Also had a philosophy course where I ran out of steam midway through the final and switched gears into a proof demonstrating why, assuming his approach to grading was consistent and math proceeded to function according to it's normal capacities he was required to grant me a B in the course....and a middle school Geography class where I'd done the math and so long as I maintained attendance and received perfect scores on the tests, I could completely ignore his lectures, class participation, and all homework and receive a medium B in the class. Oddly enough, he was perfectly fine with that, but I pissed substitute teachers off to no end.
Yeah, I did more than my share of that, all the way from grade school through getting my Bachelor's.
Professor for my Intro to Systems Programming (essentially compiler design) sees me hanging out playing UT, asks "So, is your parser for my class done yet?" "Nope." "Have you started yet?" "Nope." "You know it's due tomorrow, right?" "Yep."
Then walking in the following day with 2/3 of a functioning compiler (missing only code output generation because he hadn't told us a target platform) is priceless.
I had a bizarre prescient gift in high school though of naming who would pass and who would fail our high school Comp Sci classes within 1 week of the first day of class.
The distinction between the Holmes one-liner and your statement being that in science we take the same approach, except we continue trying to find ways to make our current "truth" (in quotes because "truth" is a philosophical concept and has no real meaning within science) impossible while looking closer for other alternatives.
Even then, no one says "man came from apes in the past" but rather that man and apes share a more recent common ancestry than man does with other organisms. The same could be said of man and the set of all non-human mammals in comparison to the set of all non-mammals.
That's not a terrible idea. I see two obvious problem in a lot of places, especially when we're talking about places like TFA:
1. Any religion class that teaches anything about any faith other than the predominate one in the community in a remotely equal light will lead to even more screams from parents that "Obama is trying to turn my children into Muslims through our godless school system!" or the like, substitute "Obama" for major political figure they don't like at some level of government and "Muslims" for members of any given faith other than their own.
2. Any religion class that doesn't fall under (1) is dangerously close to the establishment clause.
Devise an experiment that falls remotely within what evolution predicts that would disprove creationism. It doesn't even have to be a *practical* experiment.
Here's the problem: Stripped down to it's core, here's the concept behind evolution:
1. Things have a physical information storing component that tells their bodies how to manufacture themselves. Currently, we believe this component to be DNA, though it being the specific mechanism is not absolutely necessary. 2. Individuals are created by one or more (typically one or two) other similar creatures, referred to here as parents. 3. The information storing component of the parent creature(s) is used as a source to produce the base information from which to create the new individual (whether as a direct copy or some kind of mechanism for mixing the data and producing one result set [sperm and egg, each with a half-set, for example]). 4. The process in (3) is imperfect, generating some small, but non-zero amount of "unique" data in a given individual. 5. Not everyone lives to reproductive age and successfully produces offspring, and traits inherited via the component referenced in (1) and/or modified in (4) in combination with environment can influence an individuals success in this regard. 6. Those who out-breed others make their traits more common in the population as a whole via (3).
Repeat this thousands upon thousands of times, and isloate groups from each other (with different pressures on each group effecting (5)). The implication is that after enough repetition, individuals from separated groups resemble each other less and less, and may eventually cease to be biologically compatible with each other.
Amusingly, much like the "under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" had no official status until the mid 20th century. Without bringing "Communists are atheists and we need to prove we're nothing like them" into it, neither would have likely happened.
Actually, since Fox News and a significant portion of the country's internet service are owned by, well, the same people (more or less) I'd expect Fox News to be "Where more Americans get their online News* than any other source**."
*Our lawyers advise us to note that we are not actually a source of News. **Because you can't load any other online news source in less than 10 minutes.
Problem: Limited physical lines, and unwillingness to grant everyone who wants to run lines across X people's property permission to do so.
Without forcing the lines themselves into a state where arbitrary competing companies can use them interchangeably on equal terms, you can't have real competition.
Or things could go the other way entirely and the line could become so blurred that people simply stop caring because *everyone* has embarrassing photos of them out there somewhere.
I always liked this answer -- you can't change the past, because if you had you wouldn't have gone back to change it in the first, so anything you go back in time to change is doomed to fail leaving only collateral damage, which you would already be familiar with, because that's how things always happened.
