Science and faith cannot be equated in the same way as dogma and faith. The "faith" that believes in science is not the same as the faith that believes in god, ghosts, jumbies etc. "Faith" in science means: reason, logic and observation points to this. Faith in religion means: I think I'm right and everybody else in the world is wrong because I'm right and they're wrong.
You cannot prove a negative in the way you demand (which is exactly why you frame the discussion in that way). Science can show why gods don't exist- why the supernatural doesn't exist but there cannot be an experiment to prove such nonexistence. It is a complete non-sequitur to claim that that means science doesn't "forbid" its existence. Science ignores it because it's useless to look for something that is not there. I could use the same reasoning to claim there is a little purple fish that floats behind your head but is only visible directly to your eyes. Prove it's not there! It is a useless statement and to try and frame it as being perfectly okay is absurd.
Because maintaining a huge amount of different versions and services that all need to work together is extremely difficult and error prone.
The problem is how often "our new changes are going to be great for you" really means "you don't want this at all". They make sure to couple every benefit with many things that you definitely do not want.
e.g. is Hamlet a good play? These questions have answers, but they cannot be derived scientifically. The question "Is there a deity/or deities?" is one of those.
You are making false equivalences again. Hamlet being a good play and existence of deities are not comparable in any way. One is a subjective measurement and the other is a question of "fact". A deity's existence is not a subjective judgement. It exists or it does not. Is Hamlet a good play? That does not have an answer in the same way as "Is Zeus the king of the gods?"
Your remarks smack of blind dogma.
No. Physics would be useless if supernatural events could disrupt it (also we'd be able to see that). The basic premise of physics is "the universe displays a set of rules". It leaves no acceptance of the supernatural. It basically says that all things are "natural" so to state that it does not forbid supernatural things from behaving supernaturally is simply not true.
The only person making statements of belief as a priori established fact is you.
If you try to use science in defending the supernatural you are being dishonest or wrong. Science and the supernatural are diametrically opposed. If something can be defined or described scientifically then it is, by definition, natural.
So which is it? Is there maths and physics showing that a deity is impossible, or is science unable to disprove the presence of a deity?
Newton's laws make it impossible for some omnipotent entity to exist. That is what the term "supernatural" means. It means that it cannot possibly exist in the natural world. This is why people feel the need to make statements like "but that does not mean something supernatural cannot exist. " It is a form of cognitive dissonance. A slight logical fallacy so that all of their internal beliefs can line up.
Using more energy and producing more heat could both be side effects that are evolutionarily disadvantageous but are not much of a problem in modern society.
The statement "Nothing in natural law (i.e. physics) forbids the existence of something that does not follow natural law." is entirely nonsense. The meaning that the writer is trying to twist is false. Physics does not allow for the supernatural. Forbidding (for lack of a better term) belief in things that have no scientific backing and every scientific reason not to exist is pretty much the primary purpose of the sciences. The whole damn point is that something "super"natural cannot exist so trying to claim that physics does not forbid the supernatural is a flat out lie.
Stop trying to bring credibility to your beliefs with science where none exists. Multiverse theory and deity dogma are in no way comparable. One has math and physics to complement the theory and the other has a math and physics showing it to be impossible. That science cannot disprove something cannot be used as evidence of its existence or acceptance of its possibility.
So the car has decided to alert the passenger. The passenger still has to detect the alert and react to the threat. How do the sensors make the human faster?
That's pretty much irrelevant. But yes an appreciably faster computer will still run appreciably faster.
Throwing money at making software "more efficient" can definitely be a waste. Software becomes outdated fairly quickly whereas hardware is always getting faster. The process of improving hardware is global, constant and iterative. Software very often needs complete rewrites to stay current. Spending a few million dollars to make $slow_antivirus_strawman "more efficient" is a terrible waste of money over buying better hardware because it's already there.
A nation being termed a "police state" generally is associated with political oppression.
If by generally you mean: when convenient for cold fjord's trite arguments. That's not the definition of police state at all and you know it. You are obtusely trying to redefine police state to rely on something that you think you can deny.
I do that all the time. You still have to look down and maybe correct a few misinterpretations before sending but I'd hope you weren't blindly sending messages without a quick proofread anyway.
That isn't terribly useful on the Internet. You also need to keep track of a lot of keys that way. Public-key systems are just so much more user-friendly.
Go outside and look up. What do you see? Birds! Gravity isn't stopping them. If gravity were real why do we see things like dust floating around seemingly freely. Gravity is just a scam to keep airline profits sky-high.
