And if in 2035 we redo the calculations and find it has no chance of impacting the earth, maybe we can keep the thing around and ready to stop other asteroids with some modification. Seems like a handy thing to have lying around.
Nice attempt to give your creationist/Intelligent design beliefs credibility but the world doesn't work that way. It's an interesting twist on argument from authority though.
On the 6th birthday of Firefox, let's have a funeral for the 6th version of Internet Explorer. It's about time. 9 years is too long for a version of a browser to live.
When it's really windy, use the energy to lift huge quantities of weight to the top of a deep shaft. Then when electricity is needed, allow the weights to fall down the shaft, with the cables they are suspended from driving generators on the way down. Won't wear out like a chemical battery, plus it's not toxic and can be made out of almost anything.
This device is 'scientific proof' (AKA the computer said so) for arresting any one of 90% of the people there that they might want to arrest for some reason.
Think dousing rods here. It's an enforcement departments wet dream.
Wait... we're mad at Google for not keeping track of some personal data on you (language) and using it? I thought we were mad at Google because they *do* do that.
Is there a way for "second wave" settlers to move in after the arrows are mostly used up, still getting the benefit of the new territory, but with less frontier dangers? Don't say that the solution is just to use an older LTS Ubuntu distro, because while they're a little more refined, they haven't had continual attention and refinement going into them to improve them. All the effort is put into exploring new territory, but the already explored territory doesn't seem to improve much past the state it is in when first explored.
"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."
"Due to the length of time that has elapsed since Neanderthals became extinct, any trace of their DNA in modern humans could have been diluted below detectable levels. Paabo hopes to overcome this by scanning the Neanderthal genome for the genes of modern humans."
Okay, he hopes he will be able to overcome this technical limitation. So in other words, the statement that they had sex is just his personal opinion?
Or you could read the rest of that sentence which states you don't do it at churches. NEVER SEEN IT! Went to church for years, never taught me about anything other than trying to brainwash me into Christianity. So will you be spreading the good word of Muhammad once you start preaching? Why not, the stories are about the damn same. There's others out there even more similar... but I am sure you know the names.
I get the feeling that I've been to more churches than you. Sure, not all churches are the same, but most of the ones I know of are a lot more open minded than what you have experienced.
BTW, if you really think Islam and Christianity are are "about the damn same," then you either didn't pay attention all those years at Church, haven't studied Islam, or your church was really messed up.
they would base their beliefs on rational empricism
So you are saying anyone who wants to know if their beliefs are well founded will base their beliefs on rational empiricism, and nothing else.
But then what is the empirical data which indicates that empirical data is the only kind of data which is allowed?
You seriously need to read an introductory book (heck, even a wikipedia article) on Epistemology (the study of knowing whether or not beliefs are well founded, basically). Until you do so, you will continue to just sound silly.
I meant that people who have "faith" don't necessarily need confirmation of their faith. They don't believe in God because of a book, they believe in God because they feel something and God is how they explain that something.
What you are describing is called Fideism. Look it up in a theological dictionary. Very few Christians have been Fideists, historically. Even less so today.
Why do you assume that people at seminary don't do that?
Because they still believe in the Bible. Anybody that applied serious scientific thinking to it wouldn't take it any more seriously than they do Greek mythology.
And what scientific fact is it that makes Christian belief so impossible? And don't say evolution or the Big Bang, there are many many Christians who see both as evidence for God (e.g. the philosopher Nancy Murphy) and most Christians I've known, regardless of their personal stance, think that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
As a Christian who also follows science, please tell me which scientific thinking discredits my Christianity.
If they really wanted to learn, they would actively allow and encourage the "questioning" of their faith/beliefs. They would also at least learn about another religion;
Duh, that's exactly what we do at seminary. Are people really that ignorant about what Christians study? If we wanted to be closed minded and ignorant, we wouldn't need to go to school to learn more!
I'm a seminary student, and though you joke, the biblical studies students I mentioned this too all got really excited and started drooling. I am sure that tools like these will be applied to the Bible soon, though I actually doubt that it will really shed any additional light, since people have been comparing similar phrases and words in the bible for so long. Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.
It would be like making someone smell something and then NOT hitting them in the head with the pipe, but later, they think they remember being hit with the pipe even though they really weren't.
The way you normally hear this story is all about the labels. Some lady didn't know that coffee is hot, and she sued McDonald's for not putting a little "caution: hot!" label on it. Now they do, and that solves that. But the fact that it was really about the coffee being too hot, and the solution involved not just a label, but an actual reduction in temperature makes this seem a lot more reasonable.
Those little warning labels on coffee cups still seem absurd to me though.
Slashdot Mirror
...on a fresh install, anyway. The percentage increases the older your computer gets!
And if in 2035 we redo the calculations and find it has no chance of impacting the earth, maybe we can keep the thing around and ready to stop other asteroids with some modification. Seems like a handy thing to have lying around.
Nice attempt to give your creationist/Intelligent design beliefs credibility but the world doesn't work that way. It's an interesting twist on argument from authority though.
WTF?
