A lot of christians like to say that their god has sovereignty over all decisions while claiming that man is morally responsible for any adverse results. There are a few variations on this theme; but it's all baloney. No one can be reasonably accountable for anything beyond his control. This idea was rather eloquently (I think) expressed in the children's story "The Little Prince." If a king gives one of his subjects a command that he cannot fulfill, whose fault is the lack of fulfillment? Naturally, it is the king's fault. It cannot be otherwise. I cannot reasonably be expected to perform acts that I have no power to perform. If you insist that all people have a "sin nature" and cannot be "sin-free," then it is unreasonable to expect them to be so. It doesn't matter that you say your god has an "alternate plan of salvation." If the so-called first plan is pure undoability, then the "alternate plan" is the real first plan.
The reasoning is inescapable. However, christians don't like to say that "accepting Jesus as lord and savior" (or whatever the verbiage du jour is) is the first plan. The conscience rightly says that that is wicked. So, they present a fake "first plan" that they think sounds better on the surface to quell their conscience. Something that would be an unreasonable requirement for Plan A might be taken as reasonable for Plan B. But I look more closely. The stated "Plan A" is impossible and is therefore only there as an illusion.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Answer to trivia question
As everybody knows, IP stands for Instruction Pointer. I'm rather surprised that no one responded. I know I don't have many readers. But the trivia question was easy. Maybe you were upset that it was too easy. I'll try to make it a little more difficult next time.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
I have some comments on Stormbringer's recent post
And since he lacks the honesty to let my posts through, I will make my comments here.
"I am not one of those people that sees persecution lurking behind every tree or hiding around every corner."
My observations tell me otherwise. After all, if you didn't see "persecution" hiding around every corner, you wouldn't be so heavy-handed with your censorship on your blog. Yes, yes it is your blog and you can run it however you like. But the way you choose to run runs counter to your claims.
"Note: Other groups experience it as well, but I am doing one of the first rules of writing, and limiting my topic to the persecution of [c]hristians."
Gee, I didn't know that imposing an artificial limit to create false appearances was the first rule of writing. Discussing persecution in general would seem a more natural fit. However, sometimes a limit to the scope of discussion is imposed because one only wishes to cover the part that should be emulated or only the part that should be changed. I am going to assume that you don't want the persecution of christians to be emulated. This suggests that you only want to stop the persecution of christians and that you think the persecution of non-christians is acceptable or (given your propensity for name-calling) even desirable.
"The Fairness Doctrine was targeting Conservative radio, because it was successful and liberal radio was failing because nobody wanted to listen to it. After all, radio is a business and it is market driven."
Stormbringer, child, you need to realize that radio stations do not get their revenue directly from listeners. They get their money from advertisers. The businesses that typically pay for the advertising like stories and editorials to have a "conservative" slant. And they say it with dollars. The concept of "liberal media" is mostly a myth. I say mostly because there are some media that derive their revenue primarily through donations -- like PBS.
"It is one thing to have community standards (including decency), but it is quite another to have bureaucrats in charge."
Not really. The bureaucrats can treat "decency" just as vaguely as "public value."
"Just because I cite Christian sources or use Conservative news sources does not make something untrue."
Strictly speaking, that's true. You can make a true statement even if you don't supply any sources. However, the point you seem to be missing is that when you make a claim which, on its face, looks invented, you are using the source to overcome the initial belief that your claim is not true. If your source is untrustworthy and is, itself, likely to invent the sort of story that you are trying to get me to believe, it still leaves the impression that the story is invented. If you are trying to convince someone that a claim is true, it is most useful to use a source that he is likely to regard as genuine. This is, for example, the reason why when I try to convince christians and evangelicals in particular of the truth of something, I tent to identify Fox News as a source. (Heavily christian sources that you like will suppress any news item that does not support the christian illusion. And I think they invent news items that do support it.)
