I am surprised, though, that corning never managed to sell any serious quantity as a structural material. Glass-coated skyscrapers have been considered quite stylish for decades, and I'd imagine that "resists birdstrike, rocks, wind forces, and idiots leaning against the windows just as well as ordinary glass, at 20% the weight" would be a selling point.
Maybe the manufacturing process grows exponentially beyond a certain, very small, size; making it only useful for the tiniest of skyscrapers, where highly paid squirrels take important decisions from their very high offices with Central Park views.
There are not as many of such clients as you might think.
Not just that, but rampant fanboi mods as well. Just look up how many articles they have there for something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And Deity forbid you find they actually got something wrong on one of those pages, they will drop the banhammer on you. That is why I only use Wikipedia for boring facts like chip designs or WW II military craft, because anything really popular will most likely have a fanboi mod watching it like a hawk.
I'll have that in mind next time I have an urge to correct some specific wikipedia data about Buffy the vampire slayer.
Maybe newspaper articles should cite their sources and have a list of references at the end like academic papers do. That way at least readers or other interested parties could independently verify the facts in the article.
Oh god, that would be so fricking fun for a couple of days...
Then people would start asking why the news had two or three, very boring, items and soon old unverifiable news would come back.
It's been a long time since the news became entertainment media, you can't expect people to be now able to digest dry information.
Given that it seems unlikely that two countries would openly go to war over, say, DVD piracy, copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. just don't seem like a stable, long term basis for an economy.
How cold and dry is the simple reality.
Very well put. It's found me in one of those rare days I don't have mod points but consider yourself insightfulized.
Use excess to raise sea/river water to an upper artificial lake. During nights, move water back down through turbines. Build hotels around artificial lake to pay for the lost land.
Now that I think on it, wouldn't it be possible to do the opposite? Lower sea level with the extra daylight energy, let it rise back up by night.
How big a cilinder would one have to build to accumulate a sufficient amount of energy (about 1/2 or daily production)?
Hmm, maybe fill a gargantuan underwater balloon? (deflate furing night)
and now the market decides: do i want to pay to play games through a service that is capable of making such "errors"
...Or should I go for the other options like...
Please clarify if you're suggesting: - buying boxed games. - buying the decent DRM free games that happen about once every six months. - just not buying games at all.
Wouldn't someone with omniscience be the focus of a religion rather than a practitioner?
Is there a religion focused on an omniscient being that's not omnipotent or close?
Your argument seems to boil down to: If there definitely was a being of godlike power, there would be no religion. That sounds a little odd.
One doesn't become a god the moment he knows everything.
Also, various lines of reasoning, i.e. Godel's Second Great Proof in mathematics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem in quantum mechanics, argue that omniscience is literally impossible.
Not proved. We don't know whether ominscience is possible or not. However it's a moot point, the entire line of reasoning applies equally replacing "knowing all" with "knowing all that is knowable".
That's probably a pretty good argument against the sort of God that possesses omniscience, but it's also a very good argument against answering your question with a simple yes or no. If omniscience is impossible/I never started beating my wife, then a fair answer might be "If we first assume something contrary to fact, my answer is yes." (or no). Demanding a simple yes or no answer here is a rhetorical trick, not an act of reason.
Ok, replace omniscience with "knowing everything that is knowable", which is logically possible in all cases.
Would science survive omniscience? As currently practiced, science involves falsifiability - can an omniscient being's theorems be falsified?
No, it wouldn't. Or it would become a mere list of laws. Every search ends when finding what is searched.
I believe that an individual should *want* to become less ignorant. But I also believe that if an individual wishes to remain ignorant, it is abhorrent to force them to remove their ignorance.
Ok, I can go with that. You end up having the omniscient and the "ignorant" (not despective, just those who aren't omniscient).
But: is it possible for omniscience and religion to coexist in the same being? Can the omniscient be, at the same time, religious?
