The poster I responded to didn't say anything about moonquakes, so, the moon is still a possibility (although quite likely not much of an improvement).
It has been a long time but there have been occassions of Category 3 and 4 Hurricanes making first landfall in New England. When that happens they are just as devastating as those winter storms you fear. Although it does not happen very often and it appears that this one will be below, or barely at, Category 3 by the time it hits New England. There was a stretch from 1938-1960 where New England was hit by Category 3 every couple of years (with the 1938 storm reaching Category 5 level gusts at some places).
Of course, the Believers would have more converts if they would act as if they believed that CO2 emmission was a problem. When the people who are busy telling us how bad CO2 is are busy running around the world releasing more CO2 than the people who are saying that it is nothing to be concerned about it really undermines their message.
I would definitely agree with you there, although I do not think it is just because it does not see the need to advertise its virtual platform. I have a friend who is a content developer on SL and makes a pretty decent amount out of it (before the economy went south, he was making more out of his SL business than I make at my RL job), but all of his income from that business came from people buying things inside SL for use inside SL.
The real estate idea is interesting, but do they really get a competitive advantage that pays a profit on the cost of setting those virtual houses up? I will repeat, that sounds like a good idea and the sort of idea that a virtual world like SL is perfect for. I just wonder if they really sell any more houses because they have it than they would if they didn't.
I do think that, sooner or later, someone will figure out how to use a virtual world to make an impact on real world business (and perhaps the real estate company you mentioned has done so). Once that happens SL (or one of its clones, as you said the sourcecode is Open Source) will start growing again, in SL's case that of course depends on Linden Labs not sabotaging that growth.
Anshe Chung was big back when it looked like Second Life might take off. It is not news that he/she has made a lot of money on Second Life. There was even an article here on slashdot two or three years ago. Anshe Chung made a lot of money by recognizing the possibilities early, just before the buzz hit about Second Life. Since Second Life has passed its apogee, Anshe Chung has managed to continue making money by being one of the dominant players in Second Life business (as a result of having gotten there first).
For those who don't understand Second Life, there are a lot of people who believe that there is a business use for virtual worlds. Second Life became big because it was the first virtual world that looked like it had put all of the peices together. Unfortunately (for Linden Labs and those who think virtual worlds are the future), no one has figured out how to do real world business in a virtual world. Fortunately for Second Life content developers (like Anshe Chung), there are a lot of people who are willing to spend a fair amount of money on their entertainment. Today, Second Life is a visual chat room.
So, the answer is that you believe that the answer to all of society's problems is to ask the people who claimed that there was no problem with the banking system while those banks and investment firms were blowing up that money to spend ever more money.
You know, I don't even know what your point is. What "double standard" are you talking about? Please refer to the post you replied to (and if need be, the upstream thread).
eMarketer is the largest internet market research group in the world.
And this means they are a reliable source? Why? It would seem to me that an internet market research firm would have reason to overstate the value of internet marketing.
Really? You think that either the government wisely spends the money that isn't spent on "defense", or you think that it is not spending it in ever increasing amounts. In either case, I think you are a fool.
So, let me get this straight, you think that restaurants and bars should change the channel from one thing that you are completely uninterested in but some of their other patrons are, to something else that you are completely uninterested in?
No, that is not problem. The problem is that government expenditures have steadily increased as a percentage of GDP and yet the outcomes for which we rely on government have gotten steadily worse. As someone pointed out in another post, in 1961 we spent $2808 in inflation adjuted dollars per student, in 2008 we spent $10,441. I have not seen it laid out, but based on other things I have seen I believe that a significant part of that increased spending is on administrative personell.
The problem is that every time people try to exert monetory discipline on political organizations, the organizations cut from the parts that deliver essential services, not from the administrative overhead.
Well, of course it has. The teachers now teach the students that Republicans are by nature evil. That is worth all of the cost in lost ability in math, reading comprehension, understanding of history and ability to use the English language. Additionally, they have less of an understanding of how the U.S. government is designed to work. How can one not see that as money well spent?
Right, because spending money we don't have is such a grand idea.
Further, taxes may be the lowest they have been since the 50s on the upper classes, yet the upper classes are paying a larger share of government revenue than ever. So, what you are suggesting is that we should go back to the days when the percentage of money we took from the upper classes was more, but we got a smaller share of government revenue from them?
