That's right, children should not be taught to use the single most important innovation in communication and content creation to be invented since the pencil and paper.
No. There is no reason to believe that smaller shakes are warnings. None whatsoever. That there was a subsequent deadly earthquake is a terrible tragedy, but it does not change the fact that small shakes are not a predictor of large earthquakes.
If those families had left l'Aquila, then one presumes that they would have returned at some point. If a large earthquake had not occurred by that point, but did shortly thereafter, would the scientists still be at fault?
Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not sure what you were actually arguing.
No, but it's still just as sinister an idea. The ideas in a film don't have to be 'mind blowing' in order to work in a story. In fact, the more you rely on your ideas being 'mind blowing', the more instantly-dated your film project becomes.
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.
Is this true? We know an earthquake occurred, but this is far from a statement about the 'likelihood' of that earthquake, isn't it? Isn't it the case that most large earthquakes aren't preceded by anything out of the ordinary? And that most sequences of small earthquakes do not culminate in a large event - except insofar as that large event occurs eventually?
The earthquake in NZ that killed 185 people in February of 2011 was a large aftershock - there is no dispute that a large event will always cause a large number of subsequent events of varying size - of another large earthquake in September of the previous year. It could be argued that the central city should have been evacuated and not re-entered until all the unsafe buildings within the area had been strengthened - but no-one was bonkers enough to suggest that the aftershock should have been 'predicted', even though at that time the aftershocks were occurring almost every day.
Now, why is this? And what would prediction have meant in any case? There is no reason to believe that a prediction, which will never be more than a general notion of increased likelihood over an indeterminate period of time anyway, could possibly save lives. As is often said, earthquakes do not kill people, unsafe buildings kill people. The buildings that collapsed and killed in Italy were unsafe obviously, and many of those that collapsed were extremely old. Where is the court case about the council (or whoever it ought to be) failing to earthquake strengthen a town full of mediaeval buildings?
And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right. What's your point? Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it? The whole episode is total nonsense.
The issue has nothing whatever to do with how one is 'born'. This is just a big red herring, and it's important to understand that these things can also be a choice, and that there's nothing wrong with that.
One may be born gay, one may choose to experiment with being gay for a couple of years, or a weekend, or whatever it is. It's not important. What's important is that both people in the relationship, gay or otherwise, are capable of, and have given, informed consent.
Children and animals are not capable of this, and thus are not part of the same conversation.
Not to argue with you, considering I know a grand total of nothing about your situation, but how long do you expect the guy to spend on the review? A few hours doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
If someone is not convinced that the earth isn't six thousand years old because there are nine thousand year old trees, and 680,000 layers in the polar ice cores, then I wouldn't have thought that mere debate is going to have a great deal of impact.
I haven't watched it yet, but I will do a bit later on. You're right of course, science is never settled, and I suppose in principal we might uncover some evidence that would both contradict our interpretation of all our prior evidence (of which there is a great deal) and provide a new interpretation too. And boom, maybe it will turn out to have been God all along.
But that hasn't happened, seems exceedingly unlikely, and so at this point Creationism is ignorance plain and simple. It's ignorance of the evidence, ignorance of the scientific method, and of the current scientific consensus. It's also most peculiar that the Christian creation myth is the one over which these battles are fought - how come there's no-one out there similarly touting the Hindu creation myth, or the Maori one?
And I told myself I wouldn't get into this sort of argument again. Oh well.
Creationism is not "knowledge", it is ignorance. And so yes, it's a threat because it's ignorance. And ignorance is always a threat to a civilised society. In a similar (but not identical, so please don't debate the analogy) way to illiteracy being a 'threat'. One would wish to reduce ignorance, because it is a bad thing.
Believing creationism as a 'science' - being quite distinct from believing it as religious dogma, which is different - is ignorance.
Creationism is not a dissenting opinion. The matter is settled. The science is settled. The world is not six thousand years old. It is billions of years old. Life was not created fully-formed by a deity, it crawled out of the oceans over millennia. I don't "judge" someone for believing that, instead I wonder at their ignorance and perhaps try to clear it away with some education.
This usually does not work. As I expect we are about to see.
Well.... I'm not sure what the point of discussing science in church would be. I mean, sure, they can take a math class in-between hymns if that's what works for them, but it would seem a bit out of place.
Anyway, the parent's argument is that religious dogma should be kept out of educational establishments. Religious education, sure, learn about all the world's myriad religions - I imagine it's a pretty interesting subject. But dogma. No.
