That does not mean what you think it means: Science is constantly proving religion wrong
Science has proved some religious claims wrong, yes. But not "religion" -- it's a much more diverse category than most slashdotters seem to realise, and most of the polemic against it fails to define its terms (or, in the case of Dawkins, defines its terms and then ignores those definitions).
and it gives science an underlying purpose to keep moving forward with its work in every category while religion is constantly revising its interpretations of an apparently flawless book.
What flawless book is that, that all religion acknowledges?
Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition".
In your sense of "religious". As religion was understood by Schliermacher he was intensely religious.
The day that Muslims will allow intellectual freedom to make fun of their own god and religious icons, is the day we can start giving religious zealots the respect they deserve (you should note the irony in that statement).
Some Muslims do. They don't tend to get into the headlines, though, or head up maniacal regimes.
Aquinas answered that in the 13th century. Try to keep up.
For what it's worth the specific form of the ontological argument he was responding to defined complexity in terms of the number of parts and their internal interactions. Given that God -- as understood by Aquinas -- is not material, he has no parts at all and no internal interactions, and so is trivially simple in that sense. Alvin Plantinga recently restated that argument in response to Dawkins. It doesn't mean the ontological argument is necessarily a good one -- it has a problem with the principle of sufficient reason -- but it does mean that that objection isn't a particularly good one.
In what way does a computer specialist's job rely on the scientific method? Heck, even some great scientists have problems understanding the scientific method. Stephen Hawking is probably one of the greatest scientists alive, but he still writes nonsense about the scientific method like ""Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others." (For the uninitiated, the approach put forward by Karl Popper was directly opposed to positivism.) If Hawking can achieve what he's achieved without properly understanding the scientific method, what does a computer team lead at NASA need it for? Maybe the people who interpret the results of the missions need it, but if you'll pardon the apparent oxymoron, rocket science isn't exactly Rocket Science.
In the USA, we are lucky if a simple majority of people vote at all. Internet based voting might help with that, since it takes some of the effort out of voting.
Whereas in North Korea the turnout is almost 100%. Higher turnout clearly makes for a better election. For some definitions of "better".
So they've done the right thing. They're not interested in sympathy; they found that a particular product on a particular platform was unprofitable, so they dropped it.
I'm not interested in two thousand times the processing power if it's still the same crap gameplay. I still like some of the vintage games with chunky block graphics because they're fun to play.
Longer version: If we start down the 'categories' road then everybody will want one.
My thoughts exactly. If we have best Sci-Fi then why not best Rom-Com, best road movie, best fantasy, best drama, best gay cowboy movie and so on. Heck, why not have a category for every film made, that way everyone's a winner.
If they want an award that films like Avatar could win, maybe an award for "highest grossing". But I can see why the Academy doesn't see a need for that.
Ofcom. But although they regulate, they tend to leave spectrum enforcement to whoever is suffering as a result of the interference (basically, if you want to stop the interference then you find out who is doing it and take them to court), except in the most severe and persistent cases.
In any case, the entire reason we have the FCC is precisely because you don't get to decide how other people use radio.
The FCC has less power in the UK than you seem to think.
You're not allowed to jam GPS because you don't like it.
Did you notice that the summary referred to illegal GPS jamming?
Not to mention, it's military.
But not UK military. I doubt the DoD will be interested unless they're planning to invade the UK.
Most radio is licensed, including GPS.
That's arguable, actually. And because it's such low power, harmonics and spurious emissions from high powered transmitters that are entirely within legal limits can jam GPS -- there have been problems reported from TV transmitters, for instance.
The prime insight on this that you need to know is that the European Commission is a bunch of mindless jerks who appear to have done the right thing in this case. That's the basic cultural knowledge you need to have to correctly assess the relationships between government bodies and the people within the EU.
Unless the bitching is contempt of court or some such. Unfortunately the RA appears to be slashdotted at the moment so I can't tell what the actual issue is.
By my reckoning, an average of 132 problems per 100 cars (as far as I can tell this is per year) is still dreadful. If I keep my car properly serviced and don't drive it into a wall I expect it to pretty much keep going year-in, year-out. 20 problems per 100 cars (an average of a problem every 5 years) would probably be acceptable.
If they hadn't brought their drone along, the hunters wouldn't have been shooting in the direction of a highway.
Riiight... Why does that remind me of the bully saying, "if your face hadn't been there my fist wouldn't have hit it"? The drone didn't make the hunters shoot at it.
On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.
Myth, for what it's worth (and I know it was a joke). It turned out to be due to under-reporting of heart attacks by French doctors.
No, that was debunked. There is no real evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. It's not a paradox.
The effect of the under-reporting is small, but if you look at the correlation between heart attack rates and the relevant fat intakes then a small effect is all that's needed to bring the correlation into line with the rest of the world. I wish it were true that "[t]here is no real evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease", but sadly that's just wishful thinking. The French case actually reinforces this, because it shows that the causal model has predictive power; that's good science.
Slashdot Mirror
So god is trivially simple and was not created. But should be worshiped for some reason?
That's another matter, which the ontological argument doesn't address.
And why aren't there quadrillions of these simple spontaeously generated gods floating around? Yeah, that was answered beautifully.
Maybe there are. Aquinas seems to have anticipated Occam's razor in only positing the minimum number that would satisfy his argument.
How would you define the complexity of a purely spiritual being, then?
True -- Einstein was never really noted for his computer programming skills.
That does not mean what you think it means: Science is constantly proving religion wrong
Science has proved some religious claims wrong, yes. But not "religion" -- it's a much more diverse category than most slashdotters seem to realise, and most of the polemic against it fails to define its terms (or, in the case of Dawkins, defines its terms and then ignores those definitions).
and it gives science an underlying purpose to keep moving forward with its work in every category while religion is constantly revising its interpretations of an apparently flawless book.
