Document-level Authorship Datasets
Collection
25 items
•
Updated
Dataset Viewer
authorIDs
string | fullText
string |
|---|---|
----x---- | > open up the JavaScript error console
This is the console opened by Control + Shift + J in windows, chrome. I think this was what you are looking for:
http://i.imgur.com/RzXdCva.png
I will be in church for the next few hours, thanks for helping to troubleshoot. I have not tried a complete uninstall and reinstall of RES/chrome yet so could do that if a simpler fix isn't found |
----x---- | There is sometimes a perspective shift of the patient "creating work" rather than "needing help".
Whoever brings you the patient, brings you work.
Some EM docs get annoyed when a clinic physician calls to say they are sending someone to the ED, if it doesn't sound like a STEMI.
Some hospitalists try to talk their way out of as many admisisons as they can, or make the ER do as extensive of a workup as possible pre-admission which clogs up the whole ER with 6 admits sitting waiting on second draws of blood work testing for non-emergent differentials.
Similar things can be seen by certain providers in any speciality. Part of it is how you choose to perceive your work (patients as people versus patients as problems). |
----x---- | I would recommend ReasonableFaith.org as a good resource on an apologetic of the Christian faith.
Also the book by the same name: Reasonable Faith, by <PERSON>, goes into detail on the logical coherence of the Christian worldview by building a cumulative case first for monotheism, then further for Christianity through the person of <PERSON>.
Belief in God is a very reasonable and philosophically defensible position to hold, even further than that I would say it is more reasonable than atheism, for example. |
----x---- | To me it's the epitome of a practical bike.
Decent mileage, good storage, can't really be hard on it with the rev limiter. Low center of gravity with the canted engine so it whips around pretty well. I don't have the DCT model so can't comment on that.
I haven't ridden any other motorcycle, just some scooters/mopeds, but I'm not itching to upgrade from this. Maybe once I actually make enough money to get something high end I will. |
----x---- | That is not what many believe of inerrancy. Not all Christians hold to inerrancy, but it is a fairly commonly held belief among denominations.
The *men* were not inspired to write the scriptures, but the *scriptures themselves* are inspired and are actually God's word. It's the end product that is inspired, not the author.
It's not that the general idea of the scriptures is God's idea given to a man who then wrote it how he saw fit, but the actual words originally written in Greek/hebrew are as God wanted it to be written. So the english translations then are not inspired, but translations of the original inspired scripture, for example. |
----x---- | As the old law no longer applies when not reinforced in the New Testament, I would look to slavery's mention in the NT.
In the New Testament, <PERSON> does say "Slaves obey your masters". He also says to the masters to "treat them in the same way, or even better, as brothers". They are asked not to threaten them, but treat them as they would treat him (<PERSON>).
It should be recognized this is at least very different from new world slavery. And these same passages are used by abolitionists in their offence against the entire idea of slavery. To ignore this information is to choose to believe Christianity is pro-slavery, then find verses to support it, rather than give a critical reading. (abolitionist source: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/cheevergvs.htm#p140) |
----x---- | It would be a severe disservice to defund planned parenthood, who spends the vast majority of their resources on things other than abortions.
Yes, they are the poster child for abortion - but they offer women a wide variety of other services such as pap smears, breast exams, birth control, and other women's health initiatives.
Defunding this organization is attacking the wrong target. If the goal is to end abortion, work on that goal, rather than putting hundreds of thousands of women out of accessible routine health screenings. |
----x---- | I would recommend for you to learn a bit more about monotheism, and Christianity, before attacking strawmen arguments and saying it's obviously illogical.
You do yourself a disservice because there's such a wealth of information on the topic, but when you don't engage with it and yet affirm it cannot be valid you betray your ignorance.
For example, Christianity doesn't believe in a literal man who literally lives in the sky.
The end of this video giving a brief explanation of the kalam cosmological argument for God, gives you a few of the descriptors used when defining what we believe God to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 |
----x---- | You're right to say it's a thought experiment on the nature of infinity. An actual infinite number of finite things is philosophically illogical.
However infinity - infinity is not always infinity.
* all numbers from 3 to infinity is equal to infinity.
* infinity minus all numbers from 3 to infinity, gives you 2.
When you subtract from infinity, you can get infinity, or any other number from negative infinity to infinity. This is why arithmetic doesn't work with infinity, because the answer can literally be anything. The real world doesn't have to hold to that arbitrary rule though, so the philosophical paradox stands and shows an actual infinite number of finite things cannot exist.
If you looked at the hotel example to illustrate this, an infinite number of people could leave the hotel and you would still have a full hotel. OR, an infinite number (the SAME number) of people can leave the hotel, and you are left with 2 people in the hotel.
This is part of some arguments against an infinite universe, for example, as there could not be an infinite amount of time in the past or you run into similar illogical scenarios.
I realize I'm on the 4chan subreddit. |
----x---- | I stop riding once there is snow or ice on the ground.
i have fleece pants and jacket i wear under my 1 piece riding suit. If you were still cold there are electric garments including gloves, vests, socks, pants. Unless you're riding all day you don't need that just wear thick socks, winter gloves, fleece under a rain/windproof suit (i have aerostitch), and you're set for a commute. |
----x---- | A world without sin is logically possible. It is logically possible for every free agent acting in the world to always choose to do the objectively morally correct thing in every instance.
However, this world may not be actualizable. Once you have enough free agents it may simply be that some will freely choose to do the wrong thing.
It is logically incoherent to force a person to freely do something. That is like making a round square.
So, it's possible this is one of the best actualizable worlds, even if it is not the best logically possible world. |
----x---- | In islam, it is thought that God literally dictated to the writers what to write like you said.
In Christianity, it is generally thought that God did not dictate his message, and also the writers themselves were not inspired by God and then wrote it how they saw fit. It is the words themselves are inspired (God breathed). So, if you read the original text, the exact words themselves are God breathed.
Timothy 3:16 is a primary verse speaking on biblical inspiration - “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” |
----x---- | I would refer you to the Chicago statement in 1978 regarding inerrancy.
Here's the big point of the Chicago statement I really admire them hitting on. They also define inerrancy, infallability, etc. and it's a good read for that as well.
> When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
**In response to your question:**
You do not need to believe in biblical inerrancy to intellectually believe in the story <PERSON>, as the historicity of <PERSON> without taking the biblical texts as divine but simply as historical documents should be sufficient to come to that belief.
However, in my mind a Christian *would* believe in Biblical inerrancy. <PERSON> taught on the assumption of the inerrancy of the old testament, so if you believe in <PERSON> it would make sense to hold to the same understanding.
Edit: I cut out a few paragraphs of the chicago statement to just leave the primary message my post was to get across. |
----x---- | I would just mention that one's certainty about any proposition has no bearing on the truth of that proposition.
I may not be certain about the existence of the Indian ocean, but my certainty does not affect the objective truth of it existing or not.
One argument for biblical inerrancy goes like this:
**Part 1**
1. Whatever God teaches is true.
2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that <PERSON> is God.
3. Therefore, whatever <PERSON> teaches is true.
**Part 2**
1. Whatever <PERSON> teaches is true.
2. <PERSON> taught that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God.
3. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God.
_________________________________
This argument was lifted from a lecture by Dr. <PERSON> for his "Defenders" Class, series three, Doctrine of Revelation: Part 8. Transcripts can be found here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast/transcript/t02-08 |
----x---- | Yeah, I'm just a layman so do not have a full enough understanding of the arguments supporting the second premise of the second part of the overall argument to go into detail on that.
One book recommended on the subject of <PERSON>'s attitude toward the scriptures that I have on my *to read* list is a book by <PERSON> called "Christ and the Bible", focusing on <PERSON>'s attitude towards the scriptures. That book would seek to defend the position I've given above. |
----x---- | This serves to highlight the point that my bible at home is NOT inerrant. The words in my personal bible are NOT themselves inspired.
My bible is an English translation of an originally inerrant, verbal plenary inspired (in my opinion), confluent, infallible series of writings.
