what it's in. or 2. if it's a keyboard i don't recognize, then i'll type a key and figure out what mode i'm in by what is typed. ~a
[2005-09-16 11:39:46] - aba: Ok, so you dislike the "under God" and the fact that it's poorly written?
-Paul[2005-09-16 11:37:54] - dvorak/qwerty keyboards. i suppose i could just order a qwerty board and switch all the keys around, but i feel weird about doing that to company property, and haven't felt like asking if it would be all right. -amy
[2005-09-16 11:37:26] - a: yeah i do qwerty at work and dvorak at home. i just use the keyboard that's in my laptop. i can't do dvorak with qwerty labels (or vice versa) because i'm fluent in both and i will glance down at the keyboard and type in whatever's there. i have been too lazy to request a new keyboard for myself... i don't know of any widely used, recommended dvorak or... -amy
[2005-09-16 11:35:54] - paul: the whole idea of being forced/told to pledge allegiance to something without being given a choice... even though i was prob too young to understand what those words meant, i must have gotten the jist. -amy
[2005-09-16 11:34:25] - 'cause if so, i'm the opposite
~a[2005-09-16 11:34:17] - you do qwerty at work? ~a
[2005-09-16 11:33:14] - ... ^_^ (stupid switching betw dvorak and qwerty) -amy
[2005-09-16 11:32:58] - a: thank you ^"^
[2005-09-16 11:32:29] - weird bug. stupid php. ~a
[2005-09-16 11:32:18] - paul: i dont think its particularly well written even if you took that phrase out. - aba
[2005-09-16 11:32:12] - then, maybe the govt should not force students to sing "amazing grace" and "god bless america" in school choir. Same goes for x-mas songs that are about jesus. -sam
[2005-09-16 11:27:56] - *** a looks at the wiki and then drops his question.
[2005-09-16 11:26:29] - dave: what's a fuel cell? ~a
[2005-09-16 11:25:10] - amy: fixed. ~a
[2005-09-16 11:22:26] - paul: ass. ~a
[2005-09-16 11:10:56] - aba: So it's the "under God" part that you didn't like, right? -paul
[2005-09-16 11:10:18] - http://movies.aol.com/movie_exclusive_harry_potter_goblet_clip/trailer_extra_large Goblet of Fire trailer. -Paul
[2005-09-16 11:08:49] - paul: "under god"? - aba
[2005-09-16 11:07:17] - aba: "With liberty and justice for all" Exclusionary?
-Paul[2005-09-16 11:06:30] - amy: Heh, I can understand that. I would've been terrified if a teacher had done that to me. -Paul
[2005-09-16 11:03:50] - paul: i thought the whole thing was exclusionary and just plain stupid. - aba
[2005-09-16 10:54:48] - Paul: Hmm I don't think so. I was always very quiet when I was a kid, nobody ever heard me .) I was quite surprised and scared when she called me on it. -amy
[2005-09-16 10:50:35] - Amy: Maybe you had a distinctive voice and she didn't hear it and that's how she knew. -Paul
[2005-09-16 10:40:09] - Paul: I guess I was bad at mouthing them. I don't really know, I was 7 at the time. -amy
[2005-09-16 10:38:45] - http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/w4m/97904868.html I want people to remember this guy when they try to claim that I am an angry and bitter person.
-Paul[2005-09-16 10:22:24] - amy: How did she know you weren't saying the words? -Paul
[2005-09-16 10:10:03] - a: atm, arinsband.com points to your homepage ^_^; -amy
[2005-09-16 10:08:40] - a: it's a fuel cell for heck's sake, of course it's going to be larger. I would think it's more of a concept thing atm -dave
[2005-09-16 10:03:19] - hmm actually, wasn't a talk, so much as: "you must SAY the words, not just mouth them." end of discussion. -_-; -amy
[2005-09-16 10:02:39] - the pledge has always scared me; i remember in 2nd grade i used to mouth the words instead of saying them, and my teacher had to have a "talk" with me about it. -amy
[2005-09-16 09:54:01] - aba: Did you not say it because of the "under God" part or because of the nationalistic implications or for another reason? -Paul
[2005-09-16 09:51:56] - Sam: Also, I'm probably one of the biggest skeptics of democracy on the message board but even I have to admit that I really don't have any alternatives which I think would be consistently better over a long period of time. -Paul
[2005-09-16 09:50:48] - Sam: I think it's something I would have to try for myself before passing judgement on, but count me as a little doubtful. -Paul
[2005-09-16 09:18:10] - the nano's battery is like 1/4th the size of the smaller one, and could the regular ipod even hold this huge thing? ~a
[2005-09-16 09:12:35] - dave: 23x75x10mm and 60x75x10mm? that's huge! ~a
[2005-09-16 08:55:59] - http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050916PR203.html fuel cell prototypes from Toshiba for audio players -dave
[2005-09-16 08:25:26] - interesting USER response to the new controllers http://www.1up.com/do/userFeedbackDetail?cId=3143782&r=5702325&ct=NEWS ~a
[2005-09-16 08:23:48] - remote controls? wtf? ~a
[2005-09-16 08:15:02] - What do you guys think about the controllers for the new Nintendo Revolution? -sam
[2005-09-16 07:51:02] - a: awesome. we should all have a huge b-day party -sam
[2005-09-16 07:50:39] - Nintendo Revolution Controller Finally Revealed http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143782 -sam
[2005-09-16 07:25:41] - sam: and dave is the 29th. ~a
[2005-09-16 07:13:04] - sam: done. ~a
[2005-09-15 20:54:08] - a: I just found out that my birth day is one day before you. Mine is Sept. 24, 1981 -sam
[2005-09-15 20:39:53] - a: actually could you just put me on your friends list? -sam
[2005-09-15 20:34:37] - a: could you put my livejournal to your link area above the text input box? http://www.livejournal.com/users/vtsamvt/ -sam
[2005-09-15 20:05:32] - But then, in capitalistic society, people can get jealous of others' properties. Plus, not everyone has equal opportunity to make a good living. -sam
[2005-09-15 20:01:13] - Even if communism works with careful planning, would you really want to have communial ownership of all property? -sam
[2005-09-15 19:49:31] - oops, democracy
[2005-09-15 19:49:13] - Is democrac the best form of government? -sam
[2005-09-15 19:47:57] - Great article on why communism failed. http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/ludwigvonmises/communismfailed.html -sam
[2005-09-15 19:07:16] - haha, yah, i didnt say the pledge. - aba
[2005-09-15 16:01:19] - Dave: But I know what you're saying and I guess I agree. -Paul
[2005-09-15 16:01:06] - Dave: Well, it really does just come down to semantics, though, since the government is messing around with the murderers and thieves even in that case.
