FWIW, I've seen a number of financial systems, and even though accounts in the hierarchy might have names, they often have a hierarchically-oriented number with them.
e.g. Accounts Receivable #15000, A/R for Foo Corp #15001 and so on.
Some accounting laws actually mandate a numbered system of accounts that is a bit like Johnny Decimal, just without subdividing for specific companies (though it's definitely possible in some approaches - it's just that you need to categorize according to official hierarchy as well)
Am I the only one who prefers a car to shared trains/rideshare/walking? Knowing I have a portable climate controlled space when the weather isn't to my liking? Knowing I can conveniently leave things fairly securely near where I happen to be (if not at home)? Knowing that no-one has recently barfed in my car, or have to wonder: ugh, what's that stain on the seat? Not having to run my life around a transit schedule (or deal with a full or very crowded bus/train) is great. The freedom cars give is absolutely wonderful relief from these things that you encounter in the city.
Personally, I don't get pro-urbanization: it's crowded, loud, smelly, and for all that wondrous enjoyment (and more), crazy expensive. I like not being able to see/hear my neighbors and for them not to see/hear me. I like that my views are very pretty. I like that the noises I hear are nature, and not man/machines. I like that I get to spend more of my money on things other than rent (other things are cheaper in the 'burbs too). And to someone else's point -- I live in a city, but looking around, you'd never know it.
uh, you may be missing the point. Few if any are against cars because the experience is poor. Absolutely the experience is individually superior. The point is that car usage is selfish, wasteful and generally worse for society as a whole.
in the west we are used to and loath to give up these comforts. personal cars, large suburban homes.. look at places that have modernized more recently, like in east Asia. Density, verticality, public transportation, these are the name of the game. Of course they would prefer to have their own cars and large homes, but the reality is that it's too inefficient for society to support.
Selfish? Really? That's your socialist dogwhistle right there.
Wasteful? That's in the eye of the beholder. It all depends on what you value. Some people value things differently than you.
Worse for society? Is it better to have to have millions of people burn substantially more time of their lives to live in cities due to the added expense? Is that really better for the poor?
Density is not a virtue. Misery of crowded, smelly, noisy and expensive, cities is not a virtue to inflict. Some people prefer cities. Good for them. Many do not.
Too inefficient? For whom? Funny, it works really well for many millions.
If you're pro-misery, claim it and own it. I just find it ironic that people from smoggy smelly cities are judging people from the comparatively, beautiful, clean, and low crime suburbs.
With a CC, the money is taken away from your CC company, not your bank account first. So you won't have to deal with the potential cascade of overdrafts, bounced checks, etc.
Secondly, CC Cos because they're first in line to being on the hook, seem to be better at picking up fraud (I have no idea why). When my CCs have been comped, they notified us and shipped us new cards before we could have reasonably found out that anything was askew.
I get that, but it just seems like banks make up the rules as they go... I have full coverage on my debit card, actually a limo company stole money from me a few years back on my debit card and I got reimbursed immediately, but it seems like those policies can be changed any time and almost like banks want to trap you in an inconvenient situation. :/
I thought they changed to chip cards BECAUSE they were better at preventing fraud... Banks used to pay me 3% interest on my account, until a bank bought mine out and changed policies arbitrarily...
Most people, when speaking about slavery, are only aware of American slavery. Slavery in ancient times was generally a very different thing.
But yes, it does speak about what was American style slavery, which involved effectively kidnapping and forced slavery:
Leviticus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."
Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly.
As for what you think an actual divine would look like, what a divine book looks like depends heavily on what God's purpose was in writing it, which is evidently different than what you would have it be. But in many people's estimation, it does put every human work to shame.
As for explaining things that a 1st-century scribe couldn't possibly know, ummm, the Hebrew scriptures originated somewhere around 1400 B.C. or earlier depending on how you wish to count.
> Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly.
Right, but if you read more you will be utterly confused and find conflicting views. Which is why most people only pick the parts that they agree with.
I've run into what appear to be conflicting views, but after some study, I'm able to resolve them. Usually it's understanding things in their proper context. That is: it's by reading more and paying more attention.
For most people that hew to the teachings of the book, understanding the proper context involves a religious authority telling them which parts of the book matter and which ones to ignore because they don't matter any more. I would like for a divinely inspired book of ageless wisdom to not be so subject to the whims of interpretation.
crazy_geek says apparent conflicting views in the Bible can be reconciled by sufficient study.
bwoj points out that there isn't a universal agreement of what the Bible says. (I'll add, compare the Catholic Church to Jehovah's Witnesses for an example of the differences.)
It would be easier to interpret the Bible if parts of it were labeled "the following is not meant to be read as an actual history." At the very least, this would reduce the number of people think there was a global flood, or think that the 1 million+ Jews were enslaved in Egypt then spent 40 years wandering in the desert.
There would still be misinterpretations, but they would only be of a religious nature, and not include the historical misinterpretations which, in the case of the Exodus, took over 2,000 years to correct.