This is why it is very important to go to the original texts, and why in my opinion it is also important to read or at least reference one of the more "literal" translations of the bible such as the ESV when studying. |
----x---- | I would recommend you to read "Surprised by Hope" By <PERSON>.
His primary thesis throughout the book is reclaiming back the orthodox doctrine of the new heaven and the new earth. Christians are not going up and leaving the earth forever, to enter into heaven in ethereal form and leave our bodies. Rather, heaven is coming to earth and all things will be resurrected to righteousness, we will receive glorified bodies at this resurrection, and live on earth with God. |
----x---- | First it's important you understand what is meant by inerrant before dismissing it.
I'm walking through a free course by Dr. <PERSON> going through the doctrines of the church. Regarding inerrancy, you could look through lectures on the Doctrine of Revelation, parts 7, 8, and 9.
Here is a transcript of part 7: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast/transcript/t02-07
_________
I would just point out that your understanding of inerrancy is a bit flawed. <PERSON> did hold the Hebrew scriptures to be inerrant and infallible and even quotes specific passages word for word in order to defend an argument.
If you want to know more about <PERSON>'s attitude toward the scriptures consider reading a book by <PERSON> called "Christ and the Bible".
________ |
----x---- | It's made me start using the term "religious marriage" and "civil marriage".
In terms of the civil ability for same sex civil unions, I'm not against that and can't really see a reason for our government to forbid it even if I'm personally opposed. However, the definition of marriage as used by government is quite different than that which is used by my religion (Christianity). This contrast has been made all the more stark with the recent Supreme Court ruling.
So, I use the terms religious marriage and civil marriage if I need to differentiate between the two. A "religious" or "Christian marriage" to me would be a marriage between two professing Christians, man and woman, as defined by the Bible. Other marriages I would consider civil marriages, even if between two Christians.
It's also fostered quite a bit of discussion both at the workplace and with friends, peers, and family about the topic. |
----x---- | * Him: Dat ass, cool face.
* Her: Moon, moon. Moon moon.
* Him: I'll blow up peaches with a shake weight.
* Her: Love it! *panting*
* Him: Hey <PERSON>, give me a blowjob.
* Her: Ooo you're good at this, and I'm happy about it.
* Him: Damn right i am.
* Her: bb
* Him: Teasing kiss. I'll finger you and make you wet. Then go down on you.
* Her: You're killing me
* Him: Girl on top, 69 sex position?
* Her: Yes to all of the above
* Him: bb, girl gets a right lower quadrant eggplant.
* Her: Uh huh
* Him: Time to bolt?
* Her: Yes
* Him: BANG! Hammer girl on top! Shuffle it, guy goes back. Finger puppet sex back and forth forever.
* Her: You're the biggest tease
* Him: Girl's house guy goes to soon?
* Her: Yes
* Him: Phone number?
* Her: I'm 14, is that ok? (whited out in image). |
----x---- | Omnipotence in theology is usually not defined as the power or ability to do literally anything conceivable.
With a more common definition of omnipotence you start to see "limits" on God's power. For example, God cannot do anything contrary to his own nature, such as creating another God and worshiping it. Similarly, God cannot bring about the logically impossible (unless you're <PERSON>).
Paradoxes like "creating a rock too heavy for God to lift" or "creating knowledge God didn't foreknow" are simply illogical contradictions in words, they are word play - but not actual, possible things which God is incapable of doing.
No one can create a round square, or make <PERSON> president of the US but also not the president, they are simply things which cannot exist because they are contradictory terms. They are forms of wordplay. Similarly, the paradoxes given in the joke are not evidence of God's inability to bring about a possible outcome, which some greater being could have created, but these are simply not "things" at all.
Here is a rough definition of omnipotence that serves you well in most instances:
> It means that God is able to bring about any state of affairs which it is logically possible for anyone in that situation to bring about. |
----x---- | Oh of course! If my life if focused on <PERSON>, rather than focused on my partner or my job or my abilities, then when I fail, or my partner makes a mistake, or I lose my job - my foundation remains firm because God never fails me.
This type of foundation will help my future marriage, if I get married, have a real chance of lasting a lifetime. |
----x---- | God does foreknow all who will freely choose him and come to salvation. However, I am not a fatalist who would say that simply by His knowing, it is fated to occur. God is not choosing some and rejecting others by his knowing who will choose him.
If I knew what song was going to be on the radio at 8:30 AM tomorrow, I would still not be in causal relationship with the song playing. My knowledge of the future song does not necessitate its playing.
I DO believe in predestination, but you're right to say there are different meanings to the word. I do not believe in individual predestination or foreordination. I do not believe that every individual person is fated, regardless of their will, to be compelled to choose God or reject God. Rather, I believe in a corporate predestination.
This corporate predestination would be like saying "We are having a free trip to the zoo and any are invited, you can expect to see various animals and have lunch. Any who sign up to go on the trip, will go on the trip. Any who do not sign up, will not go on the trip. But it is determined that this group will be going on the trip." Making the comparison to salvation, any who freely choose <PERSON> will then be a part of this corporate group which is predestined to salvation. The people within the group are not determined, but it is determined that the group will be saved.
Of course, God knows who will be in the group, but he does not *cause* them to choose to be in the group. |
----x---- | This doesn't seem to take into account the actual words used, rather ranking complexity by syllables per word and words per sentence.
This analysis would do an OK job if comparing writings from a similar era against one another, because the reader's familiarity with the general vocabulary in each writing should be similar. However, when you take writings from many years ago and compare them solely by word count and syllable count, you fail to control for the likely confounding variable of the actual vocabulary being unfamiliar to the common reader.
To take this to an extreme example, consider an analysis of a German translation versus an English translation. Perhaps the German translation is analyzed and "easier to read" because of fewer words per sentence, and fewer syllables per word on average. However, I don't know German - so I won't recognize the actual words being used. |
----x---- | The video in the comment I was directly replying to above has a gentleman on the far left in a sheer, supple fabric suit that looks to my untrained eye to be satin. Which would be a bit ridiculous and funny to me. It was more noticeable in his pants which look like satin pajama pants cut in a dress pant.
Satin is a soft, somewhat expensive fabric now most commonly seen in women's lingerie. |
----x---- | To clarify, there are things God does not know.
Omniscience is knowing all true propositions, and not believing any false propositions. However, there is a type of knowledge outside this propositional knowledge, which is self knowledge (like a self awareness).
So God is omniscient, but this alone doesn't exhaust the knowledge of God. He also knows He is God. He does not know that He is <PERSON> the Great, he does not know that He is <PERSON>. Those are true statements which can only be known by the persons attributable to them.
Bonus thought -
Let's say God created a second being and gave it all the propositional knowledge He has, so this second being is omniscient. Is God now equal in knowledge with this being? No, God is greater as he has this knowledge necessarily by His own nature - and was not given this knowledge by another. |
----x---- | You don't have a conclusion to your argument. What are you concluding from these?
Regardless, it is possible that only in a world where many are created who will freely reject God, will God be able to create the most people who will freely accept him.
If you take out all the the people who will freely reject God, that is a NEW world - and it's possible in this world others who would have accepted God in the old world, would then freely reject God because it's a whole different set of circumstances.
Your world of all people freely choosing God is a *possible* world but may not be an *actualizable* world, meaning it can't be actualized or made. Once you get enough free agents, some may freely reject God in their circumstances.
So, it's possible that this world is one of many best possible worlds which could be created, both minimizing the amount of evil and number of people who reject God, and maximizing the amount of good and people who will accept God. If this is even logically possible, then the idea that people reject God (or that there is evil at all) cannot be a proof against God (though I'm unsure what your conclusion was again, as you didn't have one in your post). |
----x---- | Exactly, it isn't propositional knowledge that God does not know, but the self knowledge only other individuals can know.
An omniscient entity believes all true propositions to be true, and does not believe any false propositions to be true.
Self knowledge is not propositional, but a separate type of knowledge. It is outside the bounds of omniscience as defined.
Another fun thing to think about is that God's knowledge does *change* as well!