"We serve a holy and righteous [g]od who does not tolerate that kind of thing, so it's ridiculous to label [c]hristians as a whole to be habitual liars."
No, you say you serve a god that does not tolerate lying, among other things. But... when you false claims like "living in mommy's basement," you are demonstrating an outright willingness to lie. If you serve a god at all, it would seem that he not only tolerates lying but actively encourages it. Now, I certainly don't take the premise that anyone who happens to be christian is lying. But the sources you like are actively trying to sell christianity. And I do regard the word of any salesman, when he is trying to push his product, to be automatically suspect. Christian sources do make the claim that persecution validates the assertion that they are serving the "one true god." Therefore, when they print stories claiming persecution, they are using them to push their product. And I regard them like I regard the salesman pushing his product.
"I am not one of those people that sees persecution lurking behind every tree or hiding around every corner."
My observations tell me otherwise. After all, if you didn't see "persecution" hiding around every corner, you wouldn't be so heavy-handed with your censorship on your blog. Yes, yes it is your blog and you can run it however you like. But the way you choose to run runs counter to your claims.
"Note: Other groups experience it as well, but I am doing one of the first rules of writing, and limiting my topic to the persecution of [c]hristians."
Gee, I didn't know that imposing an artificial limit to create false appearances was the first rule of writing. Discussing persecution in general would seem a more natural fit. However, sometimes a limit to the scope of discussion is imposed because one only wishes to cover the part that should be emulated or only the part that should be changed. I am going to assume that you don't want the persecution of christians to be emulated. This suggests that you only want to stop the persecution of christians and that you think the persecution of non-christians is acceptable or (given your propensity for name-calling) even desirable.
"The Fairness Doctrine was targeting Conservative radio, because it was successful and liberal radio was failing because nobody wanted to listen to it. After all, radio is a business and it is market driven."
Stormbringer, child, you need to realize that radio stations do not get their revenue directly from listeners. They get their money from advertisers. The businesses that typically pay for the advertising like stories and editorials to have a "conservative" slant. And they say it with dollars. The concept of "liberal media" is mostly a myth. I say mostly because there are some media that derive their revenue primarily through donations -- like PBS.
"It is one thing to have community standards (including decency), but it is quite another to have bureaucrats in charge."
Not really. The bureaucrats can treat "decency" just as vaguely as "public value."
"Just because I cite Christian sources or use Conservative news sources does not make something untrue."
Strictly speaking, that's true. You can make a true statement even if you don't supply any sources. However, the point you seem to be missing is that when you make a claim which, on its face, looks invented, you are using the source to overcome the initial belief that your claim is not true. If your source is untrustworthy and is, itself, likely to invent the sort of story that you are trying to get me to believe, it still leaves the impression that the story is invented. If you are trying to convince someone that a claim is true, it is most useful to use a source that he is likely to regard as genuine. This is, for example, the reason why when I try to convince christians and evangelicals in particular of the truth of something, I tent to identify Fox News as a source. (Heavily christian sources that you like will suppress any news item that does not support the christian illusion. And I think they invent news items that do support it.)
"We serve a holy and righteous [g]od who does not tolerate that kind of thing, so it's ridiculous to label [c]hristians as a whole to be habitual liars."
No, you say you serve a god that does not tolerate lying, among other things. But... when you false claims like "living in mommy's basement," you are demonstrating an outright willingness to lie. If you serve a god at all, it would seem that he not only tolerates lying but actively encourages it. Now, I certainly don't take the premise that anyone who happens to be christian is lying. But the sources you like are actively trying to sell christianity. And I do regard the word of any salesman, when he is trying to push his product, to be automatically suspect. Christian sources do make the claim that persecution validates the assertion that they are serving the "one true god." Therefore, when they print stories claiming persecution, they are using them to push their product. And I regard them like I regard the salesman pushing his product.
Monday, December 06, 2010
I thought I'd make a post about Stormbringer's latest post.
