I tend to think that it will come to that. In the near future, I expect everyone to record everything. The only question left for courts to decide will be the legitimacy of the material (i.e., whether it is authentic or counterfeit).
Yes, but what is a 'tool'. Or more precisely, what is not a tool? Do you remember learning to use your extremities and are you a 'dumber' person because you do not know how to get by (I assume) without a leg or an arm?
I would imagine that you could. If the brain is electrical, cut the power to it. Would that not be equivalent to anesthesia?
I agree with your post otherwise. I've read some Daniel Dennett on this matter and although he reaches the entirely opposite conclusion from me, I enjoyed his presentation of the material on the subject (and honestly do not see how his conclusions are supported by his 'evidence').
See my other replies. You're comparing potential (for the gas) to actual (for the electric). We do precisely measure the actual electricity used by an electric setup, I presume?
That 'actual usage' includes that wasted by the inefficiency of the electric motor and transmission lines etc. However, when you talk of 33.16 kilowatt-hours in a gallon of gas, you're talking about potential energy. The average efficiency of a gas engine is 30%. That should be considered in these calculations.
Yea, so my point is this: equating 33.6kWh of actual electricity used for an electric setup to a gallon of gas is unfair because one is potential and one is actual. For it to be fair, you should assume no greater than.25 to.30 efficient gas engine.
That's the theoretical maximum. In practice, perpetual motion machines do not exist and thus any comparison between electric and gas machines using the value 33.16 favor the gas machines.
converted to the equivalent gallons of gasoline burned
Yes, but what efficiency gas engine is assumed for the conversion? The amount of energy in a gallon of gas entirely depends on the efficiency of the engine burning it. In this case, no such engine exists, so one must be assumed.
"... nobody in power to stop these things *ever* takes into account... render a majority of the US *un*inhabitable."
"could of" should be "could have"
"Imagine a winter storm hitting California and a plant *exploding*, picking up the material, traversing south and then moving up the eastern seaboard."
LiveSync is better for syncing between personal computers (no storage limit and no need for central server). Mesh also has bugs around deleted, renamed, moved files etc. If you want a Mesh-like solution (i.e., with centralized storage) try: http://dropbox.com/ (it handles complex file operations perfectly and intelligently [unlike Mesh]).
Easy. Give everyone insurance ID cards which must be scanned to purchase gas. Then, the computer system at the pump can introduce coefficients based on a backend database of IDs and their rates.
If the "almighty" doesn't like sin and doesn't want to torture people for all eternity... he can simply do away with sin, suffering, and hell.
He has done away with it. The way he chose to do so is apparently not to your liking, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder [and I dare say that when you 'get it' (if you in fact do)] you will also find it beautiful]. He has purposes [and designs] which are too great to be captured in the instantaneous snapping of the finger that you seem to prefer.
Besides, what's suffering on the cross for a few days if you know for certain you're an invulnerable divine being?
Christ was fully-God *and* fully-human. Further, the crucifixion transcends time (i.e., an eternal reality). There were 3 literal days where Jesus was in the 'grave' but the Bible also says that Christ was 'crucified before the foundation of the world'. The actual crucifixion was merely the manifestation of the continual, eternally merciful nature of God.
More importantly, no matter what Jesus may or may not have said, what matters is what Christian churches, organizations, and individuals do and preach.
I do agree that there have been many atrocities committed in His name [and that is a terrible reality] however, there is a remarkably consistent orthodoxy [and doctrine] in the overwhelming majority of Christian churches. The church is also in the process of 'sanctification' [i.e., composed of 'sinners'] and it isn't an instantaneous process [and then there are also counterfeit and hijacked (i.e., state-sponsored/controlled) churches].
Is it any surprise that the status quo would attempt to absorb and control the church? [It happened right after the church's birth in the Roman Empire and has happened with each new movement (see Protestantism in 17th, 18th & 19th Century Europe, for instance)]. Unfortunately, there's always been a temptation for states to marry the church (but the feelings are not reciprocated by the genuine church [though as a whole, the church has been a harlot]).
How much more hateful can you get than to say "you are so evil that even the most merciful being in the whole universe decides to make you suffer horribly for all eternity"?
The Jesus Christ I know says this:
"You are so precious/valuable that even the most exalted being in the whole universe appeared incognito [i.e., incarnate] inside His creation, lived the most humble and perfectly sinless life, died a horrific and painful death in your place so that you would not only not have to suffer for all eternity but would take His righteousness and eternal bliss as your own.