For example, God knows what time it is now at any place (such as 8:20 PM), but a moment later he knows something new, that the time is instead 8:21 PM. |
----x---- | It seems like you *may* be holding a B theory of time, where I prefer an A theory of time.
For A theory, things really do objectively come into and out of being. There is an actual past, present and future time.
For B theory (from my understanding), time is subjective and relative to the person (things are before me and after me in my frame of reference but not objectively so). Nothing comes into or out of being, it just "comes into frame" for the person seeing it. God has no "foreknowledge" then, all events are simply visible to him.
If you hold to an A theory of objective temporal becoming, I'm not sure how you could know what time it is NOW, eternally in the past. NOW is constantly changing, so you can't give one answer to the question "what time is it?" - but the answer changes each time it is asked, so in this instance God's knowledge always changes.
Anyway, we've derailed things a bit! Thanks for your insight! |
----x---- | I would still be able to hold to God's immutability (perhaps defined differnetly from you) and eternality, just with the caveats that God existed eternally but entered into spacetime at its creation - so can be said to be in time, but otherwise existing atemporally (and you can't really say "before time" because that's illogical, but rather outside of time).
He is immutable in that his life, character, truth, purposes, and Son are unchanging (consider the book *Knowing God* by <PERSON> for this discussion, I've not gotten through much of it yet, but need to pick it back up). I would even say that God being entirely, absolutely unchangeable in every aspect is more of an Aristotelian idea (the unmoved mover) than a biblical one, where in the bible God is living and active, rather than static - though still immutable in the ways listed above (mainly his character, nature, wisdom, existence, faithfulness etc.)
I should mention I'm mostly self-taught through free courses and recommended readings, so my philosophy isn't quite at the depth or breadth I'd want to be at - but I think the ideas I've presented are cogent and not all that uncommon now - but they're not the only correct way of seeing it. Anyway, I like your horse \^_\^. |
----x---- | There are a few facts which are widely accepted as historical facts:
1. After his death <PERSON> was buried in <PERSON> of Arimethea's personal tomb
2. On the Sunday after the crucifixion, the tomb was found empty by a group of <PERSON>'s women followers.
3. On multiple occasions, in various circumstances, various individuals and groups of people both followers and skeptics alike experienced appearances of <PERSON> alive after his death.
4. The original disciples believes <PERSON> to be raised from the dead, despite having every predisposition not to.
Now the question becomes, what explanation of these facts is the most plausible? There have been many alternatives to the resurrection hypothesis made but none offer the explanatory power or scope that the ressurection hypothesis does, so the ressurection is the most plausible explanation for these facts.
WLC goes into detail about the above four points, their significance, and the explanations offered for them. |
----x---- | Remember that nothing can change your objective relationship with God.
The way you *feel*, the subjective perspective on whether you're happy with where you are, or *feel God's presence*, have no bearing.
No matter how you subjectively perceive your closeness with God to be, remember your objective relationship as child of God. Otherwise, your belief - or your hope, courage, strength, discipline, dedication - can rise and fall with the tides of changing circumstances, or even just hormones. |
----x---- | If I had waited until I felt I got an answer from God before acting, I would be paralyzed into inaction. How long do I wait? I've never had a specific calling.
There are different aspects of God's will, and though God's declarative will where he specifically tells you what to do does exist, it is not what I've experienced most commonly, and is actually what I hold as least trustworthy because it is based on my perception. I am judging something as being God's will by my feeling comfortable with it, or emotionally secure, or a "sense of peace" about it - when that can be due to many other things than God. My sense of God's will would then rise and fall with the tides of my emotional security, which may be related to my circumstances and stress rather than His guidance.
Instead I'll use an analogy. In the same way that an individual who is married for 50 years will know their spouse's perspective on any choice or circumstance they have to make (without them even having to ask) - so too does the Christian who has endeavored to become closer to God through scripture and prayer for 50 years begin to walk in step with God's perspective on right and moral action. He comes to better understand how to act rightly in situations not explicitly dealt with in the Bible, or declared to him by God specifically.
[2 Timothy 3:16-17]
Gives a good example of this type of thinking.
So this doesn't help you with your decision about whether to accept the job offer next week. It doesn't help with your choice of car to buy this fall, or who to offer a promotion in October. But - it does give you hope that the longer you walk in Christ, the more confident you can be in those decisions in the future. If I start today, there may be many decisions that I would struggle to make appropriately now but in 2 years I'll know the answer confidently - and even moreso in 20 years and beyond.
Consider [this article by <PERSON> on God's will](http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/four-ways-god-leads-his-people). I don't agree with some of <PERSON>'s theology as I'm not reformed, but think he does a good job here. |
----x---- | It depends on who you ask. Your question is a subtle one, I think. It is not "who is guilty of sin" which <PERSON> responded to below, but is instead "does God decree sin". This can be ambiguous, meaning does he *desire* or *cause* us to sin? Or it could mean: "does God incorporate sin into his eternal plan?"
In some reformed theology we have no will apart from God. We still do everything "voluntarily" but at bottom it is God's will, not our own apart from God. With this perspective, free will is illusory. It can be difficult then to wrestle with the existence of sin, and for salvation in general; if everything we do is at it's core God's will and not our own, how can we truly be blamed for rejecting God? On this view, how can we be seen as truly guilty when the only reason we rejected God is God's doing? Some, like <PERSON> below, take the position of "We know God is sovereign over everything, and we know we have free will, our choices really matter, and the guilt of sin lies only with us. We affirm these two things and hold them in tension, without a way to reconcile the two beliefs". That is a reasonable position, but there IS a way to reconcile those two beliefs.
An Arminian-Molinist perspective would allow for multiple facets to God's will. So, any event - even sin - is part of God's eternal plan and does not occur in frustration of His plan. We cannot cause his plan to fail through disobedience. We do not surprise or shock him with something we do. He knew what we would do and it is planned for. We never stray from his eternal plan, even if we fall away from God forever, that would be His plan for us in that case. So in one sense He does "decree" or plan for sin through permission of free agents to freely choose to sin.
However, he doesn't *desire* us to sin or to fall away. He may "will" or decree that some freely choose to reject God - but it is still their free choice to do so and he *permits* their free choice; however it is his "will" or desire that all would walk in righteousness and come to a saving faith.
Through a Molinistic perspective, God works together all the free choices of every individual in order to achieve His plan. It is really our free choices, but is still really God's sovereign plan working through those choices. It's important to know we are not determined necessarily to act as He has planned (as would be a standard reformed view of predestination). If we *were* to choose differently, God's plan *would have* been different to take that into account.
**TLDR**
In a nutshell, God desires that all would come to a saving faith and none should sin. However, God does *permit* sin to occur by allowing free will, and this is part of His eternal plan. The guilt of sin lies solely with us, but complete control over all events is retained by God. |
----x---- | Even if I never "emotionally" felt God's presence for the rest of my life, I would know objectively how I am in relationship with God - and to pursue it.
If my faith rests on my contentment or sense of comfort, then it will ebb and flow with circumstances and threaten collapse with a catastrophic life event. No matter what I subjectively feel, I can always remember the objective truth of God's promises. |
----x---- | I'm in Minnesota - winter is fine just get warm clothing and you're comfortable. It can also make everything beautiful with a fresh snowfall.
If it's quite hot and humid, what can you do if you're outside? Not much. You're a pool of sweat walking into wherever you go unless you avoid being outside for more than a few minutes. I'd prefer to take off a jacket, scarf, and mittens - than to walk in to work every morning with wet clothing that gets cold after cooling down in the AC. |
----x---- | I work as a medical scribe in multiple health systems.
2 health systems have already switched over. For outpatient clinicians who see the same patient multiple times, it will simply be a bunch of work making sure their "problem lists" or PMHx are all updated so the specific dx doesn't have to be found each time they run charges but can be selected from there.
For emergency physicians, consulting physicians, etc. there is a lot of "unspecified" boxes being checked to get it in there quick. Entering the appropriate otitis media diagnosis at an urgent care takes 17 clicks otherwise.
