There are multiple realities. Take, for example, the proposition that "the sky is blue." We could get out a spectrometer, analyze the wavelengths that come through the sky, and reach some kind of conclusion about this proposition.
But that's only one way of understanding the world - and it's a way of understanding the world that does not help ascribe meaning to the world.
Alternatively, we could ask people about their experiences with "the sky is blue." For some people, blue sky might represent joyous days playing in the sun; time spent at the beach, fishing, skiing, time with family. For other people, agoraphobes, perhaps, "the sky is blue" might represent fear, pain, danger.
While people who see "the sky is blue" as enjoyment and those who see it as danger directly contradict each other, it does not mean that either of them are wrong. Nor do either of these perspectives contradict the wavelength analysis performed by the spectrometer.
The point is, science and religion are attempting to answer different questions. Science attempts to answer how questions - e.g., how does the atmosphere bend the light in the way that causes it to present wavelengths we call blue to be perceived by the human eye. Religion attempts to answer why questions - why does it matter? Why are we here? Why is there life?
It is a serious mistake to use science to try to answer religious questions or to use religion to try to answer scientific questions.
My work computer seems to randomly choose between any of the seven network printers when I print something. Which means whatever I print could end up on the shared printer in the staff workroom, or it could end up printing on the laser printer on the boss's desk.
Don't know if this is accidental or if it is by design.
How is his career stained, exactly? He's a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't go up from there. Sure, he had to sit through interrogation and a couple of weeks of intense media scrutiny, but in the end, he got what he wanted. Cry me a river.
Meanwhile, Dr. Ford, the accuser, got nothing out of the experience other than a chance to confront her (alleged) attacker.
Remember, Gorsuch got through with hardly any drama, so this can't just be about politics.
Lesson 1: Don't drink so much you can't remember what happened. Lesson 2: If someone sexually assaults you, pursue it immediately and to the fullest extent possible because, some time later, that person could be a candidate for Supreme Court at which point politics will rule the day and not justice.
The technical ability to create something is only one component of making a piece of art, and in some cases it is somewhat irrelevant (the technical skill can be shown off in some pieces or works, but it isn't a requirement per se that the artist have exceptional technical skill). More importantly, art expresses something - a feeling, a thought, a belief, an emotion - and since machines don't have feelings, thoughts, beliefs, or emotions, machine-created drawings, books, music, etc. will never replace real human art.
I would bet you could not tell a taste difference for most products that you bought at the supermarket compared with the same product bought at a farmer's market. There are some exceptions (such as tomatoes, which don't travel well). But, for the most part, the difference in taste has to do with your perceptions of the buying experience. In many cases it is likely the exact same product - what do you think farmers do with the produce that they don't sell at a farmer's market? (Hint: they turn around and sell it to the grocery store.)
Nutritionally there are also few differences. A head of lettuce is a head of lettuce and buying it under a tent while someone strums on a guitar and you sip your organic, cold-pressed hazelnut almond-milk half caff latte doesn't change the chemical make-up of lettuce.
In terms of location, I like buying things from my neighbors and hope they buy things from me, too; but just the fact that they are local doesn't mean they behave any more ethically than a farm that's 2,000 miles from here.
In sum, farmer's markets are a fad and I have nothing against people who enjoy buying food there. But it does often come across as just another level of food smug-ness and doesn't really solve any long-term food problems most people in the United States (let alone the world) experience.
Non-teaching staff...you mean the people who cook the meals, clean the floors, fix the computers, help the students with special needs, answer the phone, track attendance, order books and supplies, evaluate teachers, respond to parent complaints, clean the sidewalks...sure, schools would run really well without those people.
If it wasn't a gun-free zone, the shooting might have been much worse. Imagine people blasting away at each other across cubicles, not knowing who the shooter is or where he is.
Remember that gun-free zone is not the same thing as security-free zone. Schools, malls, etc. still have armed security.