What flawless book is that, that all religion acknowledges?
Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition".
In your sense of "religious". As religion was understood by Schliermacher he was intensely religious.
The day that Muslims will allow intellectual freedom to make fun of their own god and religious icons, is the day we can start giving religious zealots the respect they deserve (you should note the irony in that statement).
Some Muslims do. They don't tend to get into the headlines, though, or head up maniacal regimes.
Aquinas answered that in the 13th century. Try to keep up.
For what it's worth the specific form of the ontological argument he was responding to defined complexity in terms of the number of parts and their internal interactions. Given that God -- as understood by Aquinas -- is not material, he has no parts at all and no internal interactions, and so is trivially simple in that sense. Alvin Plantinga recently restated that argument in response to Dawkins. It doesn't mean the ontological argument is necessarily a good one -- it has a problem with the principle of sufficient reason -- but it does mean that that objection isn't a particularly good one.
In what way does a computer specialist's job rely on the scientific method? Heck, even some great scientists have problems understanding the scientific method. Stephen Hawking is probably one of the greatest scientists alive, but he still writes nonsense about the scientific method like ""Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others." (For the uninitiated, the approach put forward by Karl Popper was directly opposed to positivism.) If Hawking can achieve what he's achieved without properly understanding the scientific method, what does a computer team lead at NASA need it for? Maybe the people who interpret the results of the missions need it, but if you'll pardon the apparent oxymoron, rocket science isn't exactly Rocket Science.
In the USA, we are lucky if a simple majority of people vote at all. Internet based voting might help with that, since it takes some of the effort out of voting.
Whereas in North Korea the turnout is almost 100%. Higher turnout clearly makes for a better election. For some definitions of "better".
So they've done the right thing. They're not interested in sympathy; they found that a particular product on a particular platform was unprofitable, so they dropped it.
I'm not interested in two thousand times the processing power if it's still the same crap gameplay. I still like some of the vintage games with chunky block graphics because they're fun to play.
But wouldn't that lead to Darwinian selection? Is that permitted in your State?
We drive on the opposite side to oncoming traffic. I'm sure that's safest. Which side do you drive on?
Sort version: NO
Longer version: If we start down the 'categories' road then everybody will want one.
My thoughts exactly. If we have best Sci-Fi then why not best Rom-Com, best road movie, best fantasy, best drama, best gay cowboy movie and so on. Heck, why not have a category for every film made, that way everyone's a winner.
If they want an award that films like Avatar could win, maybe an award for "highest grossing". But I can see why the Academy doesn't see a need for that.
Ofcom. But although they regulate, they tend to leave spectrum enforcement to whoever is suffering as a result of the interference (basically, if you want to stop the interference then you find out who is doing it and take them to court), except in the most severe and persistent cases.
Paranoid much?
In any case, the entire reason we have the FCC is precisely because you don't get to decide how other people use radio.
The FCC has less power in the UK than you seem to think.
You're not allowed to jam GPS because you don't like it.
Did you notice that the summary referred to illegal GPS jamming?
Not to mention, it's military.
But not UK military. I doubt the DoD will be interested unless they're planning to invade the UK.
Most radio is licensed, including GPS.
That's arguable, actually. And because it's such low power, harmonics and spurious emissions from high powered transmitters that are entirely within legal limits can jam GPS -- there have been problems reported from TV transmitters, for instance.
Any EU slashdotters have any insight on this ?
The prime insight on this that you need to know is that the European Commission is a bunch of mindless jerks who appear to have done the right thing in this case. That's the basic cultural knowledge you need to have to correctly assess the relationships between government bodies and the people within the EU.
FTFY.
Unless the bitching is contempt of court or some such. Unfortunately the RA appears to be slashdotted at the moment so I can't tell what the actual issue is.
By my reckoning, an average of 132 problems per 100 cars (as far as I can tell this is per year) is still dreadful. If I keep my car properly serviced and don't drive it into a wall I expect it to pretty much keep going year-in, year-out. 20 problems per 100 cars (an average of a problem every 5 years) would probably be acceptable.
If they hadn't brought their drone along, the hunters wouldn't have been shooting in the direction of a highway.
Riiight... Why does that remind me of the bully saying, "if your face hadn't been there my fist wouldn't have hit it"? The drone didn't make the hunters shoot at it.
I wish all the old WWII guys would get in their wheel chairs, walkers, and slippers and hobble down to Parliament and scream:
Bloody hell! What the fuck! It looks like we wasted our time and our buddies' lives fighting the Germans!
And then flog all the PMs with their canes.
Yes, because the UK is famous for its death camps. Oh ... wait ... no it isn't.
If they try then China will simply foreclose on the USA's debt.
Ok, the reality is more complicated than that, but China is in a very strong position and the West isn't.
Could somebody change the /. moderation system so that we can take that one above +5, please.
Perhaps they feel it needs to be made stricter...
I don't know if you've ever tried to obtain Halon lately
I'm not sure, but I suspect that NASA would be able to get hold of things like that more easily than I could.
On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.
Myth, for what it's worth (and I know it was a joke). It turned out to be due to under-reporting of heart attacks by French doctors.
No, that was debunked. There is no real evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. It's not a paradox.
The effect of the under-reporting is small, but if you look at the correlation between heart attack rates and the relevant fat intakes then a small effect is all that's needed to bring the correlation into line with the rest of the world. I wish it were true that "[t]here is no real evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease", but sadly that's just wishful thinking. The French case actually reinforces this, because it shows that the causal model has predictive power; that's good science.