If you don't see the same patients routinely for follow up, it's simply going to take more time to enter appropriate diagnoses - or you're going to find the diagnoses that can still be vague (like "personal history of breast cancer", rather than having to describe which part of the breast had cancer when they've had a mastectomy already). |
----x---- | We're not in a position to call anything a "gratuitous evil" as defined. We would need an omniscient perspective to truly understand if it was warranted or not. The author acknowledges this point.
There is definitely not consensus that the Canaanites were actually entirely destroyed, every man women and child. Some give the perspective that they were driven out of the land and no mercy was given to those that stayed and fought. This isn't the key point of the article though, it takes the premise of assuming they were destroyed. Also - to use this example as a refutation of God's existence is wrongheaded, it would be instead calling into question the veracity of the old testament narratives on the subject - not God's existence.
Even if we grant those stories as fact, and we grant that every man, woman and child were killed - because of the sin of the people it's logically possible that it was morally right. Children would be spared growing up in an evil society and potentially being judged as evil themselves, so in that sense would have been saved by their death. Adults would have warranted the punishment due to their sin.
So, it is logically possible for the destruction of the Canaanites to be ordered by God, and for God to be an all loving, all powerful, all good being. |
----x---- | A slightly different view from the standard reformed view is available, as well, which would allow for freedom of the will in choosing salvation while retraining eternal security.
Any Christian can fall away. It is possible for someone with a regenerate heart to fall away from God and never return.
God has ordered the world so that any who choose to follow <PERSON> and are truly regenerate will not freely choose to fall away from <PERSON>. Thus, any true Christian will freely choose to remain a Christian and be saved.
With this it is true that all elect will not lose salvation - but they are elect because they freely choose God, not because God forced them to freely choose him (which is an illogical statement, like a round square). |
----x---- | Yes, my mood couldn't help but be affected by people spewing off vitriol on their mics and in chat. Chat couldn't be muted even if I muted voice comms (And suffered for lack of coordination) every game.
I now try to avoid things where toxic responses are common, because it isn't worth it to me.
I sometimes wonder why I post on reddit for similar reasons. People can be quite harsh, unforgiving, and closed minded about certain issues. Enough people read every comment in as negative a light as possible instead of being generous in their interpretation that you start seeing comments where 30% of the comment is protecting against any possible negative reactions.
"To be fair, and I'm not saying I'm better than anyone or that...." |
----x---- | You're right to warn against pharisee-ism in any form. I am not better than the suicide bomber, the serial killer, or the person who has theology that is no longer orthodox. Killing that pharisee-ism is a daily struggle.
However, as /u/TheRealLeevo mentioned, the point wasn't to say "we are *better* than them" but rather that their theology is wayward - and that forum has become a place where certain orthodox positions are somewhat aggressively spoken out against and rejected. This makes it a place where Christians can and should still work to speak the truth, but when they are looking for a safer atmosphere of fellow believers, /r/Christianity is no longer a good place. |
----x---- | I've tried to protect against this myself. I'm not a Calvinist, but rather am a Molinist (For me this allows for both free will and god's sovereignty, which the bible affirms).
Here is one quote about Calvinism I enjoyed, though it's somewhat sarcastic, and may cast Calvinism in an unfair light.
> Thus the call, addressed by God to all, by design of God is not to all, but only to some [on the Calvinist view]. The ungodly have “an asylum to which they may betake themselves from the bondage of sin,” [to quote <PERSON>] and they are utterly without excuse for not doing so – despite the fact that God by immutable decree has rendered them totally unable to do anything other than to “ungratefully reject the offer that is made to them.” When <PERSON> asks “Why will you die?” the real answer is that God has so ordained. “God so loved the world” that He determined that few shall believe and be saved. “Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth,” cries <PERSON> to a lost world . . . while making certain that most men do not comply. “Whosoever will, let him come,” pleads the Risen Christ . . . while the Father makes certain that most men will not come. “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved” . . . but He has effected a “hidden” arrangement ensuring that most of the world shall not be saved.
<PERSON>, *Elect in the Son*, Page 165 |
----x---- | I think 60 years ago it was normal to be considered Christian even if you didn't believe it or live biblically. Now, the social norm in many areas of the western world is to simply be agnostic, atheist, "spiritual", or relativistic.
So, there may be a decline in the total number of Christians as many of these "nominal" christians decide to shed the title, but more Christians who choose to identify as such now actually live it out. That doesn't mean there still aren't quite a few nominal christians. |
----x---- | > 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14
Thanks that was a good reminder.
I grew up in an AG church, though am not anymore. I've visited AG churches where one stood up, spoke in tongues, and another stood up and interpreted. It did not seem illegitimate or heretical.
I did have a poor experience in the youth services occasionally though, where the college interns or youth leaders would want all the kids to speak in tongues and would sort of keep their hand on your head until you started mumbling. It really made me feel like everyone must be faking it, since I was (to get him to go away). |
----x---- | Here is an article going into it: [link](http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/july-august-2015/are-nominal-christians-walking-away-from-faith/)
It's about the pew research showing drops in Christianity, mainline churches, increases in agnostic/atheist/none over the last decade.
It's difficult to give a stat on faithful Christianity since it's more about the heart than about answering a few questions.
However, just with many nominal christians choosing to identify as agnostic/atheist/other, rather than Christian, a larger percentage of those who now identify as Christian will be living it out (since you removed many who weren't). |
----x---- | It's just trolling.
People legitimately make annoying edits, others yell at them for the edits, so some purposefully make annoying edits on their comments just to get the others yelling at them.
This was a pretty obvious example above.
How enraged can you make someone over something so stupid?
This guy did pretty well, brought in a decent haul today.
[Welcome to the internet friends](http://i.imgur.com/GfJNU68.gif) |
----x---- | TBBT may not be the dumbest show on television, but it's still what comes to mind when I think of the dumbest show I've ever watched.
I do get why other people like it; I would say that a show can be dumb and get good ratings and rake in money. The producers may be smart in generating a dumb show which gets good ratings, but the show remains dumb. |
----x---- | Drawing the lines of voting districts in such a way that a few districts hold most of an opposing party's voters, while the rest of the districts have a majority for your party.
Each district elects 1 representative, if you concentrate all the opposing party's voters into as few districts as possible, you win the majority of districts and retain a majority of elected officials so don't have to compromise with them on anything.
[Here's the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY) |
----x---- | No, prior to the PET scan you drink contrast containing sugar tagged with a radioisotope.
Your body will have plenty of sugar with this contrast medium for the scan, even if at baseline you had a low carbohydrate diet.
The PET-CT then looks at the the relative metabolic rates. Cells with a higher metabolic rate will be taking up more sugar (brain, heart, kidneys and bladder because the contrast is being worked through), so they will glow brighter on the scan.
PET scans in my experience (oncology) are used for areas outside the brain rather than in the brain. The whole brain lights up with a PET and it can be difficult differentiating the subtle glow changes when everything is glowing fairly brightly. For brain imaging you would obtain an MRI, for activity you might consider fMRI. |
----x---- | God has a righteous anger toward sin. Imagine if your child started getting into drugs, prostitution, and you knew she'd be dead in 10-15 years or sooner if she continued down this path.
What is your response to this? Is it validation of her choices? Do you still say "everything is OK"?
No, you get angry. You express strong disapproval. You have a *righteous* anger against an evil in her life. If you didn't have this anger, you wouldn't really love her.
So what is the opposite of love then? Is it anger, hate, disgust? No, the opposite of anger is *indifference*. If your child goes off into drugs and prostitution and you don't even make an attempt to keep in touch, you simply say "Sure hun', you go do you. See you around", That would truly be a lack of love. |
----x---- | I'm not the poster above.
I don't think there's enough evidence to discount there being a literal <PERSON> and <PERSON>, though their names are definitely symbolic (Man, bringer of life).
