Of course, but that would be just plain stupid as there is clearly no fundamental psysiological difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are subject to the same kind of selective pressures and genetic mutations/drift that any other animal is subject to. If humans were really that special physiologically, you'd think it would pretty obvious. LIke, "hey! human genes don't mutate!" Or "Look, humans don't have the same kind of nervous system as every other mammal." In reality, humans fit just fine into the nested hierarchy of life on Earth. If there is anything special about us, it is all in our heads. And I don't mean the brain, because even that is, for the most part, standard mammalian stuff only with a little more horsepower.
What do you mean, "bullshit?" YOu agree with me. Most IDist are creationist. Isn't that what I said? Are you suggesting that there aren't some IDist out there who accept at least most of current evolutionary theory? Michael Behe, a very high profile ID guy, doesn't seem to have much of problem with evolution. He even accepts common decent.
This certainly goes against creationism but afaik the only difference between evolution and intelligent design is that intelligent design claims statistics is insufficient and a divine guiding hand was required, wouldn't this missing link be required for either model as both need to go from water to land?
Depends on the ID proponent that you talk to. Most just happen to be Creationists also. ID doesn't have any official stance on evolution and certainly has no stance on how the "designer" implemented its designs. This is one of most annoying parts about ID. It doesn't say anything except "we detect design." Because of this, ID doesn't "require" anything. Species coudl have been created fully formed or they could have evolved with the guidance of a designer. Both are compatable with ID. ID isn't necessarily wrong, it is just too vague to be useful. If every possible observation fits your "theory," the theory is useless.
But Creationism is a word that, right or wrong, is used by both the general public and its most vocal proponents to mean a belief in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis, and as such is incompatible with any evolutionary theory.
Actually, even that type of Creationist believes in evolution. First, ask a creationist how Noah fit 2 (or more) or each species on the ark. After they run a few numbers, they'll come back and say something like "Noah only had to put 2 of each created 'kind' onto the Ark." Then ask them the process by which those prototypical "kinds" diversified into the species we know of today. Not only do they believe in evolution, but hyper-evolution. All those species evolving over a mere few thousand years? Amazing! From one couple of "cats" we got everything from the house cat to tigers.
However, a bored 13 year old, with minimal knwoledge, can easily muck with a GET, not so much with a POST. A POST requires a bit more know-how, hence limiting the user base that has the ability to dick around with your site, hence offering greater security.
But isn't it the kids with just a bit more know-how that you have to worry about?
Because it's trivial to expose the guts of your api with AJAX, whereas GET and POST typically go through a single well-defined and secured interface.
Really? Isn't the typical PHP application, for example, full of different interfaces? index.php, mailbox.php, submit_form.php, etc? Typical non-AJAX web apps rarely define a single point on entry.
Most AJAX API's pay short shrift to security and don't even give you a decent way to secure their remoting interface.
The only two AJAX APIs i've used extensively are JPSpan and Prototype/Ruby on Rails. JPSpan most certainly defines a single point of entry for ALL ajax requests, typically called server.php. And RoR treats AJAX requests as the same as any other request. So I have no idea what yo are talking about. And since you are an (anonymous) coward, I don't suspect I'll get an opportunity to find out either.
And I'm getting tired of people who have knee jerk reactions to any mention of AJAX regardless of the content. Did you even RTFA? There was no hype in it. Although I am still wondering what the poitn of it was. Seemed to me that everything they talked about would apply to "regular" web pages.
Sure, but there are typically any number of links on that non-AJAX page that make similar requests for data. All of which use GET requests... exactly the kind of thing that the author of the article warned against.
Could someone please explain to me how these potential problems with AJAX requests are unique to AJAX at all? This article did a horrible job at that. Couldn't any GET (to a script) or POST request request be "faked?" Aren't forms and links just as vulnerable to variable insertion and whatnot? AFAIK, there is really no fundamental different between an HTTP request made by a user directly and XmlHTTPRequest.
Hey, here's and idea. Why don't you try to counter his points rather than whine about some "liberal bias." Please explain how anyone is trying to force you to marry someone of the same sex. Or how someone is trying to kill you because you are terminally ill. Or how someone is trying to force you to not Believe.
It isn't some supernatural act of God that helps you recover.
God created healing.
Who created dying? Sure, sure, Man caused his own dying by Original Sin, but who created the whole concept/process of sickness and dying? Clearly it existed before Man because God warned Adam that he would experience it if he ate of the Tree. Careful now, if you say Satan, then you are in theological hot water because Satan is technicallyy not capable of creation. This is the Problem of Evil that has puzzled theologians and philosphers for millenia.
I thought it was a reasonable, but untestable, hypothesis. You could never really guarantee that nobody was praying for a given subject. If it only takes one pray-er to help a patient, well... that's tough. I mean, you could ask people not to pray, but I don't know how far you're going to get with that.
As others have pointed out, Believers are going to find some way to believe that God answers such prayers. Even if you could scientifically conclude that even a single prayer doesn't help a patient, someone would just suggest that God doesn't answer when scientists are looking or something like that.
