Hey, don't suppose you'd happen to have a link to some information about where & when the Fundie biblical inerrancy movement began? Since you were kind enough to post this link?
Well the do have a point, somewhat.. eg. no amount of breeding of dogs has produced a non-dog (a dog2 if you like).
I present to you... the miniature poodle! This is not a dog! This is a travesty of old-school genetic engineering fused with irritability and a constant yap that will drive most anyone with a Y chromosome to either put his forehead through a wall repeatedly... or remove his testicles with a spork and spend the remaining years of his life treating it as if it were his only child.
Really? If I were the betting type, I'd say just about everyone is almost certainly going to die
"Just about" everyone is "almost certainly" going to die? Last time I checked, I'd say EVERYONE is going to die. The only questions are "when", and "by what".
Of course, I could be wrong, there are ALWAYS statistical outliers...
For Mac? I'm a big believer in going open source now, and am running a MacBook. I'd like to find out if anyone can recommend a good open source AV platform for Mac, and for Windows.
You are correct, sir. I call it the 'logic bomb'. Take someone with a logical, behavioralist mindset. Introduce them to the bible and tell them that the Bible contains the word of God. Since God is ineffable, then His Word must be completely correct. And then state that the Bible was written by divine direction. Since God is ineffable and cannot ever be or do wrong (so the logic goes), then nothing in the Bible is wrong because it is divinely inspired. Hence, literal interpretation. To someone of a logical, behavioralist mindset it's a supremely addictive meme. They can't process the paradox of God doing something wrong and thus are stuck.
I would add that this is also how fundamentalism of ALL stripes works. Islamic fundamentalists, Jewish Fundamentalists, even die-hard atheists. All you need is a logical paradox and a component reeking of absolute truth and you've got a recipe for fundamentalism.
could be determined as hate speech. You made an unplausible association: that the Mormon Church is the Scientology of Early America. Not only is that an unfair comparison, but you're also seeking to link the poor reputation that Scientology has to the Mormon church in the minds of your readers. You're essentially slandering the Church's reputation and seeking to give people a negative connotation of it.
Yes, you are free to speak your opinion about the church. Yes, Joseph Smith can be paralleled to L. Ron Hubbard because there is reasonable assumption that he created the Book of Mormon. There is verifiable truth in this statement. It does not entitle you to make a broad comparison since you're not specifically referencing Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Both churches were started by their respective founders, but they have grown and evolved independent of those founders.
However, when invoking Freedom of Speech it is expected that you reveal who you are when you speak your opinion and take the consequences of such. If you're willing to say it, then you should be willing to take it.
Posting your opinion as an AC and attempting to push this across, and then claiming the 'victim' defense as justification to me says that this WAS intended as a subtle form of hate speech. You are right in saying that you have a right to post anonymously. Posting subtle negative attacks anonymously erodes this right.
So if you really believe it, then step up, come out, and say it. Otherwise, shut up.
That's not quite true. What you're addressing is called 'puffery'. There are specific rules that govern puffery in advertising (from what I understand). Companies can use puffery and claim that they are the best and that they are number one, as long as they do so without referencing a given source. So let's say I own said Hamburger shop. According to my understanding of Puffery rules in advertising (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I can say that my hamburgers are the absolute best in X city or X state, as long as I do not say "As voted by X consumers". I can say "YOU the customers", but I can't say "As voted by a majority of customers". Then I have incurred upon myself the implicit obligation of backing up my statement.
I can also say that my burgers are far superior to my customers, as long as I don't say by how much.
As long as I don't specify and incur an implicit obligation to prove how much, I can say pretty much anything I want within the realms of advertising.
Which of course leads to an interesting thought about memes. If a company is using puffery in an advertising campaign and is constrained from making specific claims about their product because they have no backing for it, then they would have to resort to a catchy jingle, phrase, or something to make their advertising stick... hmmm..
Don't dismiss this disagree mail thing. I'm finding it valuable actually as a sociological study. Think about it: there are people out there who actually get inflamed enough to write in and post this stuff. What kind of mind honestly works this way?
To me, it's a viewpoint into a perspective way different from my own. And that is useful, because it reminds me that the world is not filled with my clones who all perceive the world the same way I do.
Plus it is funny.
You mean I'm responsible for us being alone?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
This means I've touched myself more times than there are stars in the sky! THIS is the price of marriage!
Either we're alive or...
