Could someone please help me? I'm looking for a website called "Slashdot" which is all about high-tech news. I thought it was here but seem to have come to the wrong place.
It's a country in which the governor of Texas has repeatedly appealed to citizens to telepathically urge an omnipotent invisible deity to change the weather for the state.
Oh dear, and you'd started so well. You definitely get some religious wingnuts, fond of all sorts of conspiracy theories. But you also get the equivalent on the secularist side of things, who believe that all religious people have undergone volontary lobotomies, and seek nothing better than to invent invisible friends for themselves.
Nutters on both sides. Not sure where that leaves the rest of us though.
I think I get it (or a bit of it, maybe). Imagine the situation where documents and URLs didn't change over time. If you're writing an academic essay, and you quote, say, Einstein, then rather than copy-pasting a quote, you link to a paragraph in the book itself. Einstein's book, also, can contain links to Newton. So any quoting from elsewhere allows you to see not only the quote but also the context. I can see this being quite useful, and would be a fantastically easy way to check someone wasn't being misquoted.
Problems with this, however, are that there are no unchanging links for these sources, that sources may change and be modified, and that it's only really useful for academic-type work where quoting is integral.
So a nice idea for a bit of software, or a website, but not really a challenge to the structure of the web itself.
The way you describe it, it sounds identical to theology. That's why you can study the subject, why there's more than one theologian in the world, various points of view, changes and trends. I'm not too sure where you can be getting your vision of theology from - although if yours is a widespread perception, it would go some way to explaining the reluctance of some scientists towards publicising their faith
If you are advocating that somehow this being is outside of our realm of existence / laws - well you've fallen back into the classical religious defense - it's magic and you just can't know. I'm at a loss at this point. I do have a teaport orbiting jupiter, though.
Yup, it's kind of annoying really. Thing is though, if you're talking about a creator, science just isn't a great tool for dissection. It'd be like analysing Slashdot developers based on the HTML and Javascript for this site - you might get out a bit of psychoanalysis, but you probably won't be able to determine the colour of their hair. If a god's the creator, then (s)he defined the rules. That's a bummer for finding an easy-kill argument for religious belief, but it's a sensible starting point for the discussion, rather than an argument-avoiding excuse.
One says "we tell you it is like this and you must not disagree" the other tells you "question it all and judge for yourself".
That's pretty different, as approaches go.
Having had a "religious" upbringing and been on the scene for a while, I'm not sure I've ever had anyone tell me to do the former. YMMV, but again, that's part of the point : it's not about a single "religion" or a single approach. Religions can be open and closed, questioning and scared. You can't lump them all together in this kind of a discussion
So, in other words, updating science to better correspond with reality is good science. Updating theology to better correspond with reality is bad theology.
I'll tell you why - the magical mystical god of the various books is hugely inconsistent and fails the basic logical challenges a scientific analysis demands.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed in one specific thing - religion insists on telling us "it is so", while science will treat us like adults and tell us "we don't know - here is our best guess so far"....
Now here come the flame mods:-)
You'll pretty much deserve the flame mods though. Pretending that there's one "god" portrayed differently by the various religions isn't helping your case. "Logical challenges a scientific analysis demands" suggesting that a divine being (perhaps the source of the universe), is somehow subject to science, is a curious argument at best. You don't appear to be in a good position to be saying "it is so" to all those with religious beliefs.
There's diversity out there, which is why the conversation is worth having : how do different beliefs interact with people's way of understanding science ? Scientists throughout history have had various beliefs which may have helped or hindered their quest for knowledge. They're part of the discussion
If you've got a full meal ahead of you, have a read of The Mind of God by Paul Davies or Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship by John Polkinghorne (Physics).
With a bit less time, for a snack, nibble on the short article Creation and Evolution not Creation or Evolution by R J Berry (Geneticist) and you should start to have a few ideas for conversation with biscuits.
That's fine - you're a geek. However, for my parents, I'm recommending they go for Chrome simply because of the update feature. Any kind of manual intervention in updating is going to throw them, but with Chrome, they're going to be up to date and relatively secure. Chrome's got it right for the vast majority of users and Mozilla would do well to go in the same direction.
The big question I can see though is: where does this leave Microsoft?
Suddenly, the general feeling seems to be that Windows 7 isn't up to the tablet task. Which leaves Microsoft with nothing on the market.
OK, you've got Bill Gates making some vague declarations of "doing something with a stylus", but there's nothing concrete. Win 7 doesn't cut it, Windows Phone 7 isn't out yet and probably isn't adapted to tablets. The world's premier OS manufacturer appears to have nothing to offer a whole new segment of personal computing.
Apple, Google, HP... lone warriors fighting it out on planet tablet. The usual suspect nowhere to be seen.
In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them.
Kind of depends. If it's for a cleaner or a mechanic, then discrimination on sexual orientation is clearly an issue. However, if churches were unable to refuse employment for someone in, say, pastoral care, with a lifestyle or beliefs contrary to that church's teaching, then such a law would go beyond anti-discrimination and become intolerant dictature.
Slashdot Mirror
Could someone please help me? I'm looking for a website called "Slashdot" which is all about high-tech news. I thought it was here but seem to have come to the wrong place.
Spheres or cylinders are more likely for small ships
or, while we're at it, cuboid phone-box-like shapes.
Taco leaves, and suddenly no-one's proof-reading submissions...
It's a country in which the governor of Texas has repeatedly appealed to citizens to telepathically urge an omnipotent invisible deity to change the weather for the state.
Oh dear, and you'd started so well. You definitely get some religious wingnuts, fond of all sorts of conspiracy theories. But you also get the equivalent on the secularist side of things, who believe that all religious people have undergone volontary lobotomies, and seek nothing better than to invent invisible friends for themselves.