P.S. That first passage [from John] actually concerns deceivers aka 'wolves in sheep's clothing' [i.e., those people who claim to be believers only for whatever earthly advantages they see being attached to such or in order to undermine and destroy the church].
I'm familiar with those words though they are not technically Christ's. These came later by John and Paul respectively and were on a more pragmatic level to help the early Church survive what was an all-out assault on its existence.
This is not 'discrimination' in the modern [liberal] sense of the word. Those passages concern private parties (i.e., believers and their homes) and not governmental (or even corporate church) programs [and it is still wise advice to this day to be careful about whom one associates with and whom one lets into his household]. I see nothing at all 'hateful' about those passages. Remember too that Christ himself said 'love your enemies' [and he also said 'be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves']. There is a time and a place for everything [Ecclesiastes].
I suppose it depends on your definition of a 'Christian church'. There's a fairly consistent orthodoxy amongst an overwhelming majority of churches calling themselves 'Christian'. Sure, there are also fringe groups inciting hatred in the name of Christ (a fraction of a percent of churches I would imagine) but I don't think the OP had those in mind when he said 'Christian churches' and 'Christianity'.
The question isn't what's more impressive but rather what's true. If you pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe, then how can you be certain you've chosen the right parts?
I find it more impressive that the universe appears much older (and/or bigger) than it is and that God has built into our minds a way to find Him (via reasoning and even the limitations thereof [as implied by Godel]). Reality outruns knowledge (even materialists should accept that if they understand Godel).
Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so). Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.
I think the point is that it would not matter if they did as the number of 'good guys' with guns would be larger than the number of 'bad guys' with guns.
Actually, the word developer implies change over time (and hacking/gluing lots of 3rd party stuff together--like a VB programmer). I'd prefer to get it right the first time and not have to massage it so much. Maybe the word you are looking for is 'engineer'. This captures better the idea of doing complete designs.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to think that it will come to that. In the near future, I expect everyone to record everything. The only question left for courts to decide will be the legitimacy of the material (i.e., whether it is authentic or counterfeit).
Yes, but what is a 'tool'. Or more precisely, what is not a tool? Do you remember learning to use your extremities and are you a 'dumber' person because you do not know how to get by (I assume) without a leg or an arm?
You, sir, have my vote for best post. Quite illumining.
How exactly does that 'threatening people with survival' work? I would think that threatening them with extinction would work much better.
Actually, it should be: (1 - (laser diode).failure_rate) > ((1 - (laser diode).failure_rate) * (1 - frequency-doubling package of nonlinear crystals).failure_rate))
[assuming a non-zero '(frequency-doubling package of nonlinear crystals).failure_rate']
I never said that the amount of potential energy was variable. You are ridiculous, sir.
Can you aenesthetize an artificial brain?
I would imagine that you could. If the brain is electrical, cut the power to it. Would that not be equivalent to anesthesia?
I agree with your post otherwise. I've read some Daniel Dennett on this matter and although he reaches the entirely opposite conclusion from me, I enjoyed his presentation of the material on the subject (and honestly do not see how his conclusions are supported by his 'evidence').
See my other replies. You're comparing potential (for the gas) to actual (for the electric). We do precisely measure the actual electricity used by an electric setup, I presume?
That 'actual usage' includes that wasted by the inefficiency of the electric motor and transmission lines etc. However, when you talk of 33.16 kilowatt-hours in a gallon of gas, you're talking about potential energy. The average efficiency of a gas engine is 30%. That should be considered in these calculations.
Yea, so my point is this: equating 33.6kWh of actual electricity used for an electric setup to a gallon of gas is unfair because one is potential and one is actual. For it to be fair, you should assume no greater than .25 to .30 efficient gas engine.
That's the theoretical maximum. In practice, perpetual motion machines do not exist and thus any comparison between electric and gas machines using the value 33.16 favor the gas machines.
My thoughts precisely--perfect machines and perpetual motion machines do not exist.
converted to the equivalent gallons of gasoline burned
Yes, but what efficiency gas engine is assumed for the conversion? The amount of energy in a gallon of gas entirely depends on the efficiency of the engine burning it. In this case, no such engine exists, so one must be assumed.
I think you meant to say:
"... nobody in power to stop these things *ever* takes into account... render a majority of the US *un*inhabitable."
"could of" should be "could have"
"Imagine a winter storm hitting California and a plant *exploding*, picking up the material, traversing south and then moving up the eastern seaboard."