The post is here. He is claiming he gave "obviously good advice" to "Norman." There is no "Norman." Giving him the maximum amount of credit, he has simply created a strawman to excuse his dishonest deletions of people's comments. And I guess we can see what a promise from Stormbringer to stop hitting delete on my sensible comments means. Every time he hits delete he breaks his word. My comments have never been in violation of his rules -- unless he is applying an unwritten rule that pointing out deception on his part is forbidden.
Well, I'm going to provide some hints for Stormbringer. When you create a fake name for the purpose of insulting someone or a composite of people, you damage your credibility. Until you drop the "Norman" act and stop deleting people's comments wholesale, no advice you give can meaningfully be taken as good, or even sincere. I realize you find me, and a couple other people, inconvenient because you've lied and I've exposed you before. You are far too cavalier with your claims that everyone is "full of hate" (with the notable exception of those you think are "True Christians™" or that you think you can turn into same.) I am inclined to think that the hate you see emanates from yourself. You don't know people's private lives, so even if somebody were "living in mommy's basement," which I strongly doubt; and I know the claim was false when you made it of me, you wouldn't know. But then, that's probably the point. If it were true of someone, you would likely have no hope of getting the emotional response you desire. Indeed, given your continual "full of hate" claims, you would probably allow my comments had I taken the bait and responded in a way you could say fit your claim.
But I do not think you are beyond hope. I want to see you become an honest person. You don't even have to give up christianity. There are plenty of honest christians. I simply disagree with their belief in christianity. I'm making you a project. I want to help redeem you. One of the steps is getting you to stop with the dishonest deletions. To this effect, I will save and repost this comment repeatedly until you decide it is easier to be honest and let it through. I'm thinking about once a day. I am hoping that if I make it too much work for you to be dishonest, you will start being honest instead.
Well, I'm going to provide some hints for Stormbringer. When you create a fake name for the purpose of insulting someone or a composite of people, you damage your credibility. Until you drop the "Norman" act and stop deleting people's comments wholesale, no advice you give can meaningfully be taken as good, or even sincere. I realize you find me, and a couple other people, inconvenient because you've lied and I've exposed you before. You are far too cavalier with your claims that everyone is "full of hate" (with the notable exception of those you think are "True Christians™" or that you think you can turn into same.) I am inclined to think that the hate you see emanates from yourself. You don't know people's private lives, so even if somebody were "living in mommy's basement," which I strongly doubt; and I know the claim was false when you made it of me, you wouldn't know. But then, that's probably the point. If it were true of someone, you would likely have no hope of getting the emotional response you desire. Indeed, given your continual "full of hate" claims, you would probably allow my comments had I taken the bait and responded in a way you could say fit your claim.
But I do not think you are beyond hope. I want to see you become an honest person. You don't even have to give up christianity. There are plenty of honest christians. I simply disagree with their belief in christianity. I'm making you a project. I want to help redeem you. One of the steps is getting you to stop with the dishonest deletions. To this effect, I will save and repost this comment repeatedly until you decide it is easier to be honest and let it through. I'm thinking about once a day. I am hoping that if I make it too much work for you to be dishonest, you will start being honest instead.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Okay, here's an easy one
I've decided to chime in with an easy trivia question. What does IP stand for? And because I'm just that kind of guy, I'll make it even easier by making it multiple choice.
A) Idiot Potential
B) Inspiring Puzzle
C) Instruction Pointer
D) Image Production
E) Improved Processing
I know, I know, I make this too easy. But I have to work with stuff I know off the top of my head.
A) Idiot Potential
B) Inspiring Puzzle
C) Instruction Pointer
D) Image Production
E) Improved Processing
I know, I know, I make this too easy. But I have to work with stuff I know off the top of my head.
Days gone by.
There was a time when I could Google my own name |You didn't really think I was going to tell you my name, did you?| and come up with no matches. Those days are gone. Now, I doubt my name shows up more than the typical person. In fact, it probably shows up a good deal less, as I am not inclined to give it out. This suggests that nearly everybody's privacy is being invaded to a frightening degree.