It seems to me that <PERSON> and <PERSON> both treated them as literal figures. Perhaps that interpretation of their words is wrong, but you're right to say you're possibly giving up a bit more than simply <PERSON> and eve when treating them as purely symbolic. If they were indeed taught to be real, historical individuals by <PERSON> and <PERSON> - then you would give up biblical inerrancy and have to say that teaching was either not taught as written, or is otherwise in error. That wouldn't make you give up Christianity or anything, as there are Christians who don't hold to inerrancy, but it shouldn't be done lightly.
One interesting thing to think about is that chromosomal adam and mitochondrial <PERSON>, which were originally thought to have existed as much as 60,000 years apart from one another, are now projected to have possibly been nearly contemporary.
Wouldn't that be amazing?
I don't see how creation through evolution precludes there being a literal <PERSON> and eve. |
----x---- | The point is not that those who lack belief in God cannot live moral lives. It is that objective moral values cannot exist without an external transcendental cause or standard.
Otherwise, we're simply living according to subjective sociobiological cultural norms created through years of evolution. In that setting, we have no right to condemn the oppression of women in another culture as truly, objectively wrong; we can only say we value our own morality more than theirs and want them to adopt western values.
So, on naturalism, killing your child is subjectively wrong to many people but cannot be defended as objectively wrong. For clarification, to be objectively wrong means that an action is truly right or wrong regardless of whether people believe it is wrong or not.
To illustrate objective morality, imaging the Nazi war machine continued to sweep throughout Europe. They weren't starved in Russia. They won the western front and pushed on throughout Africa and into Asia. The world is controlled by Nazi Germany and the 1000 year reich is established. Everyone is brain washed to believe that the holocaust was the right thing to do. Regardless of whether or not everyone believes it to be correct, what they did would still be objectively wrong. |
----x---- | Let's say that the old testament did explicitly say to stone your own children to death. Let's also say hypothetically that it is irreconcilable, there is no moral theory which would be consistent with both this and the rest of the Bible.
In this hypothetical, what you would be arguing then is against biblical inerrancy. You would be making a case that this is inconsistent with the God revealed in the prophets, the psalms, the New Testament, so either our reading of this passage is wrong - or the passage itself was in error.
That's a whole different discussion, but it's an important distinction. Some Christians don't hold to the inerrancy of the Bible.
When talking about morality and the evidence of God through our properly basic belief in objective morality, I would take a more modest approach. I would simply reiterate what I said above, that a God must exist for objective morality to exist. This, among other arguments, helps get you to monotheism - and a discussion about the historicity of <PERSON> would help to get you from theism to Christian theism.
In addition to the other books users have posted, I would consider reading Reasonable Faith or Philosphical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by <PERSON>, for a more in depth review of some of these and other topics |
----x---- | If you like indie/folk, or sometimes modern adaptations of hymns, consider a few of these:
* <PERSON>
* Citizens & Saints
* Gungor
* Future of Forestry
* Wayfarer
* Run River North
* King's Choir
* Benjamin Dunn and Friends
* All Sons & Daughters
* Rend Collective
* Kings Kaleidoscope
* <PERSON>
* Ghost Ship
* <PERSON>
* <PERSON>
They get away from the standard radio-fare for the most part. I have a had time with CCM sometimes. |
----x---- | Personally I decided to give up playing video games entirely. Games acted as a surrogate, cheaper, fleeting sense of achievement to satisfy my natural desire to accomplish something significant.
Even though I've been able to accomplish good things outside of playing games, for a time games were still frequently the thing I was most proud of. I didn't like that lack of balance in priorities, so I decided to abstain from them entirely. I tried moderation, playing small amounts at a time, etc. but I found the only games I found myself drawn to at this point were games which allowed for recognition (multiplayer), significant achievements/time investment or skill needed. So - playing single player games was boring, and playing multiplayer games was annoying because I didn't put enough time in to be the best anymore.
Stopping entirely has helped put my motivations solely on things I personally value more than games.
I wouldn't say video games are inherently wrong, but if they stunt your motivations to be the person you want to be by giving you a transient, fleeting sense of accomplishment then it may be wise not to play them. If you have no issues just playing them occasionally for fun, and they don't become a greater priority than relationships, family, career, etc. (and in my case faith/religion) then they can definitely be positive.
I do question whether many would benefit from switching their focus though, as about ~50% of youth play video games on average 3 hours a day or more. That is excessive, and it is taking away from your responsibilities - or if you don't have any it is taking away from responsibilities you should be taking on. |
----x---- | G4 is fine when you're anywhere with ambient noise. I personally don't notice sound quality enough when on a bus, or walking into class or at a busy coffee shop etc. So, I just use easy to drive buds and walk in.
I use a chord mojo if I'm going to be stationary, listening for longer sessions. I also just use the mojo as my at home dac/amp since it's better than any desktop one I would buy in the same price range.
Comparing the G4 and mojo while listening on my HD600s, the G4 surprisingly can drive these things to a decent volume. I wouldn't make them much louder than the max G4 output. The bass is a little bit muddier on the G4, The mojo fills out the lows much nicer. I notice a wider soundstage with the mojo compared to G4 alone. Honestly everything is fuller and more defined, I don't think any frequency range is not improved with the chord mojo.
Practically though, I frequently use the G4 with cheapish earbuds when in settings where I wouldn't hear the clarity anyway. So - I'm maybe not as picky of an "audiophile" as some. Perhaps if I end up buying some solid IEMs in the future I'd be more frustrated with it |
----x---- | Look for comprehensive attractiveness - They should be physically, spiritually, emotionally attractive.
You should be able to spend time with them and enjoy it because they're like a best friend. Their spiritual walk should encourage your own. Their kindness, gentleness, laughter should make your heart swell. Godliness is sexy to Godly people.
However - physical attraction is a real part of it. If you don't feel physically attracted to someone but otherwise feel you're a great fit, consider pursuing friendship and see where you are in the future. Don't say "I don't find you physically attractive but hopefully that changes so I can date you" obviously, because that would crush a girl - but just be a good friend.
It happens more often for women than for men (anecdotally), but many people see someone as more and more attractive (comprehensively) as they get to know another person, and that then bleeds into physical attractiveness.
In the end though, I personally feel you will not have the fullest relationship you could if both partners are not attracted to one another. If I were a woman, I wouldn't want a husband/boyfriend who didn't find me attractive from the start but just wanted companionship.
**TL;DR**
What people are concerned about is for a guy to pursue someone solely because they are physically attractive - without taking into account their emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and other qualities. I would instead recommend looking at potential mates comprehensively - but not entirely neglect physical attraction. |
----x---- | 404 - BASECAMP
Sorry - <PERSON>, <PERSON>
<PERSON> - <PERSON>
<PERSON> - <PERSON>
Beauty in the Bricks - Spit Syndicate
Arrest Me - Shy Girls (feat. <PERSON>)
Beth/Rest - Bon Iver
Homesick - Kings of Convenience
Brother <PERSON> - <PERSON>
Sure Une Chanson En Francais - Paradis
_______________
If you like hip hop, spit syndicate is good. If you like them try horrorshow or jackie onassis, or Joelistics.
If you like trip-hop, soulful R&B, don't miss out on BASECAMP, Shy Girls, similar are <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, and others (this is one of my favorite types of music).
If you like folk, listen to <PERSON>.
Honestly only ones I wouldn't recommend people to try out are chris rice and <PERSON>. Otherwise I got lucky. |
----x---- | If I drink a full cup of coffee I get all jittery, and it can be slightly uncomfortable. I almost never drink it, but when I do it's because I'm quite tired and need to be high functioning constantly at work - so I drink maybe 2-4 ounces either black or a bit of cream.
I probably drink coffee less than once a month though, since I've started workout out in the morning before going to work. Also, ruby red grapefruit juice really zings you and wakes you up quick too so sometimes a swig of that helps. |
----x---- | In addition to the pure RVU discussion mentioned, consider talking about workflow efficiency and time to note closure. With scribes time to note closure will essentially always be within a week, usually same day. If there were delinquent charts in the past that is lost revenue. For workflow, there will be a draft of the note available for ancillary staff to review, so this can cut down on questions to the md. If the patient is seen in the ER or by another physician within the next day or two, there will at minimum be a pended draft of the discussion. This increases quality of patient care.
