Hey y'all!
- Thread starter Nydhogg
- Start date
- Status
Nydhogg
New member
Not before SQL before it was solidified. SQL was mostly an idea back then with all the various venders coming up with their own versions/rules and vying to ensure that their flavor adhered to whatever eventually became the standard. Naturally enough, the government had a big hand in it, not by fiat, but by force of being the largest user of software in general and the largest repository of data. So getting to work for NASA at the time was lots of fun. We got to play around with all the various database products and I got to be a major voice in the final decision for NASA's database. I rather pushed the one with the most developed, easy to use library of C calls (C being the primary language of guis at the time, with C++ being developed from the roots of object-oriented programming being done at the time with C - yep, by me and my co-workers). I was just thrilled that we no longer had to write the graphics totally from scratch by that time, using mostly widget calls and the latest-and-greatest thing called debugging environments. Made things so much easier
I wrote mostly in C, making my own objects with global declarations. I had to port everything to about 3 different Unix-based OSs and two other platforms that, I believe are now obsolete (I did tell them we were wasting our time - Unix was the future). We had to write some tie-ins for the engineer-written fortran programs they used for modeling over there, but it was mostly C.
Hmm... I might just be an anarchist myself :think:
I do like having the rule of law to help the weak against the cruel; I like a strong volunteer military; I like strong borders for the same reason I like having a rule of law; I like a totally free market - buyer beware; I think that taxation ought all to be voluntary and that the government ought to be able to function on minimal funds outside of military costs (including border protection)...
Okay. I don't know much about that either, so I look forward to what you have to post
I school my own primarily because I can. I don't want to send them away to be educated; I don't have to send them away; so I keep them home where I can enjoy themWe like it and they do well learning what they each need individually. Not that we do everything at home - as they get older, a great deal of it is home-based, but largely out of the home. For instance, the high-school level science classes are learned at home with a group meeting regularly for lab work and extra lecturing by an expert in the field. Pretty cool that they do this for free
No, it's not boring. I was just teasing really because it sounded like you were really glorifying your statistics
I love my life. I have the best job in the world in my opinion and I wouldn't trade with anyone, nor would I alter any of my major life decisions.
People, by and large, are individuals, I've found. I, personally, am conservative, which to me means that I believe strongly in personal responsibility and self-sufficiency, as well as in the solid foundations of the traditional family for the rearing of children.
I like you. You seem easy-going even though you're only 22, and that's saying something
Thanks! I try to be easy-going.
Y'know, I do hold some old-fashioned beliefs (after all, Mom is from Montana): You've gotta go along to get along, take care of your own folks, own up to your screw ups and take credit on your achievements.
Your history as a programmer is awesome! I'd probably die without my Python libraries where mostly everything has been implemented.
I've got lots of respect for programmers of earlier eras. If we can do the awesome stuff we do now, it's because we stand on the shoulders of giants.
Someone, after all, DID write all those wonderful libraries we all rely on.
It's amazing the level of education you're managing to give your children. I guess it's only possible in a close-knit community with folks willing to help.
You asked for my religion, so I apologize in advance for the rather blocky post I'm gonna make:
As for my religion, we worship the Aesir, which are mainly Gods of war and industry and justice and stuff, and the Vanir, which are mainly Gods of nature and fertility and stuff.
We also honor the spirits of the ancestors and the spirits of the land, celebrate our feasts when the seasons call for it (solstices and equinoxes) and generally try to be good people, as per the Nine Noble Virtues:
Courage. Integrity. Loyalty. Discipline. Industriousness. Self-Reliance. Generosity. Justice.
Anyone that embodies those virtues is a worthy person. Worthy persons are held in high regard by the Gods.
Animal sacrifice usually was practiced in order to atone to the Gods for serious screw ups or just as a Thanksgiving, the flesh being consumed by the congregation in a feast.
Nowadays the practice is less common and many offerings are symbolic. I'm still a fan on proper ritual slaughter of an animal before a seasonal feast, but many disagree. Thor-damned hippie vegans!
Whether the Gods of other folks also exist or our Gods are the only Gods out there remains a matter of debate. I personally believe that tribes have their own Gods the same way they have the spirits of their ancestors.
We do NOT believe in eternity of any sort. Even the Gods will die, even the world will die, even the universe will die. Ask any Heathen and he'll consider Eternity an absurdity.
Things are simply not eternal. That's... y'know, just the way the universe works?
As for an afterlife, I'd be fair if I told you it's an afterthought for most of us. Just like the Jews, we focus on the here and now, this world instead of promised worlds we might never see.
Some believe the worthy ones go to be in company of the Gods, others think there's no afterlife but the grave, others think people remain as ancestor-spirits to take care of their folks after death.
We have our opinions on that, but it's really not the focus of the faith.
Are things good because your gods say they are or are things good because of some other reason?
Krsto
Well-known member
We have a hard enough time sorting out what our one God has said to us and you guys have a plethora of gods who don't seem to say much of anything so leave ya'll guessing about a lot of things. Geez, good luck with that.
PyramidHead
Active member
hello Karl i am PyramidCranium
as anyone here will tell you i am not much of anything but
good to see you you have made some good posts
good luck (it's a hard forum world out here)
as anyone here will tell you i am not much of anything but
good to see you you have made some good posts
good luck (it's a hard forum world out here)
Spitfire
New member
Gegrüsst seist du.
These "Germanic" movements are, ironically perhaps, not so popular in Austria. For most, to be a modern nihilistic atheist or atheistic satanist is heathen enough.