The problem is that our government both spends unwisely and in ever increasing amounts. When the economy is going strong, government spending increases because there is plenty of tax revenue to support it. When the economy is doing poorly, government spending increases because "we can't afford to cut spending when the economy is weak." Of course, they never, ever actually cut spending. All they do is not spend as much more than last year as they said they would.
It is only like that if you have only ever seen one ant nest and everyone you know of has only ever seen that one ant nest. As I said it is no different than the belief of someone who looks at the world around them and says "This could not have happened by chance, Someone must have designed it."
Which means we have no idea how hard it is for life to form. There is no basis for determining the statistical likelihood of life arising. Which means that it does not matter how many stars are out there, we have no basis for saying whether or not it is statistically likely that life has arisen elsewhere. As you said, we simply do not know enough. Therefore, your belief that there is other intelligent life in the universe is just that a belief, no more scientific, and really, no different, than someone's belief that there is a Creator.
I do not believe that that is true, despite the best efforts of the media to give people that impression. The reason that you, and many other people, are under the impression that people think that "stem cell" equals "embryonic stem cell" is because the media has done its best to blur the distinction, rarely noting the difference. The media often drop the word "embryonic" from the statements of opponents of embryonic stem cell research.
The thing is, the people who oppose embryonic stem cell research do so because they believe that it involves the taking of a human life. They do not oppose it because they are luddites, who oppose all new technology and all scientific research. There has been a concerted effort by the media to make the terms "stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research" interchangeable in most people's minds.
Yes, I love the people who think that Photoshop's UI is intuitive because they have been working with it for years. My wife plays Second Life. Another friend of ours develops content for Second Life (he actually makes pretty good money at it). He came out with a new product a couple of months ago and was very proud of his "intuitive" user interface for making modifications to it. My wife tried it out and found it difficult to figure out She told him that he needed to make it simpler and easier to understand. His response was, "What's the problem? It is intuitive, it works just like in Photoshop." She explained to him that she had never worked with Photoshop and had no idea how Photoshop worked and that neither would most of his potential customers.
Really? I know quite a few that you would call fundies and none of them are particularly committed to the idea that there is no other life in the universe.
I'm curious, what do you base your idea that statistically there must be life out there? How did life appear? Under what conditions? Why has no one been able to recreate those conditions?
The answer is, we do not know how life appeared and under what conditions it appeared. Since we do not know that, we have no way to alculate how likely life is to occur. Until someone can recreate the appearance of life, we will not be able to start the process of figuring out how likely, or unlikely, the appearance of life is. Your belief that there is intelligent life out there somewhere is non-scientific. That doesn't mean that it is wrong, just that there is no scientific way to test it.
So, what are those numbers. The only articles I can find talk about "cuts", but those are in the same sources that say that the federal debt deal involved cuts (when all it involved was a reduction in the amount of increase). What are the actual numbers last year to this year? How much was last year's budget for education in Texas, how much is this year's? I cannot find a source for those numbers.
Yes, it is tricky. The problem is, we do not know what problems it will present because we do not know what form that life takes (if it exists). Until we encounter such life, all speculation as to what theological problems (or non-theological problems, for that matter) it will present are fruitless speculation because we do not have enough knowledge to adequately predict what those problems will be.
I do not know anyone who does so. I know a few who interpret the Bible that we are the only life in the universe, but it is not so fundamental to their belief system that their faith would suffer from the appearance of alien life.That is, they do not "insist" that we are the only life in the universe, but their understanding of the Bible leads them to that conclusion. From a scientific perspective, I believe that there is no other life in the universe for the simple reason that believing that there is other life in the universe is unscientific.
The belief that there is no other life in the universe is falsifiable. All you have to do is produce conclusive evidence of life somewhere else in the universe and it is proven. On the other hand, the belief that there is other life in the universe is completely unfalsifiable. If you fail to find life, it just means that you have not yet looked in the right place.
Slashdot Mirror
The poster I responded to didn't say anything about moonquakes, so, the moon is still a possibility (although quite likely not much of an improvement).