My feeling on the matter is that prayers, like funerals, mostly benefit the pray-er and not the patient. Unless, of course, you make the sick person aware that you are praying for him/her. In which case, there is a psychological boost for the patient. But that could have been achieved any number of ways.
Now, how about that Biblical support for prayer healing the sick and prayers from loved ones being more valuable than prayer from strangers....;-)
think you and the rest of the atheists have confused religion/prayer with a Geni.
I think you "theists" have a nasty habit of calling people atheists when they are not. Exactly which part of my post gave away my supposed religious orientation or lack thereof?
This isn't a 3 wishes thing where you just ask...sheesh. Would you really want it that way? Someone could be offended by your comment and ask to have your head popped like a zit. *boiioioioioinnnnggg* *POP*
Offended by what? Asking for Biblical support for a religious claim by a Christian? Suggesting that the psychology of an individual is being overlooked in favor of the supernatural?
I suspect that citing the Bible would be a waste of time with you since, based on your response, it doesn't sound like you believe in it anyway.
Try me. I am interested in what people think and how they interpret texts such as the Bible. Quotes from the Bible wouldn't convince me of anything as far as objective reality goes, but I'd still be interested in hearing what it has to say on this matter.
Would you mind explaining the difference, as far as prayer goes, between a stranger and a loved one? What is this based on? Is there something in the Bible regarding which type of prayer works best? Does the Bible even mention that prayers are an effective way to help others with physical illness?
From what I can gather, your prediction of which type of prayer would work best seems to be based more on what you would prefer and not on some objective measure of which is actually more effective. The question becomes, is it God answering prayers that help or is it a function of your own morale being boosted by the thought of praying loved ones? If you are laying sick in a bed and you know your loved ones are praying for you, of course you are goign to be motivated to get better! It isn't some supernatural act of God that helps you recover. It is your own mind. Studies HAVE shown pretty conclusively that the morale and will of a patient can greatly affect recovery.
No. For as much as I despise the term, "web 2.0" isn't about the particular technoligies used. It is about the the way the roll of the website has changed. Things like wikis and blogs have given controll over content to the user as opposed to some "webmaster" posting (mostly) static content for the public to view. It has nothing to do with Google implementing their web mail using AJAX. It has nothing to do with using DHTML to modify the DOM tree. It has nothing to do with making asynchronous Javascript calls. t has nothing to do with trying to make "desktop-like" web applications. It is just about user initiated content and collaboration.
1. "static" in the sense of not dynamically interacting with the user in an ongoing communication with the server, that is, not in the sense of "not dynamically generated by the server". Note that a page using "regular" Javascript is still a static page; there might be user interaction, but it's not usually going to communicate with the server, so all interaction is local only (akin to writing into a book you bought, for example).
The fact that a site might use Javascript and XML at all seems pretty irrelevent to me. It could, concievably, all be done with simple HTML forms and submits without CSS or much Javascript and still be "web 2.0." The "2.0" thing isn't about new technology or a new way (as in the language) of writing web sites, it is just a new way of looking at web sites and their function.
-matthew
Re:Real consequences? Play for keeps?
on
Living In Oblivion
·
· Score: 1
No kidding. I'm thinking some of these "gamers" could learn a lesson or two by playing Nethack, Angband, ToME or some other Rogue-like where you really play for keeps. One mistake and you start over. No extra lives. No respawning. No saved games. As frustrating as it can be, no RPG has ever hooked me better then Nethack and, later, ToME.
As an aside, why do all groupware products suck? Groupwise sucks. Domino/Notes sucks. Exchange/Outlook sucks. Why doesn't someone like Adobe create a groupware product to completely blow these suckers away?
I wonder if perhaps email and calendar function just don't belong together in the same interface.
But aren't the orders of magnitude difference part of the fantasy? The idea is that you go from peasant to god over the course of the game. It isn't supposed to be realistic. It's fantasy.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, but that would be just plain stupid as there is clearly no fundamental psysiological difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are subject to the same kind of selective pressures and genetic mutations/drift that any other animal is subject to. If humans were really that special physiologically, you'd think it would pretty obvious. LIke, "hey! human genes don't mutate!" Or "Look, humans don't have the same kind of nervous system as every other mammal." In reality, humans fit just fine into the nested hierarchy of life on Earth. If there is anything special about us, it is all in our heads. And I don't mean the brain, because even that is, for the most part, standard mammalian stuff only with a little more horsepower.
-matthew
What do you mean, "bullshit?" YOu agree with me. Most IDist are creationist. Isn't that what I said? Are you suggesting that there aren't some IDist out there who accept at least most of current evolutionary theory? Michael Behe, a very high profile ID guy, doesn't seem to have much of problem with evolution. He even accepts common decent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
-matthew
-matthew
-matthew
I think he's just saying that our robot overlords won't be much larger than a human. Relax. It's good news.