This is really just a gimmick by the insurance company to make you think you are getting a better rate. The risk of death - especially for younger people - is really quite low. Even though exercise reduces that risk, it's hard to believe that it would make a meaningful difference in insurance rates (particularly because you don't really need life insurance when you are old). But, it gets them lot of attention and its customers think they are getting a great deal because they are into fitness.
You're conflating two different issues: the societal issue of how smartphones are changing our culture vs. how an individual best responds to those changing conditions.
That is to say, we can be upset about how smartphones are changing culture and the damage it does to relationships, but that doesn't mean we have to select abstinence for ourselves or our children.
Here's a scenario:
-Military makes drones that can repair themselves, can fly without human refueling, and are designed to fire on the 'enemy.'
-The war ends, but the drones can't be stopped. The drones repair themselves and build new drones.
-The drones are designed to 'learn' how to survive in a war situation, and progressively make themselves more and more difficult to destroy.
-Instead of mines as a dangerous civilian-killing product of war, we now have flying, shooting, difficult-to-stop weapons hunting people down without control. And they can repair themselves, don't require any ongoing human intervention, and learn how to avoid destruction over time.
Technology of this sort is not far off.
The knowledge that high-risk drinking (15 or more drinks per week for men, 8 or more drinks per week for women) is associated with poor health has been known for a long time. This study confirms this finding, but note that the high end of risk for their curve (in figure 5) includes consumption at the rate of 70 to 105 drinks per week. This is extreme high use and will of course distort the overall findings.
The surprising thing is that the risk for 1 average drink per day (7 per week) is nearly the same as the risk for no drinks per week (figure 5). 2 standard drinks per day (figure 5) is only slightly elevated risk (14 per week). Again, high-risk drinking, not all drinking, needs to be the focus of our efforts.
Note: I am a beer fan, but I would give it all up tomorrow if all of the world's problems from alcohol would go away.
Employers used to offer great skills and professional development training opportunities. My grandfather worked for the phone company for his entire career, right out of high school, and they continually offered him opportunities to develop and grow and learn and improve. But that era is mostly gone now as companies just want to hire talent right in and don't want to worry as much about training the people they have. Work your way up from the mailroom? Not that common anymore.
At the same time, colleges have to change their thinking about their role. The 'we train you in 4 years with all the skills and knowledge you will need for a 40-year career' thinking needs to go away. Fewer and fewer people can afford that kind of investment anymore (thanks to vastly reduced state support of higher education) and people need ongoing development and training throughout their lives, not just in a 4-year period in early adulthood.
I can't think of any quality private schools in the US for $150 a month.
The big story here is the continuing reluctance of the public to support effective, quality public schools for all. The push for technology has more to do with its low cost, not with effectiveness.
Insurers don't actually care about your health. They just want to be sure the premiums are more than what they pay out in claims.
While keeping insured healthy is one way to reduce claims, they have other strategies they use regularly that are easier and more effective: denying claims, dragging their feet on pre-approvals, limiting care available, removing drug choices, requiring high co-pays and cost sharing, and so on.
What else could Netflix be? If they don't own any content then their business is completely at the whim of the licensing fees charged by other companies. And when these other companies decide to open their own streaming service to keep all the profits themselves, Netflix would be screwed. So they have to make their own content.
The Netflix DVD by mail service is still the best there is for any kind of physical media rental. And the selection is amazing.
It's a monopoly in my community: 1 choice for cable internet, 1 choice for DSL (which is about 40% of the speed of cable internet). Or, I suppose, you could go with a satellite. In short, it may not be a monopoly everywhere, but in many places, for all practical purposes, it is.
Slashdot Mirror
There are multiple realities. Take, for example, the proposition that "the sky is blue." We could get out a spectrometer, analyze the wavelengths that come through the sky, and reach some kind of conclusion about this proposition.
But that's only one way of understanding the world - and it's a way of understanding the world that does not help ascribe meaning to the world.
Alternatively, we could ask people about their experiences with "the sky is blue." For some people, blue sky might represent joyous days playing in the sun; time spent at the beach, fishing, skiing, time with family.