It has been a long time but there have been occassions of Category 3 and 4 Hurricanes making first landfall in New England. When that happens they are just as devastating as those winter storms you fear. Although it does not happen very often and it appears that this one will be below, or barely at, Category 3 by the time it hits New England. There was a stretch from 1938-1960 where New England was hit by Category 3 every couple of years (with the 1938 storm reaching Category 5 level gusts at some places).
And where would that be? On the Moon perhaps?
Of course, the Believers would have more converts if they would act as if they believed that CO2 emmission was a problem. When the people who are busy telling us how bad CO2 is are busy running around the world releasing more CO2 than the people who are saying that it is nothing to be concerned about it really undermines their message.
The real reason lies with the company Linden Lab.
I would definitely agree with you there, although I do not think it is just because it does not see the need to advertise its virtual platform. I have a friend who is a content developer on SL and makes a pretty decent amount out of it (before the economy went south, he was making more out of his SL business than I make at my RL job), but all of his income from that business came from people buying things inside SL for use inside SL.
The real estate idea is interesting, but do they really get a competitive advantage that pays a profit on the cost of setting those virtual houses up? I will repeat, that sounds like a good idea and the sort of idea that a virtual world like SL is perfect for. I just wonder if they really sell any more houses because they have it than they would if they didn't.
I do think that, sooner or later, someone will figure out how to use a virtual world to make an impact on real world business (and perhaps the real estate company you mentioned has done so). Once that happens SL (or one of its clones, as you said the sourcecode is Open Source) will start growing again, in SL's case that of course depends on Linden Labs not sabotaging that growth.
Anshe Chung was big back when it looked like Second Life might take off. It is not news that he/she has made a lot of money on Second Life. There was even an article here on slashdot two or three years ago. Anshe Chung made a lot of money by recognizing the possibilities early, just before the buzz hit about Second Life. Since Second Life has passed its apogee, Anshe Chung has managed to continue making money by being one of the dominant players in Second Life business (as a result of having gotten there first).
For those who don't understand Second Life, there are a lot of people who believe that there is a business use for virtual worlds. Second Life became big because it was the first virtual world that looked like it had put all of the peices together. Unfortunately (for Linden Labs and those who think virtual worlds are the future), no one has figured out how to do real world business in a virtual world. Fortunately for Second Life content developers (like Anshe Chung), there are a lot of people who are willing to spend a fair amount of money on their entertainment. Today, Second Life is a visual chat room.
So, the answer is that you believe that the answer to all of society's problems is to ask the people who claimed that there was no problem with the banking system while those banks and investment firms were blowing up that money to spend ever more money.
You know, I don't even know what your point is. What "double standard" are you talking about? Please refer to the post you replied to (and if need be, the upstream thread).
eMarketer is the largest internet market research group in the world.
And this means they are a reliable source? Why? It would seem to me that an internet market research firm would have reason to overstate the value of internet marketing.
So, basically, we have no idea if that number means anything more than the numbers put out by the RIAA.
Really? You think that either the government wisely spends the money that isn't spent on "defense", or you think that it is not spending it in ever increasing amounts. In either case, I think you are a fool.
So, let me get this straight, you think that restaurants and bars should change the channel from one thing that you are completely uninterested in but some of their other patrons are, to something else that you are completely uninterested in?
No, that is not problem. The problem is that government expenditures have steadily increased as a percentage of GDP and yet the outcomes for which we rely on government have gotten steadily worse. As someone pointed out in another post, in 1961 we spent $2808 in inflation adjuted dollars per student, in 2008 we spent $10,441. I have not seen it laid out, but based on other things I have seen I believe that a significant part of that increased spending is on administrative personell.
The problem is that every time people try to exert monetory discipline on political organizations, the organizations cut from the parts that deliver essential services, not from the administrative overhead.
Well, of course it has. The teachers now teach the students that Republicans are by nature evil. That is worth all of the cost in lost ability in math, reading comprehension, understanding of history and ability to use the English language. Additionally, they have less of an understanding of how the U.S. government is designed to work. How can one not see that as money well spent?
Right, because spending money we don't have is such a grand idea.
Further, taxes may be the lowest they have been since the 50s on the upper classes, yet the upper classes are paying a larger share of government revenue than ever. So, what you are suggesting is that we should go back to the days when the percentage of money we took from the upper classes was more, but we got a smaller share of government revenue from them?