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
we're sliding down the gravitational tunnel of a very, very large event horizon... either way, I'm having cake!
Actually, I was referring obliquely to a short story by Charles Stross where a bunch of java-heads destroy the earth in the pursuit of brewing the perfect cup of coffee. But I like your interpretation as well.
"And just like God it doesn't exists. Everything we know about the brain shows that it's deterministic, the results of it's inputs and structure. everything that we know about the universe shows that it's probabilistic based on true randomness, based on it's inputs. There's no room for free will there either. It's not that there isn't any evidence for free will, it's that there's a large body of evidence against it. By saying that it's unscientific you are showing that you don't know what science is (the study of things that are true) you are saying it is not truth and therefore should be something left to fiction"
Actually you can't posit this argument successfully until you can demonstrate that Man do es indeed know EVERYTHING there is to know about the universe. You are making this statement based upon an assumption that modern science knows everything, that there are no more mysteries, and that everything is falsifiable.
You could also provide me with an accurate margin of error for your statement and then I will take it seriously.
The universe is far more complex than we can imagine, and to state with complete sincerity that "the brain is deterministic" based upon "everything we know about the brain" is flawed in its integrity, to put it lightly. We, as Man, know a lot, but we don't know everything. What you are stating here is a psuedo-dogmatic belief based on science-based materialism as a religion, and not actual fact.
Or if you are indeed one hundred percent certain that what you said is true (and can prove it with no margin of error), then you, sir, are God and I will take my hat off to You - and then promptly point You in the direction of the hundreds of millions of enraged atheists who will promptly want to have a few words with You.
I don't believe 'free will' exists. I think that stating that consciousness and the brain are one is correct. That being said, I believe (emphasis on believe here) that we have 'free choice'. We ARE able to make choices in our lives. Now, given the example in this article, they were comparing choices made in advance of clicking a button. Yes, they were able to predict which button the subject would click seven seconds ahead of time... but at the moment of cognition, the subject had the ability to make that choice independent of what his subconcious chose. There was a margin of error built in there, which allowed for this.
So to summarize: what we term 'free will' may be nothing more than our perception of consciousness, and therefore a false concept. But we DO have Free Choice. And I think in the long run, that's far more important.
Assuming you're being literal with your confusion... A SAN is a Storage Area Network that organizations use to back-up up data off their main networks. A lay explanation: think of your normal network and how it's connected. A SAN network (usually composed of fibre channel or SCSI connections) underlays that existing standard network and moves all the data you want to back up to disk or tape, without eating up the bandwidth you have on your normal network. It's usually driven by a back-up server, or sometimes by a normal server (but only if you want to eat up your processing power).
What this disrupts (if it's true) is how a SAN network monitors itself. It's basically pro-active monitoring and a different configuration of spinning disks. I'm not sure which RAID array they're using, so it may not be as 'revolutionary' as they're proclaiming it to be.
Please note: any network admins, PLEASE feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (because there's nothing worse than giving a layman explanation that's inaccurate).
Okay, so at a brief glance it's looking like next-gen primary disk storage. I didn't see any mention of which RAID it is (although I'm thinking they're probably going RAID 10??? Maybe 6?). What's cool though (at least by my opinion) is that it's going to cut down on SAN errors through self-diagnosis. Interesting, will have to check through the white paper.
I agree with you, and I'll take it one step further. In my humble opinion, there are a LOT of grad students out there desperate to produce a decent graduate thesis that will impress their peers. Perhaps a lot of the junk science in terms of 'studies' as described are due to either desperation to produce 'something' of note in order to pass the degree program, or to get one's name noticed. Not only do you, as an academic, have to 'publish or perish', but you also have to make sure that what you publish gets noticed. So there's a positive incentive at play to produce something that gets attention, and a big negative incentive against putting in the time and resources necessary to produce a thoughtful, insightful and balanced research project that isn't very exciting. I'd also believe that this plays a factor in the post-graduate research world as well.
For the record, I agree with you on gun control. But to play devil's advocate, how do you justify owning a gun and having children in a house to, let's say, a 39 year old mother of two from Peoria, Ill? Said woman is from a family that grew up in the suburbs, never owned guns. She's liberal, against the war in Iraq, and is totally focused on her kids. The only time she's ever experienced the gun issue is when someone with an awful lot of anger stands up and shouts about his right to carry fire arms (note, she's focusing on the anger here), and then she reads about some kid from a family pretty similar to hers (she's getting this from the media, so she's not getting the full story) getting hold of gun and accidentally killing himself? Or she hears about troubled kids from another suburban family getting a gun and going out and shooting up a school? Then she looks at Canada and England (which she doesn't know much about) and sees that they never have school shootings there?