Oh, and there is another way: Move mouse cursor to lower left corner, right click (in the magical lower left corner), select shutdown from the menu that pops up.
I had no idea you could do this. So now there's right clicking on hot corners? How intuitive.
With the desktop selected if you hit alt+f4 it brings up a shutdown menu. I like that one because it avoids any hot corner nonsense.
There is absolutely no reason to presume that at all. A meteor is one point of impact. The ecology at ground zero would likely have been wiped out instantaneously but its effects then have to spread. Humans are pumping crap into the atmosphere nearly globally.
The past brought the present. Nobody has a problem with that. What are your suggestions for helping this situation? Droning on about white privilege(TM) and trying to implicate guilt on people based on their skin colour may make you feel righteous but it does nothing actually helpful. Do you propose redistributing wealth based on skin colour?
The odds are stacked in my favour because I am a person living in a western nation and the western nations were best positioned to take advantage of the industrial revolution when it occurred.
The fact that it isn't of your doing does not mean that it is not something to be addressed
Then address it!
You can think of it as being in possession of stolen goods, and yet being allowed to keep them. That is what white privilege is.
This shit doesn't address anything and is in fact the problem. It assigns blame and guilt based on skin colour. Do only white people have ancestors that took things by force? It divides people and makes racial tension skyrocket and doesn't even hint at a solution. Should white people have everything stripped from them and get shipped back to Europe? That seems to be what you are implying.
This white privilege meme is so oft repeated and so incorrectly because it makes the sayer feel so much better than everyone around them. And some people just love being self-righteous.
Perhaps they use the soap box. The ballot box is useless to anyone whom thinks the system is completely broken until there is a candidate that will attempt the fix the system. The only way to get that is to use the soap box to try and spread awareness of the problem and support for a solution.
Voting means you accept the outcome as legitimate. So don't complain later when they execute you, even if you voted against them, because that is how your nation wanted it.
Slashdot Mirror
Science and faith cannot be equated in the same way as dogma and faith. The "faith" that believes in science is not the same as the faith that believes in god, ghosts, jumbies etc. "Faith" in science means: reason, logic and observation points to this. Faith in religion means: I think I'm right and everybody else in the world is wrong because I'm right and they're wrong.
You cannot prove a negative in the way you demand (which is exactly why you frame the discussion in that way). Science can show why gods don't exist- why the supernatural doesn't exist but there cannot be an experiment to prove such nonexistence. It is a complete non-sequitur to claim that that means science doesn't "forbid" its existence. Science ignores it because it's useless to look for something that is not there. I could use the same reasoning to claim there is a little purple fish that floats behind your head but is only visible directly to your eyes. Prove it's not there! It is a useless statement and to try and frame it as being perfectly okay is absurd.
Because maintaining a huge amount of different versions and services that all need to work together is extremely difficult and error prone.
The problem is how often "our new changes are going to be great for you" really means "you don't want this at all". They make sure to couple every benefit with many things that you definitely do not want.
e.g. is Hamlet a good play? These questions have answers, but they cannot be derived scientifically. The question "Is there a deity/or deities?" is one of those.
You are making false equivalences again. Hamlet being a good play and existence of deities are not comparable in any way. One is a subjective measurement and the other is a question of "fact". A deity's existence is not a subjective judgement. It exists or it does not. Is Hamlet a good play? That does not have an answer in the same way as "Is Zeus the king of the gods?"
Your remarks smack of blind dogma.
No. Physics would be useless if supernatural events could disrupt it (also we'd be able to see that). The basic premise of physics is "the universe displays a set of rules". It leaves no acceptance of the supernatural. It basically says that all things are "natural" so to state that it does not forbid supernatural things from behaving supernaturally is simply not true.
The only person making statements of belief as a priori established fact is you.
If you try to use science in defending the supernatural you are being dishonest or wrong. Science and the supernatural are diametrically opposed. If something can be defined or described scientifically then it is, by definition, natural.
So which is it? Is there maths and physics showing that a deity is impossible, or is science unable to disprove the presence of a deity?
Newton's laws make it impossible for some omnipotent entity to exist. That is what the term "supernatural" means. It means that it cannot possibly exist in the natural world. This is why people feel the need to make statements like "but that does not mean something supernatural cannot exist. " It is a form of cognitive dissonance. A slight logical fallacy so that all of their internal beliefs can line up.
Using more energy and producing more heat could both be side effects that are evolutionarily disadvantageous but are not much of a problem in modern society.