-matthew
I'd think it would be hard to compress due to all the monkeys hitting random keys. Random data is difficult to impossible to compress.
matthew
It isn't really a question of "can I get a PC without Windows?" It is a question of "Is it legal for MS to do this?"
-matthew
-matthew
-matthew
And I'm getting tired of people who have knee jerk reactions to any mention of AJAX regardless of the content. Did you even RTFA? There was no hype in it. Although I am still wondering what the poitn of it was. Seemed to me that everything they talked about would apply to "regular" web pages.
-matthew
Sure, but there are typically any number of links on that non-AJAX page that make similar requests for data. All of which use GET requests... exactly the kind of thing that the author of the article warned against.
-matthew
Could someone please explain to me how these potential problems with AJAX requests are unique to AJAX at all? This article did a horrible job at that. Couldn't any GET (to a script) or POST request request be "faked?" Aren't forms and links just as vulnerable to variable insertion and whatnot? AFAIK, there is really no fundamental different between an HTTP request made by a user directly and XmlHTTPRequest.
-matthew
Hey, here's and idea. Why don't you try to counter his points rather than whine about some "liberal bias." Please explain how anyone is trying to force you to marry someone of the same sex. Or how someone is trying to kill you because you are terminally ill. Or how someone is trying to force you to not Believe.
-matthew
Ya gotta keep your eyes open. The answer could appear any where, any time.
-matthew
-matthew
I thought it was a reasonable, but untestable, hypothesis. You could never really guarantee that nobody was praying for a given subject. If it only takes one pray-er to help a patient, well... that's tough. I mean, you could ask people not to pray, but I don't know how far you're going to get with that.
;-)
As others have pointed out, Believers are going to find some way to believe that God answers such prayers. Even if you could scientifically conclude that even a single prayer doesn't help a patient, someone would just suggest that God doesn't answer when scientists are looking or something like that.
My feeling on the matter is that prayers, like funerals, mostly benefit the pray-er and not the patient. Unless, of course, you make the sick person aware that you are praying for him/her. In which case, there is a psychological boost for the patient. But that could have been achieved any number of ways.
Now, how about that Biblical support for prayer healing the sick and prayers from loved ones being more valuable than prayer from strangers....
-matthew
I think you "theists" have a nasty habit of calling people atheists when they are not. Exactly which part of my post gave away my supposed religious orientation or lack thereof?
Offended by what? Asking for Biblical support for a religious claim by a Christian? Suggesting that the psychology of an individual is being overlooked in favor of the supernatural?
-matthew
Try me. I am interested in what people think and how they interpret texts such as the Bible. Quotes from the Bible wouldn't convince me of anything as far as objective reality goes, but I'd still be interested in hearing what it has to say on this matter.
-matthew
Would you mind explaining the difference, as far as prayer goes, between a stranger and a loved one? What is this based on? Is there something in the Bible regarding which type of prayer works best? Does the Bible even mention that prayers are an effective way to help others with physical illness?
From what I can gather, your prediction of which type of prayer would work best seems to be based more on what you would prefer and not on some objective measure of which is actually more effective. The question becomes, is it God answering prayers that help or is it a function of your own morale being boosted by the thought of praying loved ones? If you are laying sick in a bed and you know your loved ones are praying for you, of course you are goign to be motivated to get better! It isn't some supernatural act of God that helps you recover. It is your own mind. Studies HAVE shown pretty conclusively that the morale and will of a patient can greatly affect recovery.
-matthew
Shhhhh! We're already being replaced by mechanical penises. The last thing we need are mechanical sperm to completely remove us from the equation!
-matthew
No. For as much as I despise the term, "web 2.0" isn't about the particular technoligies used. It is about the the way the roll of the website has changed. Things like wikis and blogs have given controll over content to the user as opposed to some "webmaster" posting (mostly) static content for the public to view. It has nothing to do with Google implementing their web mail using AJAX. It has nothing to do with using DHTML to modify the DOM tree. It has nothing to do with making asynchronous Javascript calls. t has nothing to do with trying to make "desktop-like" web applications. It is just about user initiated content and collaboration.
-matthew
The fact that a site might use Javascript and XML at all seems pretty irrelevent to me. It could, concievably, all be done with simple HTML forms and submits without CSS or much Javascript and still be "web 2.0." The "2.0" thing isn't about new technology or a new way (as in the language) of writing web sites, it is just a new way of looking at web sites and their function.
-matthew
No kidding. I'm thinking some of these "gamers" could learn a lesson or two by playing Nethack, Angband, ToME or some other Rogue-like where you really play for keeps. One mistake and you start over. No extra lives. No respawning. No saved games. As frustrating as it can be, no RPG has ever hooked me better then Nethack and, later, ToME.
-matthew
I wonder if perhaps email and calendar function just don't belong together in the same interface.
-matthew
But aren't the orders of magnitude difference part of the fantasy? The idea is that you go from peasant to god over the course of the game. It isn't supposed to be realistic. It's fantasy. ;-)
-matthew