Everything is interpreted if it passes through a thinking brain. There is no point in trying to avoid interpretation, but it is good to aim for high quality in interpretation. In classic Christianity, good interpretation has to (1) satisfy and harmonize with the rest of the material in the Bible, (2) harmonize with the character and example of Christ, (3) carry some weight and adherence in the Church over many generations.
You pose an interesting question - one you'd think a god would be able to answer, especially if that god supposedly created us. In fact, if he can't answer it, I would question whether he is a god.
I'm pretty sure that verse allows slavery. It forbids kidnapping and enslaving people, but if someone is born a slave, buying and selling them is fine. Fortunately, I don't have to be an expert on the Bible to argue this point. If the Bible's anti-slavery position was so clear, why did it take almost two millennia for theologians to figure that out?
Also, do you really endorse that verse? That is: Do you think we should institute the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping? If not, why not? "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death," is as explicit and unambiguous as it is possible to be.
> Also, do you really endorse that verse? That is: Do you think we should institute the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping?
Let me turn it around: If someone stole you and sold you, or stole your child and sold them for a slave, what do you think the penalty should be? Justify your answer.
Not death. I'll be fine with whatever the Swedish court system decides.
It is not the role of the victim to determine the punishment. That would make a mockery of the rule of law.
Consider the Amish, who "believe that bringing litigation in a court of law violates their understanding of nonresistance. They view litigation as a coercive means and thus counter to their beliefs against using violence." http://amishamerica.com/why-dont-amish-sue/
Those of other faiths may have similar reasons for not punishing a criminal, like a Buddhist who has made a vow to not to harm others.
Still others believe in an eye-for-an-eye, even if Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and may want a harsher than average punishment.
And of course there are people with no kin who can make that judgement about the punishment due, should they be murdered.
In the court system you envision, you'll end up encouraging people to attack Buddhists, Amish, etc., knowing that they'll be treated more gently than usual give the refusal of their victims to pass any judgement.
To add to that, most child kidnapping by far is done by family members. I do not think that state-mandated death of one of the parents is a reasonable response if that parent should kidnap the child from the other parent.
Yet that seems to be what the Bible verse says is appropriate.
Now that the turned-around question is answered, perhaps you'll care to answer chroma's original question? That being:
"Do you think we should institute the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping? If not, why not? "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death," is as explicit and unambiguous as it is possible to be.""
I think your discussion plays exactly into what the thread author was thinking. That the bible is a collection of books bound to their time, but whatever the thread author expected, whether the bible was a collection guided by divine power, or directly authored by divine power, it reeks of severely bounded humanity, it reeks of minds locked in their time.
I think people wanted timelessness. Transcendence. Even something that is not perfectly transcendent and timeless, like an artifact of space travel technology would strike the world into awe, the kind of awe that technologically primitive cultures must feel when they bump by the edge of an severely alien human flying on a helicopter -- a suggestion of an ocean beyond your faculties. A feeling of a turtle in a well.
The sidecar part of this looks like what is essentially SmartStack[1] but requiring the user be aware of it's existence (due to Micro's proto3 api) whereby users of SS can more or less be ignorant of it's existence. Actually, to fully to what the sidecar does, you'd want something like Kafka[2] or some other pubsub system too.
I find it interesting that when the government distorts a market via pricing controls, taxes, or other means, the law of unintended consequences almost inevitably kicks in and it's result is either "bad luck" or calls to "fill in the loopholes!" Distort the market and people are rational-enough agents and will change their behavior, just not necessarily entirely in the way you hope/want. There is no free lunch.
Either the economic distortion makes it cost-effective to pay people to find ways to dodge the distortion and come up with strange, but legal, means to avoid it, or there are shortages, or the price of things go up.
It's like trying to squish one part of a water balloon -- the other part of the balloon will deform in some way.
Some examples: "The Double Irish arrangement" for tax avoidance, ObamaCare effectively limiting part timers to 30 (or 35, I forget which) hours/week, or strict zoning laws causing property values to skyrocket due to lack of supply of housing in SF.
200% yes. I've got better things to do than go through the whole recruiting cycle only to find they're not going to pay what I'm willing to take -- especially when it's wayyyyy out of range. Happens more and more as I get older, as the term "senior engineer" has really gotten watered down since I started (I'd be like senior^3 I suppose). I've gotten to the point where I have to be really interested to go very far at all without having pinned down a range.
Hear, hear! Is Java the right tool for everything? No, but for large code bases, it is miles easier to dive into a codebase, and the tooling is so much better than anything else I've seen that's not Visual Studio (as much as I'm not a MS fan, VS is really nice).
When I get these, I use postmaster@domain.of.page. It seems if we can generally agree on which one we all pick (or some small number of choices), we might have a chance of making a dent when the postmaster starts getting effectively self-spammed.
e.g. Accounts Receivable #15000, A/R for Foo Corp #15001 and so on.