The statement "Nothing in natural law (i.e. physics) forbids the existence of something that does not follow natural law." is entirely nonsense. The meaning that the writer is trying to twist is false. Physics does not allow for the supernatural. Forbidding (for lack of a better term) belief in things that have no scientific backing and every scientific reason not to exist is pretty much the primary purpose of the sciences. The whole damn point is that something "super"natural cannot exist so trying to claim that physics does not forbid the supernatural is a flat out lie.
Stop trying to bring credibility to your beliefs with science where none exists. Multiverse theory and deity dogma are in no way comparable. One has math and physics to complement the theory and the other has a math and physics showing it to be impossible. That science cannot disprove something cannot be used as evidence of its existence or acceptance of its possibility.
What definition there is made up? Anybody that capitalises "God" believes that it is a supernatural being.
I'm afraid sciences (i.e. physics) make no place for "supernatural". If it exists then it is governed by physics. There are no caveats.
So the car has decided to alert the passenger. The passenger still has to detect the alert and react to the threat. How do the sensors make the human faster?
Judging programming languages, environments and compilers on how easy it is to make a useless program is one of the worst metrics I've ever seen.
Want to print letters to a screen? Use a text document.
That's pretty much irrelevant. But yes an appreciably faster computer will still run appreciably faster.
Throwing money at making software "more efficient" can definitely be a waste. Software becomes outdated fairly quickly whereas hardware is always getting faster. The process of improving hardware is global, constant and iterative. Software very often needs complete rewrites to stay current. Spending a few million dollars to make $slow_antivirus_strawman "more efficient" is a terrible waste of money over buying better hardware because it's already there.
but look at what is replacing it:
It's in the summary. You didn't see it as that but that's exactly what it said.
A nation being termed a "police state" generally is associated with political oppression.
If by generally you mean: when convenient for cold fjord's trite arguments. That's not the definition of police state at all and you know it. You are obtusely trying to redefine police state to rely on something that you think you can deny.
Counterpoint A.
Brainfuck was designed for a reason seems to have been quite successful at it.
Can't type without looking at the screen w/ Swype
I do that all the time. You still have to look down and maybe correct a few misinterpretations before sending but I'd hope you weren't blindly sending messages without a quick proofread anyway.
You know what else is a "hardware" patent? Rounded corners.
Design patent, actually.
Currently I can still choose both (theoretically).
That isn't terribly useful on the Internet. You also need to keep track of a lot of keys that way. Public-key systems are just so much more user-friendly.
Just like gravity
Go outside and look up. What do you see? Birds! Gravity isn't stopping them. If gravity were real why do we see things like dust floating around seemingly freely. Gravity is just a scam to keep airline profits sky-high.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious- I hope.
Oh, and there is another way: Move mouse cursor to lower left corner, right click (in the magical lower left corner), select shutdown from the menu that pops up.
I had no idea you could do this. So now there's right clicking on hot corners? How intuitive.
With the desktop selected if you hit alt+f4 it brings up a shutdown menu. I like that one because it avoids any hot corner nonsense.
There is absolutely no reason to presume that at all. A meteor is one point of impact. The ecology at ground zero would likely have been wiped out instantaneously but its effects then have to spread. Humans are pumping crap into the atmosphere nearly globally.
Nice, a non sequitur. Classic cold fjord.
"It's faster" technically counts as a reason. It's a bad reason but I'm not sure there's a good reason for genocide.
The past brought the present. Nobody has a problem with that. What are your suggestions for helping this situation? Droning on about white privilege(TM) and trying to implicate guilt on people based on their skin colour may make you feel righteous but it does nothing actually helpful. Do you propose redistributing wealth based on skin colour?
The odds are stacked in my favour because I am a person living in a western nation and the western nations were best positioned to take advantage of the industrial revolution when it occurred.
The fact that it isn't of your doing does not mean that it is not something to be addressed
Then address it!
You can think of it as being in possession of stolen goods, and yet being allowed to keep them. That is what white privilege is.
This shit doesn't address anything and is in fact the problem. It assigns blame and guilt based on skin colour. Do only white people have ancestors that took things by force? It divides people and makes racial tension skyrocket and doesn't even hint at a solution. Should white people have everything stripped from them and get shipped back to Europe? That seems to be what you are implying.
This white privilege meme is so oft repeated and so incorrectly because it makes the sayer feel so much better than everyone around them. And some people just love being self-righteous.
Perhaps they use the soap box. The ballot box is useless to anyone whom thinks the system is completely broken until there is a candidate that will attempt the fix the system. The only way to get that is to use the soap box to try and spread awareness of the problem and support for a solution.
Voting means you accept the outcome as legitimate. So don't complain later when they execute you, even if you voted against them, because that is how your nation wanted it.