Essentially, the history we have currently is the final result of any/all time travel that ever occurs already. You can't change history because you already have.
So, what you are suggesting in the case of the grandfather paradox is that you kill your grandfather, are never born, and yet continue to exist unscathed? Essentially being a causeless effect, or rather an effect that causes it's cause never to have occurred?
Essentially the opposite of a closed temporal loop where something is it's own cause.
Of course the SMBC leaves out the third possibility: You go back in time and only change things that were unintended, causing you to not notice any changes because they "were always like that" as of the moment you made said changes. But that of course assumes that changing something that would effect you in some way actually does effect you, and not cause you to live without ever being born (for example).
...and if I set up a low-power FM transmitter in my home (under the FCC limit -- a lot of old "use your walkman/CD-man/iPod with your car stereo" kits use this technique), I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that noone passing by will ever, under any circumstances, tune their radio to the station I am transmitting on. Even if the particular frequency is a well known and published standard.
No, Fox "News" (in quotes because they claim that they themselves are not news) has pretty specific standards, they are just different standards than the ones you'd like, or that AP uses.
Wasn't the "Free Mitnick" thing more about him being held for four and a half years without a trial, and for most of that with no indications that one was coming anytime soon? It amazes me that "we know you did it and are certain enough that we need to arrest you" and "we need nearly another half a decade to get enough evidence to prove you did it" aren't explicitly mutually exclusive.
That isn't exactly what I'd call a "speedy" trial...
I'd rally behind this guy avoiding extradition if we had him brought over hear and locked him up for half a decade before bringing him to trial. After all, the 6th isn't limited to citizens, it does explicitly state "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right..."
That's what I was thinking as I read that. I mean, yeah, a.22 isn't as intimidating, but it's also a lot more comfortable to fire, especially for someone who's never fired a gun, and especially for a kid. That, and the ammo is cheap.
Are you saying we shouldn't ban meditation? I mean, once you are practiced at it, it is possible to induce ecstatic states through meditation, which makes it the same thing as heroin, cocaine, or ecstasy, right?
...unless she is a member of your D&D group, of course. Then that might be the specific topic of discussion, or it might be something else entirely, or she might just want to jump your bones. One of those is probably right, at least.
...or people who live in rural mountainous areas, where cell service is patchy and wildly different per provider. Much of the population living in hollows along various small streams with mountains on literally every side except up/downstream makes for limited service -- mountains are good at stopping that kind of thing.
Heh, I get 10 days vacation + 10 hours doctor's visits + sick leave that is complicated...being out sick up to X days (I think three, would have to check my employee handbook to verify though) comes from vacation, then it comes from a separate pool to a maximum of Y days. Without a special management meeting being held, we cannot exceed 10 sequential business days off aside from extended illness (as in vacation + holidays + weekends greater than 14 days).
At 7 years employed we get another 5 vacation days. At 15 years employed it goes up another 5 beyond that. One of the guys that closing in on retirement and has been around since he was 18 had one of those special management meetings regarding his vacation and basically took from the week of thanksgiving till new years off in a stretch since his particular job was supposed to be slow for a while (they put a condition on it -- that they be able to call him back in if they needed him, with that vacation day being paid for in addition to his time -- they called him in three days out of that span, two of them because the other guy who did the same job as him had to be out).
The answer is this then -- civil union. No, not as an alternative to marriage for gays, but as a replacement. Separate legal marriage from religious marriage completely. Civil unions get "cut and pasted" in place of marriage in all the laws, and add a clear protection that protects all religious groups from having to perform marriage/union ceremonies of any kind for any one for any reason at their discretion.
There, there is no longer a legal difference between one couple and the next because one is gay and the other is not, it's clearly and explicitly stated that your church doesn't have to marry gays if it doesn't want to in clear black and white, and if you really feel like it, you can say that because they weren't married according to your faith that they aren't "really" married.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe a WoW expansion on release day? Those can be exceptionally hard to find and I'm sure there are female WoW addicts out there...
