If your definition holds, then how do you define "Agnostic"?
Hopefully, the same way the inventer of the term, Huxley, defined it: the belief that true knowledge of the existence of god was impossible. An axis orthoganal to theistic belief, many will tell you.
Amazon's couple of warehouses just doesn't represent a greater capitalization than Boeing. And even if Amazon sold every book printed neither their revenue stream or likely profits would approach Boeing's.
Not to be pedantic, but Amazon has more than a "couple" of warehouses. I'd accept "a handful" or "tens", but not "a couple". That of course doesn't count third party arrangements Amazon has for handling orders.
Of course, that Doesn't mean Amazon isn't overvalued (or wasn't, when their stock was much higher). But at least they have both income and growth potential. Boeing may be big, and sometimes profitable, but they really can't go anywhere. Having worked there, I wouldn't invest in the growth potential of the company based on my opinion of the corprate culture and structure and the attitudes of people there. As far as continued revenue goes, they can manage that even in the face of incompetence because of their unique position in the American aviatian and weapons building industries.
Where the hell in Seattle do you live such that people complain about house painting? Not my experience, but maybe I've had good luck with neighborhoods.
Ok, let's shelve the whole idea Until EvanEd gets a chance to review the design. Most likely, it is an expensive death trap with no chance of becoming the basis of future elevator technology. Thanks EvanEd, that one almost slipped by us!!!!
A local fast food place, Arby's I think, had a sign up for ages promoting some deal: 1 for $0.99, 2 for $1.99. Yes, it was more expensive to buy two together than individually.
"Scientist says that he's cloned human cells," and they believe it, it's apparent that this is NOT taught sufficiently.
Wow, this is incredible. Sure, there is fraud in science and other human endeavors (religion included). There is also gullibility among people. This is not damnation of science education so much as a statement of the human condition. You think a sticker on a textbook will help? Guess what, cloning human cells is most likely possible, and will eventually happen if it hasn't already, so the type of gullibility involved here is only very shallow.
Fuck you, you don't have permission to attack me personally.
I don't need permission to attack you personally, ass clown.
Your implied comparison of the theory of evolution to mathematical theorems in order to show the former weaker is a common technique among creationists, especially those who either have a weak grasp of science or pander to an audience with the same. The improper tie of scientific theories to mathematical theorems, which can not be justified semantically except to distinguish the two, is a recurring shady tactic in this debate.
If only someone could get a court to rule that athiesm is a religion, they could then argue that evolution advances a religion, and that advancement warrants an establishment of a religion.
That will be truly sad day; suddenly, biology (not just evolution), astronomy, physics, medicine, and countless other scientific topics will be carvied into swiss cheese as the religious crackpots, mainstream and otherwise, line up to say that current scientific theories in these disciplines imply their teaching are wrong and hence atheistic. Sort of what we have now but a thousand times worse. You welcome this to our public education?
I mostly disagree with the rest of your reply, but I don't have time to deal with it really right now. Sorry. It does seem that we won't agree on much of this. One thing I will say, you are mostly right that proscribing the statment on the sticker seems to be not justified by using first ammendment, taken at face value of both the former and latter. This is strange territory. Perhaps the creationist have found a tactic with which they can attack evolution and other scientific theories without recourse? The arguments used by the judge in the sticker case are much longer though, and from what I understand, are more about science and less about religion. I need to read them. In any case, having the courts rule on scientific matters is also deeply strange.
Would you be happier if it didn't single out evolution?
Yes I would. I'd be even happier if they left the sticker off entirely and explained fully (not in two sentences) what science is, how it works to include verification and revision of theories and models, and to what extent things can be proved or disproved in science Inside the book. I thought that was clear from my post. I remember that stuff from science education in my public school days, but maybe they don't teach it anymore - as evidenced by your misunderstanding of science - see below.
So, just because a theory is provable means that it shouldn't be critically considered? Let's take a theory that definitely can be proven: "The square of the hypothenus is equal to the sum of the two other sides." We shouldn't present this and show how it's provable?