I'm making this persona up, of course, but I'm doing it to push a point here. The people who do not believe in the second amendment don't want the government to take control of their lives. It's that they literally do not see any reason for people to have guns in this day and age. We live in a largely peaceful society (despite the attempts of the media to convince us otherwise) and so most people have never been put in a position where a gun was needed (I myself have never been in a real fight). Chances are, they will go the rest of their lives without ever encountering a need for a gun.
So how do you convince them that guns are necessary, when nothing in their lives or experience leads them to believe so? And when the evidence that they see leads them to conclude otherwise?
I'm not trying to disrepect anyone here, I'm trying to promote some understanding of the common gun-ban favoring opponent.
As much as I hate to say this (and mind you I'm typing this through gritted teeth) my flamebait post at you was out of line, and blew any credibility I had in my initial post. And I have paid for it.
Let me make this clear: I didn't like your initial response. I thought it was boorish, boastful, and a fine example of why most normal people don't like scientists and engineers. Thus the flame response.
That being said, you are right. Not all heads of state or CEO's are liberal arts majors. And, you are right in that a politician must employ the spin factor. However, MOST heads of state are graduates of liberal arts fields, or liberal-arts related fields. And, most people with MBA's start out with Bachelors of Arts in Business. Which, may I point out, are Liberal Arts majors. So while I indeed exaggerated in my original post, I think you'd find if you did some more research that I'm mostly right in my claims. However, I am mindful of the Hillary example, and will be far more critical of my own posts in the future, if nothing else than to be more intellectually honest.
So I will concede the factual, moral, and ethical victory to you on this one. But I will be damned if I ever back down from the likes of you out of cowardice. Count on seeing a lot more of me on/.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, don't suppose you'd happen to have a link to some information about where & when the Fundie biblical inerrancy movement began? Since you were kind enough to post this link?
Well the do have a point, somewhat.. eg. no amount of breeding of dogs has produced a non-dog (a dog2 if you like).
I present to you... the miniature poodle! This is not a dog! This is a travesty of old-school genetic engineering fused with irritability and a constant yap that will drive most anyone with a Y chromosome to either put his forehead through a wall repeatedly... or remove his testicles with a spork and spend the remaining years of his life treating it as if it were his only child.
If they pull a rabbit out of a deuterium tank, I'd be wondering where that rabbit came from. And I'd be checking the alignment of the stars too.
Amen. Thank you for that. I plan to do so.
Really? If I were the betting type, I'd say just about everyone is almost certainly going to die
"Just about" everyone is "almost certainly" going to die? Last time I checked, I'd say EVERYONE is going to die. The only questions are "when", and "by what". Of course, I could be wrong, there are ALWAYS statistical outliers...
Mod Parent up. This is a cogent argument.
You've resorted to denigrating Obama to argue your opinion about whether not a generation of workers suck.
For Mac? I'm a big believer in going open source now, and am running a MacBook. I'd like to find out if anyone can recommend a good open source AV platform for Mac, and for Windows.
You are correct, sir. I call it the 'logic bomb'. Take someone with a logical, behavioralist mindset. Introduce them to the bible and tell them that the Bible contains the word of God. Since God is ineffable, then His Word must be completely correct. And then state that the Bible was written by divine direction. Since God is ineffable and cannot ever be or do wrong (so the logic goes), then nothing in the Bible is wrong because it is divinely inspired. Hence, literal interpretation. To someone of a logical, behavioralist mindset it's a supremely addictive meme. They can't process the paradox of God doing something wrong and thus are stuck. I would add that this is also how fundamentalism of ALL stripes works. Islamic fundamentalists, Jewish Fundamentalists, even die-hard atheists. All you need is a logical paradox and a component reeking of absolute truth and you've got a recipe for fundamentalism.