Nutters on both sides. Not sure where that leaves the rest of us though.
I think I get it (or a bit of it, maybe). Imagine the situation where documents and URLs didn't change over time. If you're writing an academic essay, and you quote, say, Einstein, then rather than copy-pasting a quote, you link to a paragraph in the book itself. Einstein's book, also, can contain links to Newton. So any quoting from elsewhere allows you to see not only the quote but also the context. I can see this being quite useful, and would be a fantastically easy way to check someone wasn't being misquoted.
Problems with this, however, are that there are no unchanging links for these sources, that sources may change and be modified, and that it's only really useful for academic-type work where quoting is integral.
So a nice idea for a bit of software, or a website, but not really a challenge to the structure of the web itself.
I assumed the name was based on the French slang term for a child's toy. I'm sure it sounds fine in French...
We need more context. Can you post a photo?
... vitroil...
Not sure what this is, but can I have some for the car?
According to the article:
"I’ve written before about the implementation of tabbed documents in a word processor, and that’s only the beginning."
You've got to admit that Mozilla giving up on browsers is the only responsible course of action with such innovations awaiting.
Last one out, please turn off the...
Bugger
Fundamentalists that see non-fundamentalists as deluded; atheists that see non-atheists as deluded. Pick your side and brandish your billboard.
The way you describe it, it sounds identical to theology. That's why you can study the subject, why there's more than one theologian in the world, various points of view, changes and trends. I'm not too sure where you can be getting your vision of theology from - although if yours is a widespread perception, it would go some way to explaining the reluctance of some scientists towards publicising their faith
If you are advocating that somehow this being is outside of our realm of existence / laws - well you've fallen back into the classical religious defense - it's magic and you just can't know. I'm at a loss at this point. I do have a teaport orbiting jupiter, though.
Yup, it's kind of annoying really. Thing is though, if you're talking about a creator, science just isn't a great tool for dissection. It'd be like analysing Slashdot developers based on the HTML and Javascript for this site - you might get out a bit of psychoanalysis, but you probably won't be able to determine the colour of their hair. If a god's the creator, then (s)he defined the rules. That's a bummer for finding an easy-kill argument for religious belief, but it's a sensible starting point for the discussion, rather than an argument-avoiding excuse.
One says "we tell you it is like this and you must not disagree" the other tells you "question it all and judge for yourself".
That's pretty different, as approaches go.
Having had a "religious" upbringing and been on the scene for a while, I'm not sure I've ever had anyone tell me to do the former. YMMV, but again, that's part of the point : it's not about a single "religion" or a single approach. Religions can be open and closed, questioning and scared. You can't lump them all together in this kind of a discussion
So, in other words, updating science to better correspond with reality is good science. Updating theology to better correspond with reality is bad theology.
Kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.
I'll tell you why - the magical mystical god of the various books is hugely inconsistent and fails the basic logical challenges a scientific analysis demands.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed in one specific thing - religion insists on telling us "it is so", while science will treat us like adults and tell us "we don't know - here is our best guess so far"....
Now here come the flame mods :-)
You'll pretty much deserve the flame mods though. Pretending that there's one "god" portrayed differently by the various religions isn't helping your case. "Logical challenges a scientific analysis demands" suggesting that a divine being (perhaps the source of the universe), is somehow subject to science, is a curious argument at best. You don't appear to be in a good position to be saying "it is so" to all those with religious beliefs.
There's diversity out there, which is why the conversation is worth having : how do different beliefs interact with people's way of understanding science ? Scientists throughout history have had various beliefs which may have helped or hindered their quest for knowledge. They're part of the discussion
If you've got a full meal ahead of you, have a read of The Mind of God by Paul Davies or Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship by John Polkinghorne (Physics).
With a bit less time, for a snack, nibble on the short article Creation and Evolution not Creation or Evolution by R J Berry (Geneticist) and you should start to have a few ideas for conversation with biscuits.
I don't like the secret/stealth update either.
That's fine - you're a geek. However, for my parents, I'm recommending they go for Chrome simply because of the update feature. Any kind of manual intervention in updating is going to throw them, but with Chrome, they're going to be up to date and relatively secure. Chrome's got it right for the vast majority of users and Mozilla would do well to go in the same direction.
The big question I can see though is: where does this leave Microsoft? Suddenly, the general feeling seems to be that Windows 7 isn't up to the tablet task. Which leaves Microsoft with nothing on the market. OK, you've got Bill Gates making some vague declarations of "doing something with a stylus", but there's nothing concrete. Win 7 doesn't cut it, Windows Phone 7 isn't out yet and probably isn't adapted to tablets. The world's premier OS manufacturer appears to have nothing to offer a whole new segment of personal computing. Apple, Google, HP... lone warriors fighting it out on planet tablet. The usual suspect nowhere to be seen.
Then they came for Windows ME...
In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them.
Kind of depends. If it's for a cleaner or a mechanic, then discrimination on sexual orientation is clearly an issue. However, if churches were unable to refuse employment for someone in, say, pastoral care, with a lifestyle or beliefs contrary to that church's teaching, then such a law would go beyond anti-discrimination and become intolerant dictature.
If you believe it enough, I'm sure it'll happen.
Everything in this entire topic is patent bullshit and we can't have a scientific discussion about it because we're not willing to use real data.
Who needs real data? Just remind me what viewpoint allows me to drive my over-sized penis-extension SUV without feeling guilty.
The amount of dead space on the home screen is really, really bad.
...said Yahoo to Google...
Did you consider that maybe his dog did one or two of them?
Oh but they do understand how to make money. They just marry politicians. It's a business model, too.
Corrected!