Also notes can be standardized with billing and coding to cut down on the time to review for each ore as everything is in the same place. This may again save money through efficiency on the back end |
----x---- | If I want to get over someone and know I won't pursue her, I'll kill any thought I have of her. As soon as I start thinking about her I'll stop it and redirect. With diligence you think of her less and less until romantic interest vanishes.
Just don't kill your interest if you think you may want to date or have a relationship. I don't think I've gotten a rekindled interest when I put someone out of my mind entirely like this. |
----x---- | I've been looking at GPS as well.
For the newest models you're comparing the TTRider 400 and Zumo 590LM. That's ~500 USD vs ~800 USD base (zumo is on sale from 900 USD to 800 most places).
The biggest complaints I've seen with the rider is a bit of difficulty when you want to connect both your phone and your rider to your bluetooth headset. People have gotten it to work though. You have to buy the car mount kit separate as well.
The zumo doesn't have a ton of issues but is overpriced. Especially if you get the 2 tire pressure monitors (add 140) now you're spending 1000 dollars, it's crazy.
I just bought the Rider 400, it'll likely be here within the next week or two. It's winter with snow where I'm at so I won't be able to give you a motorcycle riding update.
I bought a newer GPS because I put my phone in a ram mount, it fell off and was totaled. I don't trust those rubber X grip ram mounts anymore. Also, the dedicated GPS can be used in any weather, and a lot of my rides wind up just being "go somewhere I haven't been for 1 hour then ride back" so the twisty roads feature is great.
Even with offline cache of google maps I've had issues occasionally, may be my phone being annoying more than a phone being a poor choice in general. For longer trips I also don't want to burn my phone battery. |
----x---- | I got caribou case sidebags. They are just pelican cases with mounting gear drilled in.
They aren't going to break in a drop or accident, aren't going to dent like metal cases (and then not be able to close, or will leak, and look nice on the bike depending on what you have.
I saw you have a ninja 250, these cases fit better on an adventure style/standard/touring bike both because of the weight and look, in my opinion.
They don't have cases designed for the ninja 250 but you could make their soft bags work I bet.
here's the site: http://cariboucases.com/ |
----x---- | With this one a black and white rule is difficult to hold to because there are many ways a marriage could prosper depending on the circumstances, even with one coming from a Catholic and another from a protestant background.
However, I think it's imprudent to date someone who holds fast to a belief that is contrary to your own on any "closed handed" issue - one which you feel is key to your faith and which you won't budge on.
The core doctrines of "mere Christianity" should be found within those closed handed issues that you don't compromise on. For other peripheral issues it is up to you a bit more - things like infant versus believer baptism for example. Those are significant ways to raise your family, but may not be worth avoiding a relationship over.
If you wanted my own personal advice on dating a Catholic, I wouldn't do it because they differ in beliefs on some issues that, for me, are closed handed and I wouldn't be comfortable raising my family in those differences.
You should want someone who is serious about her faith, but in this case you're almost hoping they aren't too serious about some aspects of their faith because you don't agree with them. While all relationships, including dating, should have a missional aspect of them - I don't think it wise to pursue someone in a committed relationship and then hope to develop in them a fervor for <PERSON>. If you find interest in someone who is not a believer, or who is a nominal Catholic etc., befriend them and witness - but only pursue relationship if they first pursue <PERSON>.
I'll say a quick prayer for you, singleness can be frustrating. Know that you are not "completed" or "made whole" by anyone or anything other than <PERSON> - you are lacking in nothing if you earnestly seek Him! Still, desiring marriage is a good thing - and wanting this is not a bad desire or something you should set aside. |
----x---- | I think the point isn't that she can't be right, but that we aren't rigorously evaluating what she's saying like in an argument/debate setting. We are coming for information similar to a news program.
Since most of us aren't independently researching and verifying all that is claimed in the documentary, the point of the documentary is to do that for us and speak from a position of credibility so we can trust it. If we don't trust the source then it's not worth watching - even if it is correct - because we won't spend the time to independently verify it, and if we were to do that on our own we wouldn't need the documentary.
Neither of you are wrong you're just looking at it from different angles. |
----x---- | I wear a 1 piece roadcrafter, boots, gloves, helmet.
I think it looks good on the bike, and off the bike it's in the side bags anyway. Only thing I carry with me is the helmet. I can wear shorts, T shirt, and sandals off the bike so I'm actually a bit more free to dress for any occasion than people who wear armored jeans no matter the temp.
I never ride without the gear, because riding is more comfortable with the gear. I don't worry about if it's going to start raining, or change in temperature when the sun goes down, I have wind protection, any little debris that chips up and hits me isn't going to be that bad.
I'm the only person I know that rides with a suit like this, but I think everyone else is crazy not to do it. It's to practical to me. |
----x---- | The locking mechanism is simply a metal bar held on by two nuts that tighten on each other. I'm guessing that vibrations were enough to knock the nuts and metal bar off completely so the bag was only held on by its own weight.
Pelican cases have a lifetime warranty, so hopefully the only thing I'm out is shipping costs, time, and convenience.
With the new bag I'll be sure to put on loctite or a similar thread locker to prevent this in the future. |
----x---- | Once you've gone through a set of books/lectures and reviewed the content once - my advice is to practice taking a test, not practice studying for a test.
The bulk of my time was doing practice problems, which directed what to study.
Do a set of 20-40 problems in one area (I used a Q bank, then AAMC questions), review how to do what you didn't know, try to do them all again. Then do similar problems to see if you got the concept. Then move on.
It guides you to your problem areas and ensures you fix them. |
----x---- | * Graduated Spring 2013 (liberal arts, west coast)
* Minnesota Resident
**School LIST (school list edits welcome)**
> Albany Medical College
> Boston University
> Chicago – Rosalind Franklin
> Creighton
> Dartmouth
> Duke University
> Emory
> Georgetown
> Hofstra
> Loyola
> Mayo
> Medical College of Wisconsin
> New York Medical College
> Oakland
> Ohio State
> Penn State
> Thomas Jefferson
> Tufts
> Tulane
> U of Cincinnati
> U of Miami Leonard Miller
> U of Minnesota
> U of Rochester
> U of Vermont
> Wake Forest
**GPA**
Science Only GPA 3.47
All Other GPA 3.88
Combined GPA 3.65
Trend: U shape
**MCAT**
* 516 (95%) || 127 (79%) / 130 ( 98%) / 129 (92%) / 130 (97%)
**Extra Curricular**
* Research – no pub, summer research at large zoo. abstract co author on clinical study regarding scribes
* Volunteering (clinical) – hospice ~200 hours (every other week for 2+ years), various events
* Physician shadowing – 8 hours ER
* Non-clinical volunteering - various events
* Extracurricular activities - choir, some science clubs
* Employment history - medical scribe ~1.5 years ER. lead scribe 1.5 years (to present), starting multiple scribe programs in new clinics. Healthcare administration internship (400 hr). research intern at world class zoo (400 hrs) Chemistry lab TA for one semester
* Immediate family members in medicine? no
* Specialty of interest - oncology/infectious disease
* Shadowing experience - 5000-6000 hours of scribe experience in multiple specialties made it seem weird to shadow
* Graduate degrees - none
* Interest in rural health not really |
----x---- | the official AAMC full length best correlates.
Imaging techniques are very low yield.
I would take the AAMC full length and see how you do before postponing.
Personally, I studied around 8-10 weeks. Kaplan FL after content review (4 weeks before test date) was 504 - AAMC FL 1 week before test was 512 - actual was 516.
I'm not sure if you're still in school, but especially if the semester is done and you can just focus on the MCAT you still have a lot of time to improve.
If your scores are on the kaplan practice tests, i think they deflate their scores so you do better on the real one and "improve" with their service.
If you get all 127 to 129 that's still a solid showing |
----x---- | I always felt like I needed to postpone and study further to review more content, because like you there was stuff I just didn't know. Then I decided to take the test april 1 no matter what.