This little bit here shows a staggering misunderstanding of the topic of hand. Math theorems can be proven (usually) given the axioms of the formal system. This has little to do with the theories of science. Your introduction of this example baffles me. Science theories are either disproven (in whole or part) or evidence is provided supporting them. I think you understand that at some level. Yes, it is the job of science education to present this aspect of science in general and to teach about supporting evidence for accepted theories. This applies to evolution, plate tectonics, ecology, special relativity, EM, superconductivity, heredity, photosynthesis, and everything else.
Guess what? Science education (generally) teaches this way. Could it be taught better? Probably. A sticker singlying out one theory doesn't help a bit. I don't think evolution is taught in any more or less authoritarian of a manner than other theories, though I concede all of science education is (possibly necessarily) authoritarian at introductory levels.
If this information were presented as such, then there would be no need for the sticker, but in absense of that information, then it should be affixed onto the material after the fact.
Did you review the textbooks in question? Do they lack a general statement of the philosphy of science? Is evolution presented in a manner, authoritarian or otherwise, that is inconsistent with the presentation of other theories?
You sound like you've reviewed these materials? Maybe it that bad and the stickers are necessary. Maybe this is just a case of providing a rather visible errata for a selectively flawed textbook, and not a religious cluster fuck, after all.
Regardless of there being a religious motivation of the sticker, it does not equate to establishment of a religion, and thus warrant removing it. The tax-free status of religious organizations is religiously motivated, but it's not denied to people under the presumption that it is establishing a state-sponsored religion.
Maybe, maybe not. Many people disagree with you, including the courts, who intpret the ruling of the first ammendment, which you somehow managed to miss some nuance of, short as it is. Tax-free status has got nothing to do with this, and even if it did, you might consider that just cause the government violates the bill of rights once, doesn't justify every other violation they feel like committing.
The lack of a religion is a religion in itself. (which I realize is a contradiction)
Statements like these render the word "religion" meaningless and containing conversations pointless. The absurdity of it is obviously not lost on you (based on your parenthetical comment). I always wonder what the motivation is for the apologist who attempts to label atheism or evolution or science as religion. The goal (or effect at least), seems to say that in the end, all beliefs, churchy or scientific, are equal, all systems of belief equivalent, all facts illusory, all opinions equal, all points of view equivalent, all actions justified.
Recognize this goal when you see someone painting science with the religion brush. Call them out on it, then stop talking to them - there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with such a person.
Since you admitted you don't really follow the debate, I should be surprised that you don't know this, but there is plenty of discussion of the concept of "irreducible complexity", both in the general sense of the concept's scientific merit and in the specific examples of the concept that Behe and others have proposed.
You're probably not going to find real academic treament of the issue in this forum. If you're really interested in what the case against "irreducible complexity" is, go ask in the Talk Origins newsgroups or something.
Because implicit in the purpose of the sticker is the idea that the theory of evolution is unlike the rest of theoretical science in this regard. Further, the language of the sticker implies incorrect usage of the word theory. Further, that the stick is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. I.E. there is no academic or scientific reason for the existence of the sticker that can't be better conducted within the text book itself or in texts on the philosophy of science. There is, however, a clear religious motivation for the existence of the sticker. Hope that helps, bucko.
No but unless you are arguing that this case is an obstruction of justice, which it isn't, your point has no bearing on the legality of his actions. The fact that one exception to the absolute right of free speech has been granted by the court does not make all such categorical exceptions permissible. In the absense of clear legal precedence, the right to free speech trumps any such claims the executive branch makes to those rights. What is the legal precendence for treating this man's speech as a crime? People like you are why the government finds it so easy to abridge freedoms when they feel it appropriate (e.g. patriot act, domestic spying, etc). There's always some lackey like you to champion their cause.
This man was charged a felony for his speech!! There better damn well be a whole ton of harm from this speech before I'll admit there is legal justification for outlawing his speech. Where is the harm? What crime did he enitice?
There is no DDOS. This is a social phenomenon that is (thankfully) not illegal. In order for the accused to be guilty of enticing others to commit a crime, there must be a crime that the others are committing. What is the crime the others are committing? Each of them could not be accused of a DDOS - it's laughable to consider one person hitting a reload to be a DDOS. So where is the crime? That you are so ready to allow speech to equate to a felony, even where there is no demonstratable crime or enticement, is scary indeed. Think about what you are arguing for.
