Many scientists are, in fact, idiots like most of 'em, some with some very weird ideas. Michael Behe is in fact a molecular biologist and his claims about evolution can be shot down rather easily by someone with a little knowledge of evolution or study.
I know you're just trying to sound smart, sassy, and cynical; maybe you're pissed because someone trashed one of your favorite dogmas. Either way, it doesn't really matter.
If you're going to criticize over this give some examples instead of some general whine that you probably copy and paste in every science article with a strange claim.
Handwaving away assault, and then going on about "crime against society" (please) and "an affront of all our heritage" (nonsense). What he did was vandalism, pure and simple. He did something stupid, but 1) he didn't destroy it 2) injuring someone is far worse than petty vandalism even in the name of "history".
You're a fanatic. Life is going to go on just fine for everyone over a minute and stupid change to some mostly unimportant sign anyway, and guess what? Nobody really is hurt.
"Affront of all our heritage." Please. How pretentious. Heritage is such a description of the past, who gives a fuck if it's "affronted." The fact that you think destroying a historic artifact should possibly result in death, despite no one being injured, shows that you're a crazed psychopath at the very least. Property damage should not be a capital crime.
People only have an article to go by, they don't have the paper here. There's nothing wrong with looking at possible weaknesses in their interpretation of the data or their methodology; hell, experts have even made elementary logical mistakes before so I don't know where you get off thinking that people shouldn't try to find weaknesses in hypothesizes presented to them.
But of course, questioning what an "expert" says if you're not an "expert" in that field obviously means you've got personal ego problems and should humble yourself with a little more trust and faith.
Precisely. Scientists have made elementary mistakes before, and we've even seen it here on slashdot. And many times a scientist may discount something that actually IS a valid explanation.
You're right. People should never think critically and try to find other, simpler explanations for a supposed phenomenon, not as long as it comes from a scientist, of course. That would be 'proving' they're idiots, and that's Wrong.
Next time I read something a scientist wrote I'll be sure to keep your advice in mind.
How about the rest of the advertised content--you know, the big pvp siege battles and all the other shit they typed?
The game is great 1-20, Khopshef province is fun, then the game winds down more and more until you get to level 50.
What makes you think AoC was marketed to the casual player? Lack of content is not "casual player" material. It's "shit game" material. AoC was marketed as having epic siege battles (which laughably STILL don't work and there's no indication they will in the near future). Again, where is all the stuff they advertised?
AoC doesn't have queues anymore because tons of people quit that shit game. I'm not trolling. Entire guilds have vanished--there's no endgame, at all. Sieges don't work and the pvp patch STILL hasn't been implemented. The GMs are laughably retarded and unprofessional, and Funcom has pretty much just lied all the way to the bank. This game was a con.
This game is so bad of a joke that I reckon SWG was far better.
Let's see. Do I have a right to [hypothetically] tell you to go Cheney yourself? In public? Repeatedly? Loudly? Even if you tell me in no uncertain terms that you don't want to hear this offer ever again?
Yes.
Of course not, this would be harassment. But if I don't have that right to annoy and harass you, then your statement is flawed.
The truth is, the masses are either apathetic or don't mind this. Their alternative? More laws, to which people don't know much about and generally, don't care. They know this, and it's how they want to leverage control.
Even if it hurts in the short run. The loss of consumer bargaining power in these instances, where the contracts possibly allow for this, is the fault of the general consumer to begin with.
Hardly. Matter, in and of itself, is not aware, but awareness is computational; it is the "sum" brain's workings, much like a computer program is not merely the result of particles but organized particles.
The only reason this is a problem to the dualist is because the dualist refuses to view "mind" as a special, separate "entity" or thing, and continues to critique the monist argument through dualist assumptions in the first place. You'll never be satisfied because you, for some reason, take "perceptions are separate from matter" a priori.
What "random events"? And anyway, randomness is not "free will". Either it's 1) Non-random and deterministic or 2) It's random. I can't see any other coherent possibility.
Oh please. The media is patriotic, sensationalistic, and irresponsible, but it's not some secret cabal trying to keep the poor proles in line.
It's no surprise, then, then you would totally get Frank Luntz' name wrong, and even less of a surprise that you somehow managed to segue into net neutrality (which has almost nothing to do with the media being crap, no matter what you want to think).