I felt the same way, like there was plenty of straight content retrieval I shouldn't be missing, with the practice test a week before, and the same way on test day. I was hoping for a 508 or higher so my app would be possible.
Maybe you're like me and you constantly underestimate yourself, or you're your hardest critic. I always feel I could do better.
I can't say you'll do well because you think that way, but if you think that way - it's possible your undervaluing your own preparedness. |
----x---- | Once you've reviewed all the base material (I went through lectures and used books to supplement deficiencies in the lectures) - practice taking a test, don't practice studying for a test. Reading for 10 weeks won't help - only read as much as you need to be able to understand what you got wrong in practice - that was my philosophy after going through base content.
I did content review for about 4-5 weeks with EK end of chapter quizzes spread throughout to reinforce. I used M Prep lectures to learn the material, with EK books to supplement if needed.
Then I did practice questions only for 4 weeks, creating section tests for myself in the Q bank. I only did practice questions on stuff I was bad at. The questions directed my study. I did them once, learned how to fix mistakes, then worked through them again quickly to reinforce. Then did similar questions to further reinforce the concepts, then moved on.
I did 4 weeks of that type of study, moving from the M Prep (mcatquestion.com) Q bank to AAMC section tests/packs halfway through.
I didn't study CARS because I always scored high in that.
Sociology was less practice questions and more making detailed notes then abridged study guides so that I'd remember the notes. |
----x---- | I currently have :
* i5 3570k
* GTX 670 2 gb vram
* 8 gb 1333 mhz ram
I'm thinking the only thing worth upgrading is the graphics card. If I bought a i5 6600k i'd get a ~15% performance increase, but need to buy a new mobo and windows 10 license. I try to play games at 1920 120hz, but i only get 120+fps on 5+ year old games at this point. I would like to play overwatch at a minimum of 120 fps.
Is my GPU likely my bottleneck for modern games? Would a full overhaul on the mobo/cpu be a waste of money like i think it is? |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | Ok. Obviously FibreOP is faster. No denying that. But it cost a little more. Why pay for extra you don't use? There are a lot of people talking up FibreOP in here so I thought I'd add a bit about Eastlink.
I am on the "High-speed Edge" package at Eastlink which was recently doubled to 40/4. I have been a customer for about 8 years. Every 6 months or so I call in looking for a deal. I currently pay ~$62/month taxes inc. for the $75 + tax plan.
Here are my speed test results.
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/<PHONE_NUMBER>
Most of the TV we watch is Netflix streaming on the Chromecast. We do not subscribe to cable or satellite TV. We download movies/TV occasionally. We stream music from Spotify and Google Play and podcasts all of the time. I work from home usually connecting to multiple remote desktops at a time without any hang ups or screen lag. I enjoy playing FPS games like BF4 on PC and I get similar pings to a friend I play with who is on FibreOP.
I'm only guessing here but I think we are mid-heavy users. I work from home and my wife is at home with our child. I can honestly say I am never unhappy with my service. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | I've own the Oneplus for 8 months now. Battery life is great. There is nothing wrong with the sound quality. This is my first android phone and I think I have been spoiled by the quality and customizability (I made this word up) of this phone. One thing that might irk you though is you can't use most headphones with mics on them with it because they did not implement the headphone jack int he apple format. You kinda have to hunt around for one that will work.
My GF had the GS5 and neither of use we're a fan of it. Although it did have a better camera than the OPO. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | >Would you prefer that your tax dollars always be given to the highest bidder?
You are being ridiculous.
As for the rest... From your comment though I'm not sure where you stand on the issue. Are you saying it's perfectly reasonable to always choose the lowest bidder?
I believe the blame is split here. Not just on one of the participating parties. We have contractors bidding too low for jobs they can't do at the budget they are quoting. We also have policy and/or officials (which ever) that result in bad decisions. Hopefully data from previous years, cities, etc. is used to determine the value of a job and use that as a baseline for who we hire instead of just picking the lowest. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | > A friendly tip: when engaging in debate or discussion, generic outbursts like "you are being ridiculous" don't actually refute any points or contribute in any way.
Without reading the rest of your comment. I will say that I was addressing your first sentence with this statement. Which was kind of ridiculous. You we're putting words in my mouth. Also not good debate etiquette. I'm sorry I was not clear enough and you misunderstood.
I will read the rest and respond later. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | Ok turns out I have have some time to kill.
You're totally correct. Admittedly, my original comment is not detailed enough to fully describe the intricacies of the problem. Simple blanket statements generally don't do that much good. There are more parameters to consider than just the overall price. Obviously. I already said that I'm not placing the blame on a specific involved party.
Placing the blame entirely on the spec doesn't seem right. It may very well be that the requirements are not detailed enough. Therefore they should be tightened up. This still doesn't entirely place the blame on the spec author. As a consultant, contractor, whatever... it is your job to address gaps in the authors requirements. It protects both parties.
We're allowed to be upset with the job not being done correctly. I don't think it is silly at all. You seem to know a fair bit. What do I do to help? |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | I have 3 DVI monitors connected to dual crossfired
XFX Radeon HD 6870s. All three monitors are hooked up to the first card I believe (I'm at work so I can't just look).
I can't remember where I read this but in order to use 3 monitors you must use the DisplayPort for at least one of them. Two monitors on DVI and the third on a miniDisplayPort to DVI adapter.
I never had the issues you are describing but I never tried to set it up without the DisplayPort. This could be the reason. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | >Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids do not occur. However, cannabinoid receptors are present in other tissues throughout the body, not just in the central nervous system, and adverse effects include tachycardia, hypotension, conjunctival injection, bronchodilation, muscle relaxation, and decreased gastrointestinal motility.
[http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#link/stoc_h2_5](http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#link/stoc_h2_5)
This seems to indicate that a fatal OD is not possible. Also seems to be a fairly reputable source. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | I think you're purposely missing the point on the alcohol argument. You do not smoke marijuana just because it's safer than alcohol. Why do we allow alcohol, a substance that is demonstrably more harmful than marijuana to be legal, but criminalize marijuana? And how can you be against marijuana for the reasons you are but still consume alcohol?
I think your three groups of people are not the only types. How about people who occasionally use but don't necessarily publicize it? What about people who only use in social settings? You probably know a lot of these people but don't realize it. Are these people foolish? Now replace marijuana with alcohol. Are they still foolish? I think you are being a little ignorant here.
Just some food for thought. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | Came here to say this. I wanted to disable the WiFi. I tried to set up my Motorola SBG6580 modem as a gateway only. My router supports WiFi AC and theirs only supports N. No need for 2 running. I was on a promotion where the wireless was included at a discounted price so when the modem connected they would push updates that would re-enable the router/wireless.
My experience after several weeks of fooling around is that I cannot be done. You will always need to connect to Eastlink and they will always push updates. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | I'm also on Sultan's CM13 build running the latest from Jan 4th. It is mostly good. I have a few problem with apps crashing and some connectivity issues where I have to reset my wifi on occasion but the latest build seemed to fix most of the network probs or at least it seems better. The only problem that really bugs me is the camera app seems to crash when switching to/from video mode. I only ever had one random reboot the day I flashed from Sultan's CM12.1 to CM13. |
---s-t-e-v-e--- | Go to [https://drive.google.com](https://drive.google.com). Click the gear icon in the top right corner. Check the box next to "Create a Google Photos folder" that says "Automatically put you Google Photos into a folder in My Drive" and hit Done.
Then go to [https://www.google.com/drive/download/](https://www.google.com/drive/download/) and download and install the Google Drive application for your PC or Mac.
By default the Google Drive app will sync everything to your local computer. If you only want the Google Photos directory you can open the preferences by clicking the icon in your tray and then preferences. You can choose here whether you want to sync everything in Google Drive with your PC/Mac or just a few specific folders (maybe just Google Photos). |
--Butts-- | I think the only thing off is that you have the weight of the Oozaru too low.