Creationism in and of itself isn't a threat. A large scale plan to have it taught in schools and universities most assuredly is a threat, and should be treated as such. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
You vastly underestimate the amount of work involved in breaking 512 bits of entropy. You vastly underestimate how big 512 bits of search space actually is. It's got nothing to do with how long it would take, there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to count up to 2^512, let alone do anything with the numbers.
Flipping a bit in a computer takes a teeny tiny amount of power. Multiply the smallest possible amount of power (the plank energy) by 2^512, and boom you're talking about more energy than exists in the universe.
2^512 is *plenty*.
The biggest hole isn't the password itself, it's the password-recovery system.
On the other hand, this is a very intelligent point, and is entirely correct. "Security Questions" my ass.
Yes - and they didn't (acknowledge that) they had actually been *hacked*. But that the celebs in question had either had their account details phished, or their 'security questions' guessed.
This is most certainly *not* the same as icloud being hacked.
I mean, perhaps they were hacked, and are currently lying about it. Possibly - who knows? Does seem a bit unlikely though, given the difficulty of hacking large security systems vs. the relative ease of phishing and guessing the answers to public figure's security questions.
What in God's name does that mean? You shot them instead? I think I'd prefer to live inside those protective quotation marks you placed around civilisation, lest someone less foolish than I decided that they could no longer suffer me to live.
It's not quite true that there's 'little or no protection' - and in any case even if you did spill gasoline you still need a source of ignition before you get a real problem. Electricity is more dangerous from that point of view. I'm pretty sure more people die from regular mains shocks than die in service stations filling their cars - I mean, does that even happen? I've never heard of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you done this? Is it really possible? We await more detailed instructions.
Enlighten us. What is the reason?
"We have to teach the students what they will be using".
How is this stupid? Seems pretty sensible to me, Linux vs. Window notwithstanding.
Apple is fucking atrocious
In what way?
Wifi is a nightmare
How so? Seems to work fine at my Kids primary school and intermediate school.
That's right, children should not be taught to use the single most important innovation in communication and content creation to be invented since the pencil and paper.
Oh. Wait.
Yes. There had been smaller "warning" shakes
No. There is no reason to believe that smaller shakes are warnings. None whatsoever. That there was a subsequent deadly earthquake is a terrible tragedy, but it does not change the fact that small shakes are not a predictor of large earthquakes.
If those families had left l'Aquila, then one presumes that they would have returned at some point. If a large earthquake had not occurred by that point, but did shortly thereafter, would the scientists still be at fault?
Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not sure what you were actually arguing.
No, but it's still just as sinister an idea. The ideas in a film don't have to be 'mind blowing' in order to work in a story. In fact, the more you rely on your ideas being 'mind blowing', the more instantly-dated your film project becomes.
Blackadder - one word.
Two words - see it.
I envy you - being able to watch one of the greatest tv comedy series of all time for the first time.
You may now try again.
Thank you.
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.
Is this true? We know an earthquake occurred, but this is far from a statement about the 'likelihood' of that earthquake, isn't it? Isn't it the case that most large earthquakes aren't preceded by anything out of the ordinary? And that most sequences of small earthquakes do not culminate in a large event - except insofar as that large event occurs eventually?
The earthquake in NZ that killed 185 people in February of 2011 was a large aftershock - there is no dispute that a large event will always cause a large number of subsequent events of varying size - of another large earthquake in September of the previous year. It could be argued that the central city should have been evacuated and not re-entered until all the unsafe buildings within the area had been strengthened - but no-one was bonkers enough to suggest that the aftershock should have been 'predicted', even though at that time the aftershocks were occurring almost every day.
Now, why is this? And what would prediction have meant in any case? There is no reason to believe that a prediction, which will never be more than a general notion of increased likelihood over an indeterminate period of time anyway, could possibly save lives. As is often said, earthquakes do not kill people, unsafe buildings kill people. The buildings that collapsed and killed in Italy were unsafe obviously, and many of those that collapsed were extremely old. Where is the court case about the council (or whoever it ought to be) failing to earthquake strengthen a town full of mediaeval buildings?
And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right. What's your point? Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it? The whole episode is total nonsense.
The issue has nothing whatever to do with how one is 'born'. This is just a big red herring, and it's important to understand that these things can also be a choice, and that there's nothing wrong with that.
One may be born gay, one may choose to experiment with being gay for a couple of years, or a weekend, or whatever it is. It's not important. What's important is that both people in the relationship, gay or otherwise, are capable of, and have given, informed consent.