Again??? Aw man... Bathing suit season is SO not an option for me this year.
could be determined as hate speech. You made an unplausible association: that the Mormon Church is the Scientology of Early America. Not only is that an unfair comparison, but you're also seeking to link the poor reputation that Scientology has to the Mormon church in the minds of your readers. You're essentially slandering the Church's reputation and seeking to give people a negative connotation of it. Yes, you are free to speak your opinion about the church. Yes, Joseph Smith can be paralleled to L. Ron Hubbard because there is reasonable assumption that he created the Book of Mormon. There is verifiable truth in this statement. It does not entitle you to make a broad comparison since you're not specifically referencing Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Both churches were started by their respective founders, but they have grown and evolved independent of those founders. However, when invoking Freedom of Speech it is expected that you reveal who you are when you speak your opinion and take the consequences of such. If you're willing to say it, then you should be willing to take it. Posting your opinion as an AC and attempting to push this across, and then claiming the 'victim' defense as justification to me says that this WAS intended as a subtle form of hate speech. You are right in saying that you have a right to post anonymously. Posting subtle negative attacks anonymously erodes this right. So if you really believe it, then step up, come out, and say it. Otherwise, shut up.
That's not quite true. What you're addressing is called 'puffery'. There are specific rules that govern puffery in advertising (from what I understand). Companies can use puffery and claim that they are the best and that they are number one, as long as they do so without referencing a given source. So let's say I own said Hamburger shop. According to my understanding of Puffery rules in advertising (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I can say that my hamburgers are the absolute best in X city or X state, as long as I do not say "As voted by X consumers". I can say "YOU the customers", but I can't say "As voted by a majority of customers". Then I have incurred upon myself the implicit obligation of backing up my statement. I can also say that my burgers are far superior to my customers, as long as I don't say by how much. As long as I don't specify and incur an implicit obligation to prove how much, I can say pretty much anything I want within the realms of advertising. Which of course leads to an interesting thought about memes. If a company is using puffery in an advertising campaign and is constrained from making specific claims about their product because they have no backing for it, then they would have to resort to a catchy jingle, phrase, or something to make their advertising stick... hmmm..
Don't dismiss this disagree mail thing. I'm finding it valuable actually as a sociological study. Think about it: there are people out there who actually get inflamed enough to write in and post this stuff. What kind of mind honestly works this way? To me, it's a viewpoint into a perspective way different from my own. And that is useful, because it reminds me that the world is not filled with my clones who all perceive the world the same way I do. Plus it is funny.
This means I've touched myself more times than there are stars in the sky! THIS is the price of marriage!
we're sliding down the gravitational tunnel of a very, very large event horizon... either way, I'm having cake!
Actually, I was referring obliquely to a short story by Charles Stross where a bunch of java-heads destroy the earth in the pursuit of brewing the perfect cup of coffee. But I like your interpretation as well.
Can it figure out how to brew the 'perfect' cup of coffee?
"And just like God it doesn't exists. Everything we know about the brain shows that it's deterministic, the results of it's inputs and structure. everything that we know about the universe shows that it's probabilistic based on true randomness, based on it's inputs. There's no room for free will there either. It's not that there isn't any evidence for free will, it's that there's a large body of evidence against it. By saying that it's unscientific you are showing that you don't know what science is (the study of things that are true) you are saying it is not truth and therefore should be something left to fiction" Actually you can't posit this argument successfully until you can demonstrate that Man do es indeed know EVERYTHING there is to know about the universe. You are making this statement based upon an assumption that modern science knows everything, that there are no more mysteries, and that everything is falsifiable. You could also provide me with an accurate margin of error for your statement and then I will take it seriously. The universe is far more complex than we can imagine, and to state with complete sincerity that "the brain is deterministic" based upon "everything we know about the brain" is flawed in its integrity, to put it lightly. We, as Man, know a lot, but we don't know everything. What you are stating here is a psuedo-dogmatic belief based on science-based materialism as a religion, and not actual fact. Or if you are indeed one hundred percent certain that what you said is true (and can prove it with no margin of error), then you, sir, are God and I will take my hat off to You - and then promptly point You in the direction of the hundreds of millions of enraged atheists who will promptly want to have a few words with You.
I don't believe 'free will' exists. I think that stating that consciousness and the brain are one is correct. That being said, I believe (emphasis on believe here) that we have 'free choice'. We ARE able to make choices in our lives. Now, given the example in this article, they were comparing choices made in advance of clicking a button. Yes, they were able to predict which button the subject would click seven seconds ahead of time... but at the moment of cognition, the subject had the ability to make that choice independent of what his subconcious chose. There was a margin of error built in there, which allowed for this. So to summarize: what we term 'free will' may be nothing more than our perception of consciousness, and therefore a false concept. But we DO have Free Choice. And I think in the long run, that's far more important.