Friday, December 03, 2010
I am not particularly impressed with the idea of "64-bit programs"
Yes, yes, I know it's supposed to sound impressive. But the floating-point unit really hasn't changed. And most processing is still done in 32 bits even in 64-bit mode. The 64-bit mode is intended primarily to increase the available address space. But running through such a large address space is time-consuming. This makes it not as useful as one might think.
The following experiment will give Windows users a feel for what I am talking about. First select "Run" from the Start Menu and run debug.exe. This will bring up a window that, aside from the title bar is mostly black. But if you look closely, it has white text and starts off with a single, solitary dash. Now for this next part, I will use bold text for the text shown by the program, regular text for the text you as the user will enter, and italics for any commentary. Hit enter at the end of each line.
-a
0B33:0100 mov si, 0 As shown on my system.
0B33:0103 mov di, 0 The text before the colon may vary.
0B33:0106 mov dl, 0
0B33:0108 mov bx, 1000
0B33:010B mov ax, [bx]
0B33:010D add si, 1
0B33:0110 adc di, 0
0B33:0113 adc dl, 0
0B33:0116 jnc 108
0B33:0118 int 3
0B33:0119 <Here you just hit enter without typing anything>
-g
The window will appear not to do anything for a while as it simulates access of about 2 terabytes of memory. On my system, this takes about 26 minutes.
AX=C033 BX=1000 CX=0000 DX=0000 SP=FFEE BP=0000 SI=0000 DI=0000
DS=0B33 ES=0B33 SS=0B33 CS=0B33 IP=0118 NV UP EI PL ZR AC PE CY
0B33:0118 CC INT 3
-q This will exit the program. Do NOT click on the X in the upper-right corner. That would be... bad
Okay, I know that that program is not as "user friendly" as some of you may be accustomed to. It pretty much assumes that you know what you're doing, although it does have a help feature in case you forget the syntax of some of the commands. There are some biases in the simulation. Because the simulation accesses the same memory repeatedly, this will be placed in faster "cache" memory to speed up the process. Actual use in a real 64-bit program accessing a real memory space will be slower.
The following experiment will give Windows users a feel for what I am talking about. First select "Run" from the Start Menu and run debug.exe. This will bring up a window that, aside from the title bar is mostly black. But if you look closely, it has white text and starts off with a single, solitary dash. Now for this next part, I will use bold text for the text shown by the program, regular text for the text you as the user will enter, and italics for any commentary. Hit enter at the end of each line.
-a
0B33:0100 mov si, 0 As shown on my system.
0B33:0103 mov di, 0 The text before the colon may vary.
0B33:0106 mov dl, 0
0B33:0108 mov bx, 1000
0B33:010B mov ax, [bx]
0B33:010D add si, 1
0B33:0110 adc di, 0
0B33:0113 adc dl, 0
0B33:0116 jnc 108
0B33:0118 int 3
0B33:0119 <Here you just hit enter without typing anything>
-g
The window will appear not to do anything for a while as it simulates access of about 2 terabytes of memory. On my system, this takes about 26 minutes.
AX=C033 BX=1000 CX=0000 DX=0000 SP=FFEE BP=0000 SI=0000 DI=0000
DS=0B33 ES=0B33 SS=0B33 CS=0B33 IP=0118 NV UP EI PL ZR AC PE CY
0B33:0118 CC INT 3
-q This will exit the program. Do NOT click on the X in the upper-right corner. That would be... bad
Okay, I know that that program is not as "user friendly" as some of you may be accustomed to. It pretty much assumes that you know what you're doing, although it does have a help feature in case you forget the syntax of some of the commands. There are some biases in the simulation. Because the simulation accesses the same memory repeatedly, this will be placed in faster "cache" memory to speed up the process. Actual use in a real 64-bit program accessing a real memory space will be slower.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