(Those atheists who tout their ethics and philanthropy don't think of themselves as heathens.) Those few who are inclined towards anything like this are likely to see movements that arose later in the 20th century as compromised, cleaned up and repackaged to cater to our modern sensibilities. It is precisely the unspeakable evil that what I guess you would call the "right wing" version represents in the eyes of common people - black magic, racism, the Nazis - that has strong seductive influence on certain people.I think it runs parrallel with those who are interested in reviving ancient Celtic practices and beliefs and their attitude towards Wicca.
Nydhogg
New member
These "Germanic" movements are, ironically perhaps, not so popular in Austria. For most, to be a modern nihilistic atheist or atheistic satanist is heathen enough.
I think it runs parrallel with those who are interested in reviving ancient Celtic practices and beliefs and their attitude towards Wicca.
Well, Germany and Austria had the Nazis grotesquely posturing as neopagans. It sorta taints any pagan revival there by association.
In the rest of the culturally germanic countries (The UK, the US, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc.) it's quite popular actually.
I agree that many stuff has been compromised. Those damned hippie vegans on the far, far, far left of the movement have all but ended animal sacrifice and they'll eventually get around to abolish the less politically correct stuff.
I take it that something similar happened to you Christians a century ago or so?
Y'know, the "I don't like this verse or tradition, so we'll change it, proper liturgy be damned" thing?
Spitfire
New member
If you mean in particular the modern attempts to bring about a kinder, gentler, less menacing Roman Catholic Church, there is indeed some debate over the Church's own power to decide that what had been held for many centuries to be necessary is no longer necessary. Though among those who realize that things are not definitely going according to plan since Vatican 2 many claim the problem is that the "reforms" did not go far enough. Those people seem to me like they will never be happy until it is decided that you can still be Catholic no matter what you believe or do as long as you are basically a good person by your own definition.
Last edited:
Nydhogg
New member
Well, if the Church had the authority to define dogma, it also has the authority to re-define it.
Vatican II, to an outside observer, looks like half-baked. I mean, the Pope died halfway through the reforms and his successor was not a reformist. Or not so much. It's like the liturgical changes were made but there was little to no revision of doctrine.
Strange. I guess it's a downside of Popes being elected old, sometimes stuff ends up half-done.
Or perhaps doctrine is really more important than practice and is revised more carefully or not at all: I don't know, the emphasis on orthodoxy is very strange, at least coming from a faith that values orthopraxy and does not care about orthodoxy at all.
Vatican II, to an outside observer, looks like half-baked. I mean, the Pope died halfway through the reforms and his successor was not a reformist. Or not so much. It's like the liturgical changes were made but there was little to no revision of doctrine.
Strange. I guess it's a downside of Popes being elected old, sometimes stuff ends up half-done.
Or perhaps doctrine is really more important than practice and is revised more carefully or not at all: I don't know, the emphasis on orthodoxy is very strange, at least coming from a faith that values orthopraxy and does not care about orthodoxy at all.
Krsto
Well-known member
Actually Catholics are in a catch-22 since they believed their dogma has been determined by God through his infallible interpreter, the Magisterum. To change dogma would mean that one of the infallible popes in the past was not infallible which would cast doubt on the whole papacy and then they might start examining their doctrines individually against the Word and descend into a morass of subjective and competing churches like us Protestants and they just aren't going to go down that slippery slope. They prefer the doctrinal certainty they think they have.
Krsto
Well-known member
Or what if someone finds a manuscript that every scholar in the world believes is the actual gospel penned by John and not a copy and it reads "this cup of wine represents my blood" (the way everybody else interprets it) instead of "this cup of wine is my blood"? For them to be true to themselves they would have to deny the manuscript is authentic no matter how strong the evidence for it is rather than just admit they were wrong in the first place.
Orthodoxy is a sticky wicket.
Having said that all of us who claim to be Christians do believe God raised Jesus from the dead so there's a bit of orthodoxy that is universal. What are your thoughts on that?
Nydhogg
New member
Some degree of orthodoxy is neccessary. Even if it's simply defining with a broad brush what the faith is all about.
Denying the Trinity, while perhaps a tenable theological position, is not Nicene Christianity.
The worship of the Morrigan (part of Celtic Heathenry), while perfectly respectable, is certainly not Asatrú (which is Germanic Heathenry).
No matter how non-dogmatic we would want to be, there are some inevitable limits, if only because denying certain tenets amounts to denying the faith itself.
That being said, I think a viable religion must always be open to reviewing its traditions and orthodoxies in light of new discoveries or evidence.
There are limits to that, though: If non-disputable findings prove the essentials of a faith wrong, there's little gain on keeping it alive.
There was a christian church that hits the nail on the head on its motto: "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty."
Some religions happen to have more Essentials than others.
Denying the Trinity, while perhaps a tenable theological position, is not Nicene Christianity.
The worship of the Morrigan (part of Celtic Heathenry), while perfectly respectable, is certainly not Asatrú (which is Germanic Heathenry).
No matter how non-dogmatic we would want to be, there are some inevitable limits, if only because denying certain tenets amounts to denying the faith itself.
That being said, I think a viable religion must always be open to reviewing its traditions and orthodoxies in light of new discoveries or evidence.
There are limits to that, though: If non-disputable findings prove the essentials of a faith wrong, there's little gain on keeping it alive.
There was a christian church that hits the nail on the head on its motto: "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty."
Some religions happen to have more Essentials than others.
- Status