Some comments can't inevitibly went to religion, etc. They are missing the implications of atheism which this study highlights.
If you are built merely for survival and not by design, you cannot trust your own thoughts. You can assume they help you survive, and that's about it.
So if believing something helps you survive for whatever reason (that you matter, morality exists, that Darwinism is true or not, that you have a consciousness, etc.), all you can say is that it helps you survive. You can't trust your own thoughts.
Fundamental physics research, while wonderful, does seem a bit much of a company which no longer has a monopoly to tax Americans to fund stuff like that.
As a conservative, I've always been suspect of liberals trying to fix the vote too (esp. the dead vote). So let's get rid of all of this and try to have fair elections.
I don't pirate music. If this went through, I'd feel like a guy having dinner with a bunch of friends. He has water and a light salad while his friends get steaks and drink expensive wine. Then they say "let's split the bill evenly."
No thanks.
How did Batman get his groove back?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have a more general question. How did the Batman movies get the very high levels of popularity like it had for the 1989 movies or more recent Spider-Man movies?
The 2005 film was popular but not incredibly so.
My guesses are the following: 1) A lot of people caught the 2005 movie after it was in the theaters and were surprised by it. 2) Heath Ledger's death gave it a big spotlight, unfortunately. 3) really good reviews from the critics
And naturalism/materialism should remain in a philosophy class too. I understand you don't want "God of the Gaps" theories. I don't want "Darwin of the Gaps" theories either.
Teach how evolution (the materialist atheistic type) is as "established as gravity."
Then go into detail about Origin of Life scenarios.
Explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian Explosion.
Describe in detail how evolution made complex biological structures such as the human eye.
Explain how evolutionary theory solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.
And when you're done, after you teach about all the intricate biological structures, we'll be there waiting for the kids, thanking you for doing all our prep work.
What the fairness doctrine did was killing meaningful speech on the radio. What radio station wants to spend all day dealing with complaints that some opinion needs to be balanced having to give airtime to something people may not want to hear?
Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to kill conservative talk. It will also kill NPR. But whatever.
So even if the Fairness Doctrine doesn't in a vacuum violate the 1st amendment, it is being implemented to squelch speech. That's its purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
My lack of common sense and overall knowledge is telling me that this review is absolutely 100% correct.
Some comments can't inevitibly went to religion, etc. They are missing the implications of atheism which this study highlights.
If you are built merely for survival and not by design, you cannot trust your own thoughts. You can assume they help you survive, and that's about it.
So if believing something helps you survive for whatever reason (that you matter, morality exists, that Darwinism is true or not, that you have a consciousness, etc.), all you can say is that it helps you survive. You can't trust your own thoughts.
Since there aren't many useful predictions that can be made with the theory, it would be extremely difficult to falsify.
Excellent insight. The Rolling Stone article on Scientology a year or two ago made a similar point.
Imagine joining a Christian church where they didn't tell you about the death and resurrection of Jesus until you well into the church time-wise.
Not as the proportion of elderly to the total population increases.
Western Europe, Russia, Japan will be going into population decline. America is holding steady.
But holding steady isn't good enough if you want to have some huge nanny state (universal health care, Social Security, etc.)
Ironically, the people who support all those expensive long-term program are the ones having the fewest amount of babies.
As to retirement, less young folks mean you'll have to work longer. Unless there is a major leap in productivity.
Fundamental physics research, while wonderful, does seem a bit much of a company which no longer has a monopoly to tax Americans to fund stuff like that.
As a conservative, I've always been suspect of liberals trying to fix the vote too (esp. the dead vote). So let's get rid of all of this and try to have fair elections.
I don't pirate music. If this went through, I'd feel like a guy having dinner with a bunch of friends. He has water and a light salad while his friends get steaks and drink expensive wine. Then they say "let's split the bill evenly."
No thanks.
I have a more general question. How did the Batman movies get the very high levels of popularity like it had for the 1989 movies or more recent Spider-Man movies?
The 2005 film was popular but not incredibly so.
My guesses are the following:
1) A lot of people caught the 2005 movie after it was in the theaters and were surprised by it.
2) Heath Ledger's death gave it a big spotlight, unfortunately.
3) really good reviews from the critics
No, we love toothless diplomacy not backed up by any credible threat of force. It works so well.
If you don't want to be forced into a communist or socialist system, it is very much totalitarian in the sense that it tramples our rights.
They'll close the holes when it is out of beta.
If I had crazy left-wingers after my company, I'd relocate to Dubai as well.
Just because you like a law, doesn't make it constitutional.
I don't think many people here like getting murdered by terrorists, but most on Slashdot were against the new FISA bill. Does this make sense?
For different sites at my business, I need to project out future growth and determine when capacity will be too small.
The database can do the future projections. I just need the web front end to pick a site, show some results, accept and pass parameters, etc.
But I'm not quite sure what the requirements will be yet. But I think that's the general idea.
Care to elaborate on which types work and which don't?
thanks
Recently, I had the opportunity to get back into doing some internal web development after years of not doing much web work.
My issue is sorting out all the new technologies that have come out since then. I don't have time to learn them all before I pick one.
I think I'm going with Ruby on Rails, but I have no idea if this is the best choice. I hear good things. You go by word of mouth.
And naturalism/materialism should remain in a philosophy class too. I understand you don't want "God of the Gaps" theories. I don't want "Darwin of the Gaps" theories either.
"After consulting with the generals..."
I'm aware complexity by itself does not mean design. I just want the science establishment to lay the groundwork for ID.
Teach the non-controversy.
Teach how evolution (the materialist atheistic type) is as "established as gravity."
Then go into detail about Origin of Life scenarios.
Explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian Explosion.
Describe in detail how evolution made complex biological structures such as the human eye.
Explain how evolutionary theory solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.
And when you're done, after you teach about all the intricate biological structures, we'll be there waiting for the kids, thanking you for doing all our prep work.
First of all, this is a dupe.
Secondly, while nervous, the ACLU says this bill is not unconstitutional.
It will affect NPR when I call up to complain that the time is not "equal".
What the fairness doctrine did was killing meaningful speech on the radio. What radio station wants to spend all day dealing with complaints that some opinion needs to be balanced having to give airtime to something people may not want to hear?
Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to kill conservative talk. It will also kill NPR. But whatever.
So even if the Fairness Doctrine doesn't in a vacuum violate the 1st amendment, it is being implemented to squelch speech. That's its purpose.
It is a tactic worthy of Putin or Chavez.