Children and animals are not capable of this, and thus are not part of the same conversation.
... when i was a kid we didnt have big business bullying us with thier lies
Good Lord. How old are you?
Well... that rather depends on where you live doesn't it. I've got a vege patch - I'd hate to have to rely on it for food.
...in a few hours.
Not to argue with you, considering I know a grand total of nothing about your situation, but how long do you expect the guy to spend on the review? A few hours doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Of course they won't.
If someone is not convinced that the earth isn't six thousand years old because there are nine thousand year old trees, and 680,000 layers in the polar ice cores, then I wouldn't have thought that mere debate is going to have a great deal of impact.
Well I doubt that either of us are qualified to 'debate' the issue. Shall we instead watch some people who are?
Like these guys
I haven't watched it yet, but I will do a bit later on. You're right of course, science is never settled, and I suppose in principal we might uncover some evidence that would both contradict our interpretation of all our prior evidence (of which there is a great deal) and provide a new interpretation too. And boom, maybe it will turn out to have been God all along.
But that hasn't happened, seems exceedingly unlikely, and so at this point Creationism is ignorance plain and simple. It's ignorance of the evidence, ignorance of the scientific method, and of the current scientific consensus. It's also most peculiar that the Christian creation myth is the one over which these battles are fought - how come there's no-one out there similarly touting the Hindu creation myth, or the Maori one?
And I told myself I wouldn't get into this sort of argument again. Oh well.
Creationism is not "knowledge", it is ignorance. And so yes, it's a threat because it's ignorance. And ignorance is always a threat to a civilised society. In a similar (but not identical, so please don't debate the analogy) way to illiteracy being a 'threat'. One would wish to reduce ignorance, because it is a bad thing.
Believing creationism as a 'science' - being quite distinct from believing it as religious dogma, which is different - is ignorance.
Creationism is not a dissenting opinion. The matter is settled. The science is settled. The world is not six thousand years old. It is billions of years old. Life was not created fully-formed by a deity, it crawled out of the oceans over millennia. I don't "judge" someone for believing that, instead I wonder at their ignorance and perhaps try to clear it away with some education.
This usually does not work. As I expect we are about to see.
Well.... I'm not sure what the point of discussing science in church would be. I mean, sure, they can take a math class in-between hymns if that's what works for them, but it would seem a bit out of place.
Anyway, the parent's argument is that religious dogma should be kept out of educational establishments. Religious education, sure, learn about all the world's myriad religions - I imagine it's a pretty interesting subject. But dogma. No.
Creationism in and of itself isn't a threat. A large scale plan to have it taught in schools and universities most assuredly is a threat, and should be treated as such. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Well - it does use quite a nifty trick to implement a subroutine, given that you can only GOSUB a line number, and there's only one line number.
You vastly underestimate the amount of work involved in breaking 512 bits of entropy. You vastly underestimate how big 512 bits of search space actually is. It's got nothing to do with how long it would take, there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to count up to 2^512, let alone do anything with the numbers.
Flipping a bit in a computer takes a teeny tiny amount of power. Multiply the smallest possible amount of power (the plank energy) by 2^512, and boom you're talking about more energy than exists in the universe.
2^512 is *plenty*.
The biggest hole isn't the password itself, it's the password-recovery system.
On the other hand, this is a very intelligent point, and is entirely correct. "Security Questions" my ass.
Yes - and they didn't (acknowledge that) they had actually been *hacked*. But that the celebs in question had either had their account details phished, or their 'security questions' guessed.
This is most certainly *not* the same as icloud being hacked.
I mean, perhaps they were hacked, and are currently lying about it. Possibly - who knows? Does seem a bit unlikely though, given the difficulty of hacking large security systems vs. the relative ease of phishing and guessing the answers to public figure's security questions.
I wonder if it was ever really like that? And in any case, I'd rather not bet my life on no-one with a six-shooter judging me an asshole.
did not have to suffer fools
What in God's name does that mean? You shot them instead? I think I'd prefer to live inside those protective quotation marks you placed around civilisation, lest someone less foolish than I decided that they could no longer suffer me to live.
It's not quite true that there's 'little or no protection' - and in any case even if you did spill gasoline you still need a source of ignition before you get a real problem. Electricity is more dangerous from that point of view. I'm pretty sure more people die from regular mains shocks than die in service stations filling their cars - I mean, does that even happen? I've never heard of it.