I kept all my mp3s on an NTFS partition, and it made amarok incredibly slow for searching through files and even listing them when I wanted to expand a tree. It, of course, also was using up a ton of cpu power. Other intensive programs were causing me other problems, mostly more cpu usage quirks.
NTFS-3g is not perfect and I'd recommend steering clear of relying on NTFS on linux for heavy or day-today usage. I haven't used ubuntu on windows but I can imagine it would give a negative impression due to performance issues. For pulling off the occasion file off another partition, though, it works well.
When I moved all my mp3s to an ext3 partition, all the problems with amarok went away instantly.
The problem is, anything you say something is a problem, you step into the realm of ideology, as you cannot derive what is bad or good or desired or undesired from fact alone.
The fact is, everything that people need to make decisions is right in front of them. You assume it's a lack of education issue, which is partly true... but the truth is, most people don't care and would rather occupy their time doing things like eating or having orgasms.
Education is required for a democracy? You mean indoctrination, to accept democracy, and to be "educated" that whatever you think should be in government, should be.
Naturally I disagree with this the fairness doctrine and anything resembling it to the fullest degree, but to say that democracy requires an educated populace on a matter of opinion or policy such as this reeks of "Well, people should be educated to accept my vision of government!"
Obviously matters of fact do come into play, but political philosophy and ideology DO NOT. If you think political ideology is a matter of education then what you really believe in is indoctrination (ignoring the fact that one could be educated about political philosophies, of course--whatever people come to believe in, though, should not be a product of the preaching of state schools; that would basically be feeding children government propaganda and wouldn't be too far off from what we have today).
Democracy isn't a good thing, anyway; wolves, sheep, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
What constitutes an "obvious" objection? One you disagree with, what?
Scientists have made simple and obvious errors; people on slashdot have laughed at them:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/2212226
Many scientists are, in fact, idiots like most of 'em, some with some very weird ideas. Michael Behe is in fact a molecular biologist and his claims about evolution can be shot down rather easily by someone with a little knowledge of evolution or study.
I know you're just trying to sound smart, sassy, and cynical; maybe you're pissed because someone trashed one of your favorite dogmas. Either way, it doesn't really matter.
If you're going to criticize over this give some examples instead of some general whine that you probably copy and paste in every science article with a strange claim.
Handwaving away assault, and then going on about "crime against society" (please) and "an affront of all our heritage" (nonsense). What he did was vandalism, pure and simple. He did something stupid, but 1) he didn't destroy it 2) injuring someone is far worse than petty vandalism even in the name of "history".
You're a fanatic. Life is going to go on just fine for everyone over a minute and stupid change to some mostly unimportant sign anyway, and guess what? Nobody really is hurt.
"Affront of all our heritage." Please. How pretentious. Heritage is such a description of the past, who gives a fuck if it's "affronted." The fact that you think destroying a historic artifact should possibly result in death, despite no one being injured, shows that you're a crazed psychopath at the very least. Property damage should not be a capital crime.
By any chance were you a leader of the USSR?
People only have an article to go by, they don't have the paper here. There's nothing wrong with looking at possible weaknesses in their interpretation of the data or their methodology; hell, experts have even made elementary logical mistakes before so I don't know where you get off thinking that people shouldn't try to find weaknesses in hypothesizes presented to them.
But of course, questioning what an "expert" says if you're not an "expert" in that field obviously means you've got personal ego problems and should humble yourself with a little more trust and faith.
Precisely. Scientists have made elementary mistakes before, and we've even seen it here on slashdot. And many times a scientist may discount something that actually IS a valid explanation.
You're right. People should never think critically and try to find other, simpler explanations for a supposed phenomenon, not as long as it comes from a scientist, of course. That would be 'proving' they're idiots, and that's Wrong.
Next time I read something a scientist wrote I'll be sure to keep your advice in mind.
you're a democracy, right? If not, fix _that_ first
If you ask me, if you're in a democracy, you need to fix that as well.
At an additional cost?
How about the rest of the advertised content--you know, the big pvp siege battles and all the other shit they typed?
The game is great 1-20, Khopshef province is fun, then the game winds down more and more until you get to level 50.