For other people, agoraphobes, perhaps, "the sky is blue" might represent fear, pain, danger.
While people who see "the sky is blue" as enjoyment and those who see it as danger directly contradict each other, it does not mean that either of them are wrong. Nor do either of these perspectives contradict the wavelength analysis performed by the spectrometer.
The point is, science and religion are attempting to answer different questions. Science attempts to answer how questions - e.g., how does the atmosphere bend the light in the way that causes it to present wavelengths we call blue to be perceived by the human eye. Religion attempts to answer why questions - why does it matter? Why are we here? Why is there life?
It is a serious mistake to use science to try to answer religious questions or to use religion to try to answer scientific questions.
My work computer seems to randomly choose between any of the seven network printers when I print something. Which means whatever I print could end up on the shared printer in the staff workroom, or it could end up printing on the laser printer on the boss's desk.
Don't know if this is accidental or if it is by design.
How is his career stained, exactly? He's a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't go up from there. Sure, he had to sit through interrogation and a couple of weeks of intense media scrutiny, but in the end, he got what he wanted. Cry me a river.
Meanwhile, Dr. Ford, the accuser, got nothing out of the experience other than a chance to confront her (alleged) attacker.
Remember, Gorsuch got through with hardly any drama, so this can't just be about politics.
Lesson 1: Don't drink so much you can't remember what happened.
Lesson 2: If someone sexually assaults you, pursue it immediately and to the fullest extent possible because, some time later, that person could be a candidate for Supreme Court at which point politics will rule the day and not justice.
The technical ability to create something is only one component of making a piece of art, and in some cases it is somewhat irrelevant (the technical skill can be shown off in some pieces or works, but it isn't a requirement per se that the artist have exceptional technical skill). More importantly, art expresses something - a feeling, a thought, a belief, an emotion - and since machines don't have feelings, thoughts, beliefs, or emotions, machine-created drawings, books, music, etc. will never replace real human art.
You can do plenty of learning activities for young kids that do not require screens.
I would bet you could not tell a taste difference for most products that you bought at the supermarket compared with the same product bought at a farmer's market. There are some exceptions (such as tomatoes, which don't travel well). But, for the most part, the difference in taste has to do with your perceptions of the buying experience. In many cases it is likely the exact same product - what do you think farmers do with the produce that they don't sell at a farmer's market? (Hint: they turn around and sell it to the grocery store.)
Nutritionally there are also few differences. A head of lettuce is a head of lettuce and buying it under a tent while someone strums on a guitar and you sip your organic, cold-pressed hazelnut almond-milk half caff latte doesn't change the chemical make-up of lettuce.
In terms of location, I like buying things from my neighbors and hope they buy things from me, too; but just the fact that they are local doesn't mean they behave any more ethically than a farm that's 2,000 miles from here.
In sum, farmer's markets are a fad and I have nothing against people who enjoy buying food there. But it does often come across as just another level of food smug-ness and doesn't really solve any long-term food problems most people in the United States (let alone the world) experience.
Non-teaching staff...you mean the people who cook the meals, clean the floors, fix the computers, help the students with special needs, answer the phone, track attendance, order books and supplies, evaluate teachers, respond to parent complaints, clean the sidewalks...sure, schools would run really well without those people.
Probably a good choice, but just don't get in a crash with a bigger car (which is most cars). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If it wasn't a gun-free zone, the shooting might have been much worse. Imagine people blasting away at each other across cubicles, not knowing who the shooter is or where he is.
Remember that gun-free zone is not the same thing as security-free zone. Schools, malls, etc. still have armed security.
This is really just a gimmick by the insurance company to make you think you are getting a better rate. The risk of death - especially for younger people - is really quite low. Even though exercise reduces that risk, it's hard to believe that it would make a meaningful difference in insurance rates (particularly because you don't really need life insurance when you are old). But, it gets them lot of attention and its customers think they are getting a great deal because they are into fitness.