"Curing" someone who believes in a god or gods of their ignorance stems from the exact same drive as "curing" someone who believed in the WRONG god or gods and forcing them to believe in the RIGHT ones - forced conversion.
There would be no need to cure anyone. The omniscient would know whether there was a God or not.
Let's not forget that this line of reasoning comes from the assertion "[implying the] unprovable belief that religion is a disease to be cured is somehow obvious".
Even if humanity (or our distant, distant descendants), as a species, were to attain omniscience in some way, there may be members of the species who do not wish to know everything. I'd like to think that an omniscient creature would, in knowing everything, also know compassion, and also know that forcing another individual to do something they do not wish to do, "for their own good" is many times monstrous.
There's no need for everyone to become omniscient. As soon as humanity's ignorance is removed, by means of someone or even a group of people, knowing everything, religion stops being a matter of faith. People may want to believe in whatever they want, but either they believe in what is collectively known to be true, or they just believe in something false.
Take into account I'm not talking about perceived omniscience, but true omniscience; thus, feel free that that point is unreachable, or just that we would never know we've reached it.
You casually say that you "politely" disagree with the need to cure ignorance - would your "polite" disagreement still stand if I felt that the way to remove ignorance were to force people to acknowledge the "truth" of Allah, Jehova, God, Jesus, or any other spiritual figure?
It's your connotations which made you think I implied a collective curing of ignorance. I do not feel the need to educate the masses.
Please don't say, "But my way of removing ignorance is RIGHT!" because whether it is or not (and as I said, I'm not remotely theistic) until you can absolutely prove it to be RIGHT, you're just acting on an inkling of a feeling of what's right and true, just like the people in the past who've tortured heretics into converting or burnt them at the stake when conversion was impossible.
On the contrary, the first one who reached ominscience (I don't believe that would automatically make him good) might very well decide to keep everyone else tied with the strings of religion.
My belief is that omniscience removes religion and ignorance is to be "cured" (removed); so I just make the obvious transition.
That's why I ask which of both beliefs you don't share. I'm not trying to prove that omniscience removes religion. I'm not trying to convince anyone that ignorance is to be removed. I'm just saying that if the final opjective is to know everything that is knowable, then indirectly religion will be removed.
Well, if it was present with all plants and animals (except mammals) why did evolution lose such a "useful" enzyme?
I've always imagined the evolutionary criteria as "The absolute minimum required to maximize chances of reproduction" and not "Everything that might be useful".
Otherwise we'd have poisonous fangs, wings, the ability to digest cellulose and, possibly, firebreath not dependant on a mexican diet.
I'm not remotely religious, but I'm also not so disingenuous that I'd dismiss a majority of humanity as somehow suffering from a disease that needs to be cured.
Humanity suffers from ignorance and will always suffer for it (unless it reaches omniscience).
Either you disagree with the need to "cure" (remove) ignorance, or you disagree with the statement that "religion results from ignorance".
If it is the former, I just politely disagree. If it's the latter, I ask you if you believe that religion would survive omniscience. i.e.: Could someone who knows everything be religious? And if your response to that is "yes", I just disagree on principle and have no more arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
To avoid possible whooshings... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Behavior_of_antique_glass
I am surprised, though, that corning never managed to sell any serious quantity as a structural material. Glass-coated skyscrapers have been considered quite stylish for decades, and I'd imagine that "resists birdstrike, rocks, wind forces, and idiots leaning against the windows just as well as ordinary glass, at 20% the weight" would be a selling point.
Maybe the manufacturing process grows exponentially beyond a certain, very small, size; making it only useful for the tiniest of skyscrapers, where highly paid squirrels take important decisions from their very high offices with Central Park views.
There are not as many of such clients as you might think.
Let me give you a more precise measure.
In the Library of Congress there's a book called "How to play theological ping-pong"...
Not just that, but rampant fanboi mods as well. Just look up how many articles they have there for something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And Deity forbid you find they actually got something wrong on one of those pages, they will drop the banhammer on you. That is why I only use Wikipedia for boring facts like chip designs or WW II military craft, because anything really popular will most likely have a fanboi mod watching it like a hawk.