The problem is that our government both spends unwisely and in ever increasing amounts. When the economy is going strong, government spending increases because there is plenty of tax revenue to support it. When the economy is doing poorly, government spending increases because "we can't afford to cut spending when the economy is weak." Of course, they never, ever actually cut spending. All they do is not spend as much more than last year as they said they would.
All of the studies I have seen that indicate the failure of promoting abstinence use methodologies designed to get that result.
I love how people fail to understand logic and then call people who believe differently than themselves illogical.
It is only like that if you have only ever seen one ant nest and everyone you know of has only ever seen that one ant nest. As I said it is no different than the belief of someone who looks at the world around them and says "This could not have happened by chance, Someone must have designed it."
We simply do not yet know enough.
Which means we have no idea how hard it is for life to form. There is no basis for determining the statistical likelihood of life arising. Which means that it does not matter how many stars are out there, we have no basis for saying whether or not it is statistically likely that life has arisen elsewhere. As you said, we simply do not know enough. Therefore, your belief that there is other intelligent life in the universe is just that a belief, no more scientific, and really, no different, than someone's belief that there is a Creator.
I do not believe that that is true, despite the best efforts of the media to give people that impression. The reason that you, and many other people, are under the impression that people think that "stem cell" equals "embryonic stem cell" is because the media has done its best to blur the distinction, rarely noting the difference. The media often drop the word "embryonic" from the statements of opponents of embryonic stem cell research.
The thing is, the people who oppose embryonic stem cell research do so because they believe that it involves the taking of a human life. They do not oppose it because they are luddites, who oppose all new technology and all scientific research. There has been a concerted effort by the media to make the terms "stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research" interchangeable in most people's minds.
Yes, I love the people who think that Photoshop's UI is intuitive because they have been working with it for years. My wife plays Second Life. Another friend of ours develops content for Second Life (he actually makes pretty good money at it). He came out with a new product a couple of months ago and was very proud of his "intuitive" user interface for making modifications to it. My wife tried it out and found it difficult to figure out She told him that he needed to make it simpler and easier to understand. His response was, "What's the problem? It is intuitive, it works just like in Photoshop." She explained to him that she had never worked with Photoshop and had no idea how Photoshop worked and that neither would most of his potential customers.
Really? I know quite a few that you would call fundies and none of them are particularly committed to the idea that there is no other life in the universe.
I'm curious, what do you base your idea that statistically there must be life out there? How did life appear? Under what conditions? Why has no one been able to recreate those conditions?
The answer is, we do not know how life appeared and under what conditions it appeared. Since we do not know that, we have no way to alculate how likely life is to occur. Until someone can recreate the appearance of life, we will not be able to start the process of figuring out how likely, or unlikely, the appearance of life is. Your belief that there is intelligent life out there somewhere is non-scientific. That doesn't mean that it is wrong, just that there is no scientific way to test it.
So, what are those numbers. The only articles I can find talk about "cuts", but those are in the same sources that say that the federal debt deal involved cuts (when all it involved was a reduction in the amount of increase). What are the actual numbers last year to this year? How much was last year's budget for education in Texas, how much is this year's? I cannot find a source for those numbers.
Yes, it is tricky. The problem is, we do not know what problems it will present because we do not know what form that life takes (if it exists). Until we encounter such life, all speculation as to what theological problems (or non-theological problems, for that matter) it will present are fruitless speculation because we do not have enough knowledge to adequately predict what those problems will be.
I do not know anyone who does so. I know a few who interpret the Bible that we are the only life in the universe, but it is not so fundamental to their belief system that their faith would suffer from the appearance of alien life.That is, they do not "insist" that we are the only life in the universe, but their understanding of the Bible leads them to that conclusion. From a scientific perspective, I believe that there is no other life in the universe for the simple reason that believing that there is other life in the universe is unscientific.
The belief that there is no other life in the universe is falsifiable. All you have to do is produce conclusive evidence of life somewhere else in the universe and it is proven. On the other hand, the belief that there is other life in the universe is completely unfalsifiable. If you fail to find life, it just means that you have not yet looked in the right place.