Operator overloading is indeed a carnival of confusion that would have been best avoided.
Who are the idiots you work with for whom this is a real issue? Or is it just you? I just don't see this "carnival of confusion" in the professional programming world that uses C++.
Oh, you slay us. But you fail to address the central premise of his argument. Sure, C++ is not a proper superset of C, but it a practical superset of C. There will be few or no issues with compiling modern ANSI C code as if it were C++. For new projects, there is no issue at all. All things being equal, if you can write C and just use a few of the features of C++, it will likely be worth it to your project. Though I used C for years, when I am forced to use a pure C codebase these days, I feel severely crippled.
IIRC, they are adding hash containers (std::hash_set and std::hash_map and multi-variants) to the standard.
Also, I believe they are adding the boost::regex library to the standard library as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully, the same way the inventer of the term, Huxley, defined it: the belief that true knowledge of the existence of god was impossible. An axis orthoganal to theistic belief, many will tell you.
My bad, I though you were poo-pooing the technology. I get what you mean about having to figure out the principles for yourself.
Respond to a troll with another troll - fighting fire with fire!! Nice work, overly critical guy.
Not to be pedantic, but Amazon has more than a "couple" of warehouses. I'd accept "a handful" or "tens", but not "a couple". That of course doesn't count third party arrangements Amazon has for handling orders.
Of course, that Doesn't mean Amazon isn't overvalued (or wasn't, when their stock was much higher). But at least they have both income and growth potential. Boeing may be big, and sometimes profitable, but they really can't go anywhere. Having worked there, I wouldn't invest in the growth potential of the company based on my opinion of the corprate culture and structure and the attitudes of people there. As far as continued revenue goes, they can manage that even in the face of incompetence because of their unique position in the American aviatian and weapons building industries.
Whoa, some definite nut jobs. I guess I have been lucky. A neighbor like the parking lady would make life interesting ....
Where the hell in Seattle do you live such that people complain about house painting? Not my experience, but maybe I've had good luck with neighborhoods.
Ok, let's shelve the whole idea Until EvanEd gets a chance to review the design. Most likely, it is an expensive death trap with no chance of becoming the basis of future elevator technology. Thanks EvanEd, that one almost slipped by us!!!!
Riiiiight, because you really need military-grade GPS accuracy to deliver a nuclear weapson.
A local fast food place, Arby's I think, had a sign up for ages promoting some deal: 1 for $0.99, 2 for $1.99. Yes, it was more expensive to buy two together than individually.
Well said.
Oooh baby.
Then again, maybe you're not.
Wow, this is incredible. Sure, there is fraud in science and other human endeavors (religion included). There is also gullibility among people. This is not damnation of science education so much as a statement of the human condition. You think a sticker on a textbook will help? Guess what, cloning human cells is most likely possible, and will eventually happen if it hasn't already, so the type of gullibility involved here is only very shallow.
I don't need permission to attack you personally, ass clown.
Your implied comparison of the theory of evolution to mathematical theorems in order to show the former weaker is a common technique among creationists, especially those who either have a weak grasp of science or pander to an audience with the same. The improper tie of scientific theories to mathematical theorems, which can not be justified semantically except to distinguish the two, is a recurring shady tactic in this debate.
That will be truly sad day; suddenly, biology (not just evolution), astronomy, physics, medicine, and countless other scientific topics will be carvied into swiss cheese as the religious crackpots, mainstream and otherwise, line up to say that current scientific theories in these disciplines imply their teaching are wrong and hence atheistic. Sort of what we have now but a thousand times worse. You welcome this to our public education?
I mostly disagree with the rest of your reply, but I don't have time to deal with it really right now. Sorry. It does seem that we won't agree on much of this. One thing I will say, you are mostly right that proscribing the statment on the sticker seems to be not justified by using first ammendment, taken at face value of both the former and latter. This is strange territory. Perhaps the creationist have found a tactic with which they can attack evolution and other scientific theories without recourse? The arguments used by the judge in the sticker case are much longer though, and from what I understand, are more about science and less about religion. I need to read them. In any case, having the courts rule on scientific matters is also deeply strange.