Assuming you're being literal with your confusion... A SAN is a Storage Area Network that organizations use to back-up up data off their main networks. A lay explanation: think of your normal network and how it's connected. A SAN network (usually composed of fibre channel or SCSI connections) underlays that existing standard network and moves all the data you want to back up to disk or tape, without eating up the bandwidth you have on your normal network. It's usually driven by a back-up server, or sometimes by a normal server (but only if you want to eat up your processing power). What this disrupts (if it's true) is how a SAN network monitors itself. It's basically pro-active monitoring and a different configuration of spinning disks. I'm not sure which RAID array they're using, so it may not be as 'revolutionary' as they're proclaiming it to be. Please note: any network admins, PLEASE feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (because there's nothing worse than giving a layman explanation that's inaccurate).
Okay, so at a brief glance it's looking like next-gen primary disk storage. I didn't see any mention of which RAID it is (although I'm thinking they're probably going RAID 10??? Maybe 6?). What's cool though (at least by my opinion) is that it's going to cut down on SAN errors through self-diagnosis. Interesting, will have to check through the white paper.
I agree with you, and I'll take it one step further. In my humble opinion, there are a LOT of grad students out there desperate to produce a decent graduate thesis that will impress their peers. Perhaps a lot of the junk science in terms of 'studies' as described are due to either desperation to produce 'something' of note in order to pass the degree program, or to get one's name noticed. Not only do you, as an academic, have to 'publish or perish', but you also have to make sure that what you publish gets noticed. So there's a positive incentive at play to produce something that gets attention, and a big negative incentive against putting in the time and resources necessary to produce a thoughtful, insightful and balanced research project that isn't very exciting. I'd also believe that this plays a factor in the post-graduate research world as well.
For the record, I agree with you on gun control. But to play devil's advocate, how do you justify owning a gun and having children in a house to, let's say, a 39 year old mother of two from Peoria, Ill? Said woman is from a family that grew up in the suburbs, never owned guns. She's liberal, against the war in Iraq, and is totally focused on her kids. The only time she's ever experienced the gun issue is when someone with an awful lot of anger stands up and shouts about his right to carry fire arms (note, she's focusing on the anger here), and then she reads about some kid from a family pretty similar to hers (she's getting this from the media, so she's not getting the full story) getting hold of gun and accidentally killing himself? Or she hears about troubled kids from another suburban family getting a gun and going out and shooting up a school? Then she looks at Canada and England (which she doesn't know much about) and sees that they never have school shootings there? I'm making this persona up, of course, but I'm doing it to push a point here. The people who do not believe in the second amendment don't want the government to take control of their lives. It's that they literally do not see any reason for people to have guns in this day and age. We live in a largely peaceful society (despite the attempts of the media to convince us otherwise) and so most people have never been put in a position where a gun was needed (I myself have never been in a real fight). Chances are, they will go the rest of their lives without ever encountering a need for a gun. So how do you convince them that guns are necessary, when nothing in their lives or experience leads them to believe so? And when the evidence that they see leads them to conclude otherwise? I'm not trying to disrepect anyone here, I'm trying to promote some understanding of the common gun-ban favoring opponent.
As much as I hate to say this (and mind you I'm typing this through gritted teeth) my flamebait post at you was out of line, and blew any credibility I had in my initial post. And I have paid for it. Let me make this clear: I didn't like your initial response. I thought it was boorish, boastful, and a fine example of why most normal people don't like scientists and engineers. Thus the flame response. That being said, you are right. Not all heads of state or CEO's are liberal arts majors. And, you are right in that a politician must employ the spin factor. However, MOST heads of state are graduates of liberal arts fields, or liberal-arts related fields. And, most people with MBA's start out with Bachelors of Arts in Business. Which, may I point out, are Liberal Arts majors. So while I indeed exaggerated in my original post, I think you'd find if you did some more research that I'm mostly right in my claims. However, I am mindful of the Hillary example, and will be far more critical of my own posts in the future, if nothing else than to be more intellectually honest. So I will concede the factual, moral, and ethical victory to you on this one. But I will be damned if I ever back down from the likes of you out of cowardice. Count on seeing a lot more of me on /.
You are right, I deserved that.