According to Google, gorillas can weigh up to 180kg @ 1.8m. According to the DBZ wiki the Oozaru is somewhere between 15m and 30m (quite a big range). Just by scaling up a normal gorilla would put an Oozaru somewhere between 1500kg @ 15m and 3000kg @ 30m. Obviously this assumes that the Oozaru can be scaled up this way, you'd probably have to use something like the Square-cube law to get an accurate number. |
--Butts-- | Kind of late on this one but I was waiting to start this next week. I'm currently doing a variation of <PERSON> TM (trying to do it as close as possible, but I'm sure I'm doing something different somewhere) and I've stalled on my deadlifts but more or less have still been making progress on squats and bench. Just hit 405x3 on squats and 230x3 on bench (I know, I know), you think I should switch to something like this or should I try to milk my current setup on squats and bench as long as possible? And how would you progress on the volume days? The same as Justin's where I keep the volume weight the same as long as it still drives progress on Intensity day or should I progress it weekly/biweekly? Either way I'll probably switch to doing Mag/Ort for deadlifts. Thanks for the write up! |
--Butts-- | All I've been doing for deadlifts is the intensity day on Fridays, so that's probably what I'll have to play with. I've meant to do RDL's but haven't been to consistent with them. My sticking point on sumos is off the floor so I'll probably play with deficits also on volume days. Unfortunately I haven't deadlifted heavy since winter break started, the bars at the commercial gym back home are super crappy and have no knurling. I'll try to do this as long as possible before switching to the two week variation since it does seem to be working for now. Thanks man! |
--Butts-- | It kind of depends. Location has a lot to do with turn out at local meets. You could dominate one meet and then get dominated at another. Most people recommend just going for it for the experience even if you won't place. You could go on www.powerliftingwatch.com and see if there are competition results from your area and see how well people did. Most likely smashed though, you should definitely get your squat up. |
--Butts-- | In theory Google's [device protection](http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/03/12/guide-what-is-android-5-1s-antitheft-device-protection-feature-and-how-do-i-use-it/) would make a stolen phone worthless. Unfortunately, I think the list of devices that supports this is pretty small. Google needs to push it onto more devices or OEMs need to include it or their own version. That being said nothing Google does will probably completely devalue a phone but its not that they haven't or don't have methods set up to try. |
--Butts-- | Yeah at that point then it'll probably never not happen. If people are stupid enough to buy a phone from someone without checking it or anything. But in my opinion Google's done their job and don't see how it's their responsibility. As long as consumers are idiots it won't get fixed even if the phones are completely useless.
Edit: didn't mean to imply you thought it was Google's responsibility. Meant it more general in response to the OP. |
--Butts-- | Both load fine for me. Here's the text of the first link if it isn't working:
>Shoppers may be struggling with today's new chip and pin requirements, but the technology has proved no problem for Endal, a 10-year-old labrador.
>The dog, belonging to <PERSON>, a disabled Gulf war veteran, has learnt to put a credit card into a chip and pin reader so that Mr <PERSON> does not have to move his wheelchair to insert it.
>When his owner has typed in the pin number, Endal collects the card in his mouth and returns it to Mr <PERSON>'s wallet.
>Mr <PERSON>, 47, of Clanfield, Hampshire, said yesterday: "Lots of people are frightened of the new technology - but I say that if a dog can do it, anyone can."
>Endal was named the world's most intelligent dog by the BBC. He holds the animal equivalent of the George Cross for saving Mr <PERSON>'s life when he was run over. |
--Butts-- | Yeah I think I enjoy that one the most also. I can do every joint I can think of. Toes feel about the same as fingers. But I can crack my feet if I bend my foot backwards so the to is on the ground and press down on it, I don't know if that makes sense. That feels really good too but it is super weird.
Hmm that's pretty strange, but if it doesn't keep you from doing anything it can't be that bad, right? |
--Butts-- | This is from Season 6 Episode 2 called "Buseys Run Away" and if I remember correctly the plot is about <PERSON> getting taken out of his special ed class, so the other students, who look at <PERSON> as a leader decide to run away and they end up living in a tree. While this is going on <PERSON> is out walking <PERSON> in the park and he runs into this group of bodybuilders. Long story short, he ends up helping them with basic stuff, like balancing checkbooks, and they end up following him around and helping him with stuff, i.e. pulling his car around. Anyways at the end on of the bodybuilders begins hitting a tree where <PERSON>'s friends are hiding and they end up "heroically" finding all the missing kids from the class.
This ended up longer than I thought and it may or may not be extremely accurate as it was all off of memory, but I think thats the gist of it. |
--Butts-- | Well I've been sick for about a week now and actually didn't really leave bed all day yesterday and the day before. I decided to try and hit my intensity day anyways this morning. I got 440x2 on squats and failed on the 3rd rep, did the same on bench at 235 and didn't even get through deadlift warmups. All things considered I'm surprised I was even able to hit 440 for anything on squats. Feeling like crap, but not as crappy as I have been. Just no energy really. |
--Butts-- | I "failed" on squats again, second week in a row hitting doubles instead of triples, I mean 445x2 is still a PR but I needed another rep. I think my volume day is too low. <PERSON>'s book recommends a difference of around 70lbs but mines 90lbs at this point. I think I'm going to up volume and lower intensity day and get used to it again. And I messed up my bicep throwing in intramural softball then arm wrestled on it last night, so its really my fault. Kind of related to gym but more real life, I found out the girl I liked (from the gym) has a boyfriend so that's kind of disappointing but not too upset over it.
Feels: mostly just frustrated with things
Edit: here's my [doggy](http://i.imgur.com/vpkSuBO.jpg), she's 14 years old now. |
--Butts-- | Yeah in ~2 months I went from 355x3 on squats to 435x3 (that's the last weight I hit for 3) while weighing 175. Yeah I need to play with it some more. I couldn't move up on deadlift so I'm doing Mag/ORT on Fridays in addition. There's a version in this sub that is more volume and if I can't balance it out in a couple weeks I'll probably switch to that, it does intensity every 2 weeks and on the other weeks Friday is another volume day. I'd switch now but I was sick all week last week and I'm not 100% sure I'm full back yet so I want to try still but we'll see. |
--Butts-- | Yeah that sounds familiar, it's been a while since I read his book on it but I think that might be what I do for a while. I think I could actually push out doubles for a few more weeks then singles would be good as well. I haven't been doing it *that* long so I'm not really familiar with what I need to do, and I haven't been lifting *that* long really either so I'm honestly not too good at knowing what I can do or not or what works best for me I still need to play around with it. |
--Butts-- | Why did he very blatantly [wink at <PERSON> then?](http://i.imgur.com/3YrQPYP.jpg) The scene then flashes to <PERSON> and <PERSON>, implying they were the only one's who saw.
I don't know why but if I had to guess its because <PERSON> sees himself in <PERSON> and the things he says to himself to keep fighting. <PERSON> isn't <PERSON>, throughout the series he fights first and foremost to protect his friends and family and loving to fight is just a bonus. I don't know his plan, especially with <PERSON> and <PERSON>, but I guess we'll see. |
--Butts-- | I'm not seeing your squat weight and I doubt you're even close to me in any way let alone some of the people you're responding to.
Haha you know what's really funny? You make all these grandiose claims about how the way you do everything better than everyone here after "a few days of research." Well guess what, I've done more research for homework assignments and anyone would be stupid to claim an expertise based on that amount of research.
Did you do any research in other areas? Or is all your "research" just confirmation bias? Literal experts in diet and nutrition, and exercise science wouldn't make any such absolute claims, so why should you be able to? That's why people are making jokes at you. |
--Butts-- | Well after failing to hit triples on squats on intensity day, I moved my volume day up 10lbs and ended up hitting 450 for 4 reps really easily. So this week I bumped volume up another 10lbs and yesterday I hit 455x3 fairly easily. /u/<PERSON> we were talking about it a couple weeks ago I think about moving to doubles then singles but I guess I just needed to up volume or something.
Also I can't really bench heavy because I messed up my bicep arm wrestling my roommate and a friend. I won, but at what cost? |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 95
Size of downloaded dataset files:
5.03 GB
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:
5.03 GB
Number of rows:
10,222,379