I'll have that in mind next time I have an urge to correct some specific wikipedia data about Buffy the vampire slayer.
Maybe newspaper articles should cite their sources and have a list of references at the end like academic papers do. That way at least readers or other interested parties could independently verify the facts in the article.
Oh god, that would be so fricking fun for a couple of days...
Then people would start asking why the news had two or three, very boring, items and soon old unverifiable news would come back.
It's been a long time since the news became entertainment media, you can't expect people to be now able to digest dry information.
Given that it seems unlikely that two countries would openly go to war over, say, DVD piracy, copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. just don't seem like a stable, long term basis for an economy.
How cold and dry is the simple reality.
Very well put. It's found me in one of those rare days I don't have mod points but consider yourself insightfulized.
I think Slashdot could be doing a lot more to improve the quality of their editing.
Yes, in the same way as squirrels could be doing a lot more to improve the quality of their international architectural contracts.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...' " - Isaac Asimov.
I think he was referring to the double use of "machine".
Automated Teller Machine Machine.
Except during nights.
Use excess to raise sea/river water to an upper artificial lake. During nights, move water back down through turbines. Build hotels around artificial lake to pay for the lost land.
Now that I think on it, wouldn't it be possible to do the opposite? Lower sea level with the extra daylight energy, let it rise back up by night.
How big a cilinder would one have to build to accumulate a sufficient amount of energy (about 1/2 or daily production)?
Hmm, maybe fill a gargantuan underwater balloon? (deflate furing night)
MAybe sink a floating item deep in the sea?
So now it's impossible to advertise without tracking?
(fricking /. time limit! I can perfectly write a meaningful response in 5 seconds.)
Why Opt-in?
Why not disabled by default and not activable?
What's the tremendous benefit we'd be losing?
and now the market decides: do i want to pay to play games through a service that is capable of making such "errors"
...Or should I go for the other options like...
Please clarify if you're suggesting:
- buying boxed games.
- buying the decent DRM free games that happen about once every six months.
- just not buying games at all.
If I had to bet, I'd say it's "22".
SCIB = Super Charge Ion Battery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-titanate_battery
It's actually pretty simple.
My 1TB Archos is sorted alphabetically at this very moment; in ascending and descending order at the same time!
How many parallel predicting octopuses were required to predict their victory?
Infinite, but one of them wrote some pretty good stories about a ghost.
Wouldn't someone with omniscience be the focus of a religion rather than a practitioner?
Is there a religion focused on an omniscient being that's not omnipotent or close?
Your argument seems to boil down to: If there definitely was a being of godlike power, there would be no religion. That sounds a little odd.
One doesn't become a god the moment he knows everything.
Also, various lines of reasoning, i.e. Godel's Second Great Proof in mathematics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem in quantum mechanics, argue that omniscience is literally impossible.
Not proved. We don't know whether ominscience is possible or not. However it's a moot point, the entire line of reasoning applies equally replacing "knowing all" with "knowing all that is knowable".
That's probably a pretty good argument against the sort of God that possesses omniscience, but it's also a very good argument against answering your question with a simple yes or no. If omniscience is impossible/I never started beating my wife, then a fair answer might be "If we first assume something contrary to fact, my answer is yes." (or no). Demanding a simple yes or no answer here is a rhetorical trick, not an act of reason.
Ok, replace omniscience with "knowing everything that is knowable", which is logically possible in all cases.
Would science survive omniscience? As currently practiced, science involves falsifiability - can an omniscient being's theorems be falsified?
No, it wouldn't. Or it would become a mere list of laws. Every search ends when finding what is searched.
I believe that an individual should *want* to become less ignorant. But I also believe that if an individual wishes to remain ignorant, it is abhorrent to force them to remove their ignorance.
Ok, I can go with that. You end up having the omniscient and the "ignorant" (not despective, just those who aren't omniscient).