What makes you think AoC was marketed to the casual player? Lack of content is not "casual player" material. It's "shit game" material. AoC was marketed as having epic siege battles (which laughably STILL don't work and there's no indication they will in the near future). Again, where is all the stuff they advertised?
AoC was released at least a year too early.
AoC doesn't have queues anymore because tons of people quit that shit game. I'm not trolling. Entire guilds have vanished--there's no endgame, at all. Sieges don't work and the pvp patch STILL hasn't been implemented. The GMs are laughably retarded and unprofessional, and Funcom has pretty much just lied all the way to the bank. This game was a con.
This game is so bad of a joke that I reckon SWG was far better.
Let's see. Do I have a right to [hypothetically] tell you to go Cheney yourself? In public? Repeatedly? Loudly? Even if you tell me in no uncertain terms that you don't want to hear this offer ever again?
Yes.
Of course not, this would be harassment. But if I don't have that right to annoy and harass you, then your statement is flawed.
Ah, the perspective of the modern liberal...
The reason really is the advantage they have. The "it's for the children's protection" is a programmed response people have to "protect the children".
Only because third world countries don't have the infrastructure to create silly regulations over.
The truth is, the masses are either apathetic or don't mind this. Their alternative? More laws, to which people don't know much about and generally, don't care. They know this, and it's how they want to leverage control.
And say "No".
Even if it hurts in the short run. The loss of consumer bargaining power in these instances, where the contracts possibly allow for this, is the fault of the general consumer to begin with.
OK, I was just making sure we were on the same page. We are.
Hardly. Matter, in and of itself, is not aware, but awareness is computational; it is the "sum" brain's workings, much like a computer program is not merely the result of particles but organized particles.
The only reason this is a problem to the dualist is because the dualist refuses to view "mind" as a special, separate "entity" or thing, and continues to critique the monist argument through dualist assumptions in the first place. You'll never be satisfied because you, for some reason, take "perceptions are separate from matter" a priori.
PLEASE Mod both parents up, because I cannot. Two of the better posts on this topic floating in a sea of horse shit....
What "random events"? And anyway, randomness is not "free will". Either it's 1) Non-random and deterministic or 2) It's random. I can't see any other coherent possibility.
Then is THAT free will or just randomness?
Oh please. The media is patriotic, sensationalistic, and irresponsible, but it's not some secret cabal trying to keep the poor proles in line.
It's no surprise, then, then you would totally get Frank Luntz' name wrong, and even less of a surprise that you somehow managed to segue into net neutrality (which has almost nothing to do with the media being crap, no matter what you want to think).
I thought of messing with that stuff but was too lazy to do it.
I kept all my mp3s on an NTFS partition, and it made amarok incredibly slow for searching through files and even listing them when I wanted to expand a tree. It, of course, also was using up a ton of cpu power. Other intensive programs were causing me other problems, mostly more cpu usage quirks.
NTFS-3g is not perfect and I'd recommend steering clear of relying on NTFS on linux for heavy or day-today usage. I haven't used ubuntu on windows but I can imagine it would give a negative impression due to performance issues. For pulling off the occasion file off another partition, though, it works well.
When I moved all my mp3s to an ext3 partition, all the problems with amarok went away instantly.
The problem is, anything you say something is a problem, you step into the realm of ideology, as you cannot derive what is bad or good or desired or undesired from fact alone.
The fact is, everything that people need to make decisions is right in front of them. You assume it's a lack of education issue, which is partly true... but the truth is, most people don't care and would rather occupy their time doing things like eating or having orgasms.
Education is required for a democracy? You mean indoctrination, to accept democracy, and to be "educated" that whatever you think should be in government, should be.
Naturally I disagree with this the fairness doctrine and anything resembling it to the fullest degree, but to say that democracy requires an educated populace on a matter of opinion or policy such as this reeks of "Well, people should be educated to accept my vision of government!"
Obviously matters of fact do come into play, but political philosophy and ideology DO NOT. If you think political ideology is a matter of education then what you really believe in is indoctrination (ignoring the fact that one could be educated about political philosophies, of course--whatever people come to believe in, though, should not be a product of the preaching of state schools; that would basically be feeding children government propaganda and wouldn't be too far off from what we have today).
Democracy isn't a good thing, anyway; wolves, sheep, etc.
...in Soviet Russia.