On the 6th birthday of Firefox, let's have a funeral for the 6th version of Internet Explorer. It's about time. 9 years is too long for a version of a browser to live.
When it's really windy, use the energy to lift huge quantities of weight to the top of a deep shaft. Then when electricity is needed, allow the weights to fall down the shaft, with the cables they are suspended from driving generators on the way down. Won't wear out like a chemical battery, plus it's not toxic and can be made out of almost anything.
This device is 'scientific proof' (AKA the computer said so) for arresting any one of 90% of the people there that they might want to arrest for some reason.
Think dousing rods here. It's an enforcement departments wet dream.
e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html ?
Wait... we're mad at Google for not keeping track of some personal data on you (language) and using it? I thought we were mad at Google because they *do* do that.
How can you trust NoScript anymore though? It really ought to be removed from the list of essential plugins.
agreed. lets see the browser shares for slashdot!
Pioneers get the arrows
Is there a way for "second wave" settlers to move in after the arrows are mostly used up, still getting the benefit of the new territory, but with less frontier dangers? Don't say that the solution is just to use an older LTS Ubuntu distro, because while they're a little more refined, they haven't had continual attention and refinement going into them to improve them. All the effort is put into exploring new territory, but the already explored territory doesn't seem to improve much past the state it is in when first explored.
"I'm sure that they had sex"
What evidence? The article says:
"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."
"Due to the length of time that has elapsed since Neanderthals became extinct, any trace of their DNA in modern humans could have been diluted below detectable levels. Paabo hopes to overcome this by scanning the Neanderthal genome for the genes of modern humans."
Okay, he hopes he will be able to overcome this technical limitation. So in other words, the statement that they had sex is just his personal opinion?
Sounds like Nobel prize material to me!
I liked the IE5 icon next to the text recommending Netscape Navigator 4.7 in 800x480.
Or you could read the rest of that sentence which states you don't do it at churches. NEVER SEEN IT! Went to church for years, never taught me about anything other than trying to brainwash me into Christianity. So will you be spreading the good word of Muhammad once you start preaching? Why not, the stories are about the damn same. There's others out there even more similar... but I am sure you know the names.
I get the feeling that I've been to more churches than you. Sure, not all churches are the same, but most of the ones I know of are a lot more open minded than what you have experienced.
BTW, if you really think Islam and Christianity are are "about the damn same," then you either didn't pay attention all those years at Church, haven't studied Islam, or your church was really messed up.
they would base their beliefs on rational empricism
So you are saying anyone who wants to know if their beliefs are well founded will base their beliefs on rational empiricism, and nothing else.
But then what is the empirical data which indicates that empirical data is the only kind of data which is allowed?
You seriously need to read an introductory book (heck, even a wikipedia article) on Epistemology (the study of knowing whether or not beliefs are well founded, basically). Until you do so, you will continue to just sound silly.
I meant that people who have "faith" don't necessarily need confirmation of their faith. They don't believe in God because of a book, they believe in God because they feel something and God is how they explain that something.
What you are describing is called Fideism. Look it up in a theological dictionary. Very few Christians have been Fideists, historically. Even less so today.
Why do you assume that people at seminary don't do that?
Because they still believe in the Bible. Anybody that applied serious scientific thinking to it wouldn't take it any more seriously than they do Greek mythology.
And what scientific fact is it that makes Christian belief so impossible? And don't say evolution or the Big Bang, there are many many Christians who see both as evidence for God (e.g. the philosopher Nancy Murphy) and most Christians I've known, regardless of their personal stance, think that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
As a Christian who also follows science, please tell me which scientific thinking discredits my Christianity.
If they really wanted to learn, they would actively allow and encourage the "questioning" of their faith/beliefs. They would also at least learn about another religion;
Duh, that's exactly what we do at seminary. Are people really that ignorant about what Christians study? If we wanted to be closed minded and ignorant, we wouldn't need to go to school to learn more!
I'm a seminary student, and though you joke, the biblical studies students I mentioned this too all got really excited and started drooling. I am sure that tools like these will be applied to the Bible soon, though I actually doubt that it will really shed any additional light, since people have been comparing similar phrases and words in the bible for so long. Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.
It would be like making someone smell something and then NOT hitting them in the head with the pipe, but later, they think they remember being hit with the pipe even though they really weren't.
flamebait? really?
no hard feelings. i was a bit confused too. glad we're all facing the same direction now.
Right... but all of that is contingent upon the first sentence:
The way you normally hear this story is all about the labels.
The point is that the normal story is not the true story, and that once you hear the full story, it
seems a lot more reasonable.
Make sense?
is there a particular reason this was a reply to my comment?
The way you normally hear this story is all about the labels. Some lady didn't know that coffee is hot, and she sued McDonald's for not putting a little "caution: hot!" label on it. Now they do, and that solves that. But the fact that it was really about the coffee being too hot, and the solution involved not just a label, but an actual reduction in temperature makes this seem a lot more reasonable.
Those little warning labels on coffee cups still seem absurd to me though.
maybe people will stop trying to get me to join their iPhone app team on the promise of payment "when it gets big."