Yes I would. I'd be even happier if they left the sticker off entirely and explained fully (not in two sentences) what science is, how it works to include verification and revision of theories and models, and to what extent things can be proved or disproved in science Inside the book. I thought that was clear from my post. I remember that stuff from science education in my public school days, but maybe they don't teach it anymore - as evidenced by your misunderstanding of science - see below.
This little bit here shows a staggering misunderstanding of the topic of hand. Math theorems can be proven (usually) given the axioms of the formal system. This has little to do with the theories of science. Your introduction of this example baffles me. Science theories are either disproven (in whole or part) or evidence is provided supporting them. I think you understand that at some level. Yes, it is the job of science education to present this aspect of science in general and to teach about supporting evidence for accepted theories. This applies to evolution, plate tectonics, ecology, special relativity, EM, superconductivity, heredity, photosynthesis, and everything else.
Guess what? Science education (generally) teaches this way. Could it be taught better? Probably. A sticker singlying out one theory doesn't help a bit. I don't think evolution is taught in any more or less authoritarian of a manner than other theories, though I concede all of science education is (possibly necessarily) authoritarian at introductory levels.
Did you review the textbooks in question? Do they lack a general statement of the philosphy of science? Is evolution presented in a manner, authoritarian or otherwise, that is inconsistent with the presentation of other theories?
You sound like you've reviewed these materials? Maybe it that bad and the stickers are necessary. Maybe this is just a case of providing a rather visible errata for a selectively flawed textbook, and not a religious cluster fuck, after all.
Maybe, maybe not. Many people disagree with you, including the courts, who intpret the ruling of the first ammendment, which you somehow managed to miss some nuance of, short as it is. Tax-free status has got nothing to do with this, and even if it did, you might consider that just cause the government violates the bill of rights once, doesn't justify every other violation they feel like committing.
Statements like these render the word "religion" meaningless and containing conversations pointless. The absurdity of it is obviously not lost on you (based on your parenthetical comment). I always wonder what the motivation is for the apologist who attempts to label atheism or evolution or science as religion. The goal (or effect at least), seems to say that in the end, all beliefs, churchy or scientific, are equal, all systems of belief equivalent, all facts illusory, all opinions equal, all points of view equivalent, all actions justified.
Recognize this goal when you see someone painting science with the religion brush. Call them out on it, then stop talking to them - there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with such a person.
You're probably not going to find real academic treament of the issue in this forum. If you're really interested in what the case against "irreducible complexity" is, go ask in the Talk Origins newsgroups or something.
Because implicit in the purpose of the sticker is the idea that the theory of evolution is unlike the rest of theoretical science in this regard. Further, the language of the sticker implies incorrect usage of the word theory. Further, that the stick is religiously motivated, not scientifically motivated. I.E. there is no academic or scientific reason for the existence of the sticker that can't be better conducted within the text book itself or in texts on the philosophy of science. There is, however, a clear religious motivation for the existence of the sticker. Hope that helps, bucko.
This man was charged a felony for his speech!! There better damn well be a whole ton of harm from this speech before I'll admit there is legal justification for outlawing his speech. Where is the harm? What crime did he enitice?
There is no DDOS. This is a social phenomenon that is (thankfully) not illegal. In order for the accused to be guilty of enticing others to commit a crime, there must be a crime that the others are committing. What is the crime the others are committing? Each of them could not be accused of a DDOS - it's laughable to consider one person hitting a reload to be a DDOS. So where is the crime? That you are so ready to allow speech to equate to a felony, even where there is no demonstratable crime or enticement, is scary indeed. Think about what you are arguing for.
Since December 15, 1791 when the bill of rights was passed. HTH.
One wonders.
Interesting, so what does this "foo" function that returns a "MyObject" do?
Who are the idiots you work with for whom this is a real issue? Or is it just you? I just don't see this "carnival of confusion" in the professional programming world that uses C++.
IIRC, they are adding hash containers (std::hash_set and std::hash_map and multi-variants) to the standard. Also, I believe they are adding the boost::regex library to the standard library as well.