But: is it possible for omniscience and religion to coexist in the same being? Can the omniscient be, at the same time, religious?
"Curing" someone who believes in a god or gods of their ignorance stems from the exact same drive as "curing" someone who believed in the WRONG god or gods and forcing them to believe in the RIGHT ones - forced conversion.
There would be no need to cure anyone. The omniscient would know whether there was a God or not.
Let's not forget that this line of reasoning comes from the assertion "[implying the] unprovable belief that religion is a disease to be cured is somehow obvious".
Even if humanity (or our distant, distant descendants), as a species, were to attain omniscience in some way, there may be members of the species who do not wish to know everything. I'd like to think that an omniscient creature would, in knowing everything, also know compassion, and also know that forcing another individual to do something they do not wish to do, "for their own good" is many times monstrous.
There's no need for everyone to become omniscient. As soon as humanity's ignorance is removed, by means of someone or even a group of people, knowing everything, religion stops being a matter of faith. People may want to believe in whatever they want, but either they believe in what is collectively known to be true, or they just believe in something false.
Take into account I'm not talking about perceived omniscience, but true omniscience; thus, feel free that that point is unreachable, or just that we would never know we've reached it.
You casually say that you "politely" disagree with the need to cure ignorance - would your "polite" disagreement still stand if I felt that the way to remove ignorance were to force people to acknowledge the "truth" of Allah, Jehova, God, Jesus, or any other spiritual figure?
It's your connotations which made you think I implied a collective curing of ignorance. I do not feel the need to educate the masses.
Please don't say, "But my way of removing ignorance is RIGHT!" because whether it is or not (and as I said, I'm not remotely theistic) until you can absolutely prove it to be RIGHT, you're just acting on an inkling of a feeling of what's right and true, just like the people in the past who've tortured heretics into converting or burnt them at the stake when conversion was impossible.
On the contrary, the first one who reached ominscience (I don't believe that would automatically make him good) might very well decide to keep everyone else tied with the strings of religion.
My belief is that omniscience removes religion and ignorance is to be "cured" (removed); so I just make the obvious transition.
That's why I ask which of both beliefs you don't share. I'm not trying to prove that omniscience removes religion. I'm not trying to convince anyone that ignorance is to be removed. I'm just saying that if the final opjective is to know everything that is knowable, then indirectly religion will be removed.
Same guy here (yes, I anonymized both for "too much info" reasons) I forgot one thing.
Hit the fricking gym as often as you train and cultivate your mind. If she offers both, she'll want both,
There was once a porn site that had a very similar URL to an ADSL comparison site
One of the following was NSFW.
alternate.com
alternate.es
No, I won't check which one's which nor whether they're still up. :)
Well, if it was present with all plants and animals (except mammals) why did evolution lose such a "useful" enzyme?
I've always imagined the evolutionary criteria as "The absolute minimum required to maximize chances of reproduction" and not "Everything that might be useful".
Otherwise we'd have poisonous fangs, wings, the ability to digest cellulose and, possibly, firebreath not dependant on a mexican diet.
IANAB but as far as I understand it photolyase only repairs a certain type of damage found between adjacent cytosine and thymine (or uracil) units.
I wonder what has that to do with bowyery.
Well, you'd have to first turn the subject into plants, then apply the product, and then turn the subject back into human.
A cheaper option is to simply turn a plan you love into a sun-damage-free human.
As always.
I'm not remotely religious, but I'm also not so disingenuous that I'd dismiss a majority of humanity as somehow suffering from a disease that needs to be cured.
Humanity suffers from ignorance and will always suffer for it (unless it reaches omniscience).
Either you disagree with the need to "cure" (remove) ignorance, or you disagree with the statement that "religion results from ignorance".
If it is the former, I just politely disagree. If it's the latter, I ask you if you believe that religion would survive omniscience. i.e.: Could someone who knows everything be religious? And if your response to that is "yes", I just disagree on principle and have no more arguments.