You're conflating two different issues: the societal issue of how smartphones are changing our culture vs. how an individual best responds to those changing conditions.
That is to say, we can be upset about how smartphones are changing culture and the damage it does to relationships, but that doesn't mean we have to select abstinence for ourselves or our children.
Here's a scenario:
-Military makes drones that can repair themselves, can fly without human refueling, and are designed to fire on the 'enemy.'
-The war ends, but the drones can't be stopped. The drones repair themselves and build new drones.
-The drones are designed to 'learn' how to survive in a war situation, and progressively make themselves more and more difficult to destroy.
-Instead of mines as a dangerous civilian-killing product of war, we now have flying, shooting, difficult-to-stop weapons hunting people down without control. And they can repair themselves, don't require any ongoing human intervention, and learn how to avoid destruction over time.
Technology of this sort is not far off.
This means that, in my conservative state, we will have 100% clean electricity by 2145! I'm looking forward to it!
The knowledge that high-risk drinking (15 or more drinks per week for men, 8 or more drinks per week for women) is associated with poor health has been known for a long time. This study confirms this finding, but note that the high end of risk for their curve (in figure 5) includes consumption at the rate of 70 to 105 drinks per week. This is extreme high use and will of course distort the overall findings.
The surprising thing is that the risk for 1 average drink per day (7 per week) is nearly the same as the risk for no drinks per week (figure 5). 2 standard drinks per day (figure 5) is only slightly elevated risk (14 per week). Again, high-risk drinking, not all drinking, needs to be the focus of our efforts.
Note: I am a beer fan, but I would give it all up tomorrow if all of the world's problems from alcohol would go away.
I don't even have to come into the office. I can do this job from home.
Employers used to offer great skills and professional development training opportunities. My grandfather worked for the phone company for his entire career, right out of high school, and they continually offered him opportunities to develop and grow and learn and improve. But that era is mostly gone now as companies just want to hire talent right in and don't want to worry as much about training the people they have. Work your way up from the mailroom? Not that common anymore.
At the same time, colleges have to change their thinking about their role. The 'we train you in 4 years with all the skills and knowledge you will need for a 40-year career' thinking needs to go away. Fewer and fewer people can afford that kind of investment anymore (thanks to vastly reduced state support of higher education) and people need ongoing development and training throughout their lives, not just in a 4-year period in early adulthood.
I can't think of any quality private schools in the US for $150 a month.
The big story here is the continuing reluctance of the public to support effective, quality public schools for all. The push for technology has more to do with its low cost, not with effectiveness.
>>a book club where no one discusses the book
This describes most of my graduate education.
This is probably the solution - high gas prices. Then we will see high efficiency vehicles selling like crazy.
So let Trump have his fuel economy reduction, but just force them to pair it with higher gasoline and oil taxes (yeah, right).
Depends on who you ask. Some might say "pursuing new opportunity."
Others might say "indictment."
I say, 3 square meals a day and endless recreation opportunities.
Insurers don't actually care about your health. They just want to be sure the premiums are more than what they pay out in claims.
While keeping insured healthy is one way to reduce claims, they have other strategies they use regularly that are easier and more effective: denying claims, dragging their feet on pre-approvals, limiting care available, removing drug choices, requiring high co-pays and cost sharing, and so on.
What else could Netflix be? If they don't own any content then their business is completely at the whim of the licensing fees charged by other companies. And when these other companies decide to open their own streaming service to keep all the profits themselves, Netflix would be screwed. So they have to make their own content. The Netflix DVD by mail service is still the best there is for any kind of physical media rental. And the selection is amazing.
But the blue line trap in hockey results in lots of dump and chase, which isn't very exciting to watch either.
Correct. Very few people pay taxes voluntarily.
It's a monopoly in my community: 1 choice for cable internet, 1 choice for DSL (which is about 40% of the speed of cable internet). Or, I suppose, you could go with a satellite. In short, it may not be a monopoly everywhere, but in many places, for all practical purposes, it is.