Also had a philosophy course where I ran out of steam midway through the final and switched gears into a proof demonstrating why, assuming his approach to grading was consistent and math proceeded to function according to it's normal capacities he was required to grant me a B in the course. ...and a middle school Geography class where I'd done the math and so long as I maintained attendance and received perfect scores on the tests, I could completely ignore his lectures, class participation, and all homework and receive a medium B in the class. Oddly enough, he was perfectly fine with that, but I pissed substitute teachers off to no end.
Yeah, I did more than my share of that, all the way from grade school through getting my Bachelor's.
Professor for my Intro to Systems Programming (essentially compiler design) sees me hanging out playing UT, asks "So, is your parser for my class done yet?"
"Nope."
"Have you started yet?"
"Nope."
"You know it's due tomorrow, right?"
"Yep."
Then walking in the following day with 2/3 of a functioning compiler (missing only code output generation because he hadn't told us a target platform) is priceless.
I had a bizarre prescient gift in high school though of naming who would pass and who would fail our high school Comp Sci classes within 1 week of the first day of class.
The distinction between the Holmes one-liner and your statement being that in science we take the same approach, except we continue trying to find ways to make our current "truth" (in quotes because "truth" is a philosophical concept and has no real meaning within science) impossible while looking closer for other alternatives.
Even then, no one says "man came from apes in the past" but rather that man and apes share a more recent common ancestry than man does with other organisms. The same could be said of man and the set of all non-human mammals in comparison to the set of all non-mammals.
That's not a terrible idea. I see two obvious problem in a lot of places, especially when we're talking about places like TFA:
1. Any religion class that teaches anything about any faith other than the predominate one in the community in a remotely equal light will lead to even more screams from parents that "Obama is trying to turn my children into Muslims through our godless school system!" or the like, substitute "Obama" for major political figure they don't like at some level of government and "Muslims" for members of any given faith other than their own.
2. Any religion class that doesn't fall under (1) is dangerously close to the establishment clause.
Devise an experiment that falls remotely within what evolution predicts that would disprove creationism. It doesn't even have to be a *practical* experiment.
Here's the problem: Stripped down to it's core, here's the concept behind evolution:
1. Things have a physical information storing component that tells their bodies how to manufacture themselves. Currently, we believe this component to be DNA, though it being the specific mechanism is not absolutely necessary.
2. Individuals are created by one or more (typically one or two) other similar creatures, referred to here as parents.
3. The information storing component of the parent creature(s) is used as a source to produce the base information from which to create the new individual (whether as a direct copy or some kind of mechanism for mixing the data and producing one result set [sperm and egg, each with a half-set, for example]).
4. The process in (3) is imperfect, generating some small, but non-zero amount of "unique" data in a given individual.
5. Not everyone lives to reproductive age and successfully produces offspring, and traits inherited via the component referenced in (1) and/or modified in (4) in combination with environment can influence an individuals success in this regard.
6. Those who out-breed others make their traits more common in the population as a whole via (3).
Repeat this thousands upon thousands of times, and isloate groups from each other (with different pressures on each group effecting (5)). The implication is that after enough repetition, individuals from separated groups resemble each other less and less, and may eventually cease to be biologically compatible with each other.
Now, where are you attacking this, again?
Amusingly, much like the "under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" had no official status until the mid 20th century. Without bringing "Communists are atheists and we need to prove we're nothing like them" into it, neither would have likely happened.
Actually, since Fox News and a significant portion of the country's internet service are owned by, well, the same people (more or less) I'd expect Fox News to be "Where more Americans get their online News* than any other source**."
*Our lawyers advise us to note that we are not actually a source of News.
**Because you can't load any other online news source in less than 10 minutes.
Problem: Limited physical lines, and unwillingness to grant everyone who wants to run lines across X people's property permission to do so.
Without forcing the lines themselves into a state where arbitrary competing companies can use them interchangeably on equal terms, you can't have real competition.
Or things could go the other way entirely and the line could become so blurred that people simply stop caring because *everyone* has embarrassing photos of them out there somewhere.
I always liked this answer -- you can't change the past, because if you had you wouldn't have gone back to change it in the first, so anything you go back in time to change is doomed to fail leaving only collateral damage, which you would already be familiar with, because that's how things always happened.
Essentially, the history we have currently is the final result of any/all time travel that ever occurs already. You can't change history because you already have.