-Paul[2005-09-15 15:59:50] - mig: If you were in my class, it was probably Aparna. -Paul
[2005-09-15 15:59:29] - paul: yeah, I know it does a lotta other junk that doesn't qualify, but I was trying to say that I think the fundamental reason for govt (like what we talked about in govt at TJ) is what you're saying -dave
[2005-09-15 15:58:42] - that from here http://www.tomshardware.com/game/200509091/index.html -dave
[2005-09-15 15:58:32] - haha -dave
[2005-09-15 15:58:29] - "Aaron, I am one of many females who has risen through the ranks of the industry. I promise you when we meet in cyberspace there will not only be a revolution but I will give you a fair fight, and we'll see who comes out the winner. I promise no cuddling and no coddling. And I have never, ever played the Sims. " -dave
[2005-09-15 15:58:18] - "If we so much as let one female rise through the ranks of the industry we could start a revolution that would make all our games cuddly and Sims-like." Aaron McKenna writes last month in his "Saturday Gamer" column. -dave
[2005-09-15 15:57:44] - a: i think i remember one person in my english class (1st period) who refused to recite it. believe it was dan kamerling but i'm not sure. anyways, it wasn't mandatory iirc. - mig
[2005-09-15 15:56:45] - Dave: Well, I think we're getting into two slightly different topics, but if what you are mentioning is all that the government did then I would be much happier with it. -Paul
[2005-09-15 15:53:11] - a: I think I recited it because I didn't think much of it back then. I likely wouldn't do it now. -Paul
[2005-09-15 15:53:05] - Paul: and then of course you have to enforce the laws, otherwise they're useless -dave
[2005-09-15 15:52:32] - Paul: that doesn't match what you're thinking? -dave
[2005-09-15 15:51:59] - Pauls: laws against fraud - because people want to be able to make deals and buy stuff with a reasonable assurance that it is what they say it is -dave
[2005-09-15 15:51:17] - Paul: laws against stealing - because people don't want to be bothered with criminals taking their stuff -dave
[2005-09-15 15:50:41] - Paul: hmm, well maybe I'm just look at it wrong. But this is what I think - laws against murder, because no one wants to be afraid of roving killers (definitely bothering you) -dave
[2005-09-15 15:48:08] - didn't we have to recite the pledge senior year at tj? who recited it? (i know i did despite my disagreements with the constitutionality of it) ~a
[2005-09-15 15:44:27] - Dave: I would pretty strongly disagree with that. If anything, the fundamental underpinning of government is to mess around with people. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a government to leave us alone.
-Paul[2005-09-15 15:37:33] - Paul: well, but my point is that I think your statement is kinda the fundamental underpining of govt. -dave
[2005-09-15 15:30:14] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091401521.html Judge Rules Pledge of Allegiance in Calif. Schools Unconstitutional -Paul
[2005-09-15 15:22:57] - Dave: Well, yeah, it's all in the interpretation. Also, it's usually having a problem with how the services are paid for rather than the services themselves. I don't mind getting paid money by the government for social security but I don't like how I'm forced to contribute to it.
-Paul[2005-09-15 15:18:37] - Paul: we probably disagree on what constitutes "bothering me" though -dave
[2005-09-15 15:17:53] - Paul: some of them are probably a stretch, or not applicable at all (like maybe social security), but in general, I can't think of anything I think should be there that is at odds with it -dave
[2005-09-15 15:17:10] - Paul: you have Intellectual Property laws because you don't want people bothering your making money off of something you invent -dave
[2005-09-15 15:16:22] - Paul: actually though, with that bare definition, I don't think that's actually at odds with anything I think govt should have. It's just a matter of what you think bothers you I guess. Like you have a DoD because you don't want foreign govts bothering you. You have tariffs because you don't want foreign countries bothering your business etc -dave
[2005-09-15 15:15:03] - i guess adding to the irony is that the mandate itself is unconstitutional ... - mig
[2005-09-15 15:09:51] - Dave: Woe to those that touch my monkey. -Paul
prev <-> next