LiveSync is better for syncing between personal computers (no storage limit and no need for central server). Mesh also has bugs around deleted, renamed, moved files etc. If you want a Mesh-like solution (i.e., with centralized storage) try: http://dropbox.com/ (it handles complex file operations perfectly and intelligently [unlike Mesh]).
Easy. Give everyone insurance ID cards which must be scanned to purchase gas. Then, the computer system at the pump can introduce coefficients based on a backend database of IDs and their rates.
If the "almighty" doesn't like sin and doesn't want to torture people for all eternity... he can simply do away with sin, suffering, and hell.
He has done away with it. The way he chose to do so is apparently not to your liking, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder [and I dare say that when you 'get it' (if you in fact do)] you will also find it beautiful]. He has purposes [and designs] which are too great to be captured in the instantaneous snapping of the finger that you seem to prefer.
Besides, what's suffering on the cross for a few days if you know for certain you're an invulnerable divine being?
Christ was fully-God *and* fully-human. Further, the crucifixion transcends time (i.e., an eternal reality). There were 3 literal days where Jesus was in the 'grave' but the Bible also says that Christ was 'crucified before the foundation of the world'. The actual crucifixion was merely the manifestation of the continual, eternally merciful nature of God.
More importantly, no matter what Jesus may or may not have said, what matters is what Christian churches, organizations, and individuals do and preach.
I do agree that there have been many atrocities committed in His name [and that is a terrible reality] however, there is a remarkably consistent orthodoxy [and doctrine] in the overwhelming majority of Christian churches. The church is also in the process of 'sanctification' [i.e., composed of 'sinners'] and it isn't an instantaneous process [and then there are also counterfeit and hijacked (i.e., state-sponsored/controlled) churches].
Is it any surprise that the status quo would attempt to absorb and control the church? [It happened right after the church's birth in the Roman Empire and has happened with each new movement (see Protestantism in 17th, 18th & 19th Century Europe, for instance)]. Unfortunately, there's always been a temptation for states to marry the church (but the feelings are not reciprocated by the genuine church [though as a whole, the church has been a harlot]).
How much more hateful can you get than to say "you are so evil that even the most merciful being in the whole universe decides to make you suffer horribly for all eternity"?
The Jesus Christ I know says this: "You are so precious/valuable that even the most exalted being in the whole universe appeared incognito [i.e., incarnate] inside His creation, lived the most humble and perfectly sinless life, died a horrific and painful death in your place so that you would not only not have to suffer for all eternity but would take His righteousness and eternal bliss as your own.
P.S. That first passage [from John] actually concerns deceivers aka 'wolves in sheep's clothing' [i.e., those people who claim to be believers only for whatever earthly advantages they see being attached to such or in order to undermine and destroy the church].
I'm familiar with those words though they are not technically Christ's. These came later by John and Paul respectively and were on a more pragmatic level to help the early Church survive what was an all-out assault on its existence.
This is not 'discrimination' in the modern [liberal] sense of the word. Those passages concern private parties (i.e., believers and their homes) and not governmental (or even corporate church) programs [and it is still wise advice to this day to be careful about whom one associates with and whom one lets into his household]. I see nothing at all 'hateful' about those passages. Remember too that Christ himself said 'love your enemies' [and he also said 'be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves']. There is a time and a place for everything [Ecclesiastes].
I suppose it depends on your definition of a 'Christian church'. There's a fairly consistent orthodoxy amongst an overwhelming majority of churches calling themselves 'Christian'. Sure, there are also fringe groups inciting hatred in the name of Christ (a fraction of a percent of churches I would imagine) but I don't think the OP had those in mind when he said 'Christian churches' and 'Christianity'.
The question isn't what's more impressive but rather what's true. If you pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe, then how can you be certain you've chosen the right parts?
I find it more impressive that the universe appears much older (and/or bigger) than it is and that God has built into our minds a way to find Him (via reasoning and even the limitations thereof [as implied by Godel]). Reality outruns knowledge (even materialists should accept that if they understand Godel).
Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so). Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.
Don't forget BING. But, it's more an indication of the authors' interests than the softwares'.
I think the point is that it would not matter if they did as the number of 'good guys' with guns would be larger than the number of 'bad guys' with guns.
Actually, the word developer implies change over time (and hacking/gluing lots of 3rd party stuff together--like a VB programmer). I'd prefer to get it right the first time and not have to massage it so much. Maybe the word you are looking for is 'engineer'. This captures better the idea of doing complete designs.