So, what you are suggesting in the case of the grandfather paradox is that you kill your grandfather, are never born, and yet continue to exist unscathed? Essentially being a causeless effect, or rather an effect that causes it's cause never to have occurred?
Essentially the opposite of a closed temporal loop where something is it's own cause.
Of course the SMBC leaves out the third possibility: You go back in time and only change things that were unintended, causing you to not notice any changes because they "were always like that" as of the moment you made said changes. But that of course assumes that changing something that would effect you in some way actually does effect you, and not cause you to live without ever being born (for example).
Why does this sound more and more like something to buy and experiment with Chromium OS on?
...and if I set up a low-power FM transmitter in my home (under the FCC limit -- a lot of old "use your walkman/CD-man/iPod with your car stereo" kits use this technique), I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that noone passing by will ever, under any circumstances, tune their radio to the station I am transmitting on. Even if the particular frequency is a well known and published standard.
Right?
No, Fox "News" (in quotes because they claim that they themselves are not news) has pretty specific standards, they are just different standards than the ones you'd like, or that AP uses.
Wasn't the "Free Mitnick" thing more about him being held for four and a half years without a trial, and for most of that with no indications that one was coming anytime soon? It amazes me that "we know you did it and are certain enough that we need to arrest you" and "we need nearly another half a decade to get enough evidence to prove you did it" aren't explicitly mutually exclusive.
That isn't exactly what I'd call a "speedy" trial...
I'd rally behind this guy avoiding extradition if we had him brought over hear and locked him up for half a decade before bringing him to trial. After all, the 6th isn't limited to citizens, it does explicitly state "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right..."
That's what I was thinking as I read that. I mean, yeah, a .22 isn't as intimidating, but it's also a lot more comfortable to fire, especially for someone who's never fired a gun, and especially for a kid. That, and the ammo is cheap.
Are you saying we shouldn't ban meditation? I mean, once you are practiced at it, it is possible to induce ecstatic states through meditation, which makes it the same thing as heroin, cocaine, or ecstasy, right?
Even if you are a fruitarian, aren't you eating aborted baby plants? Ending their poor lives before they could even really begin?
That said, unless you perform photosynthesis or live on a volcanic vent in the deep ocean, you survive only by killing and eating other living things.
...unless she is a member of your D&D group, of course. Then that might be the specific topic of discussion, or it might be something else entirely, or she might just want to jump your bones. One of those is probably right, at least.
...or people who live in rural mountainous areas, where cell service is patchy and wildly different per provider. Much of the population living in hollows along various small streams with mountains on literally every side except up/downstream makes for limited service -- mountains are good at stopping that kind of thing.
I left out holidays, we get 11 of those at my employer. As well as a profit-sharing incentive bonus every quarter which is often pretty substantial.
Heh, I get 10 days vacation + 10 hours doctor's visits + sick leave that is complicated...being out sick up to X days (I think three, would have to check my employee handbook to verify though) comes from vacation, then it comes from a separate pool to a maximum of Y days. Without a special management meeting being held, we cannot exceed 10 sequential business days off aside from extended illness (as in vacation + holidays + weekends greater than 14 days).
At 7 years employed we get another 5 vacation days. At 15 years employed it goes up another 5 beyond that. One of the guys that closing in on retirement and has been around since he was 18 had one of those special management meetings regarding his vacation and basically took from the week of thanksgiving till new years off in a stretch since his particular job was supposed to be slow for a while (they put a condition on it -- that they be able to call him back in if they needed him, with that vacation day being paid for in addition to his time -- they called him in three days out of that span, two of them because the other guy who did the same job as him had to be out).
That is true.
The answer is this then -- civil union. No, not as an alternative to marriage for gays, but as a replacement. Separate legal marriage from religious marriage completely. Civil unions get "cut and pasted" in place of marriage in all the laws, and add a clear protection that protects all religious groups from having to perform marriage/union ceremonies of any kind for any one for any reason at their discretion.
There, there is no longer a legal difference between one couple and the next because one is gay and the other is not, it's clearly and explicitly stated that your church doesn't have to marry gays if it doesn't want to in clear black and white, and if you really feel like it, you can say that because they weren't married according to your faith that they aren't "really" married.