Look up George Washingtons farwell adress to the nation, read it top to bottom (yes it's long)... make a list of everything he says would one day be a risk to the country... then look around today.
Thus the problem defining intelligence... "I think therefor I am" breaks down when the method of thought isn't human.
And yeah, that's a joking simple version... but to look at it on an evolutionary method; if you delete every program that doesn't act human, and form more programs similar to them, and again delete the non-humanish ones... eventually your result will seem human. Does that make them sentient or does it question our own sentience?
because gov.palin@yahoo.com doesn't seem to indicate it...
...but yes, the emails were things relating to the campain... she wasn't discussing financing, but it was stuff that was about the campain that she didn't want on her own email server. Since that would be 'bad' for her.
... you are seriously voting mccain for the SPACE PROGRAM!?
You have got to be the dumbest Anon Coward I've seen. Mod me down, I don't care... but if he honestly thinks McCain is going to spend a dime on space he's insane. No matter WHO wins no money is going to be spent on space, we don't have the spare funds. There are a thousand reasons for and against McCain, but space? Just wow.
Obama isn't going to have enough money to do any damn thing, so I can't really start laying blame to hard already... Bush DID have the money, and chose to invest in Iraq
Just being smart doesn't mean what they know is directly applicable to these other fields. You underestimate how specialized many people in these feilds are... when you dedicate 50 years to learning how gases expand in space, you're damn smart, however you aren't the right man for the job if someone needs to build a mine.
Forget the religious nonsense, answer the only question that should matter; is this man doing science right?
If his actions are not scientific or anti-science, then it's a problem.
If his actions are not harming science or causing confusion where there shouldn't be, then it's not.
If he is in fact advocating a theory because of faith only and not evidence, or intentionally altering his results... that's very bad. However if this guy just looked at the theory, felt it looked correct, and is seeking to prove it if he can, that's still science. Provided the theory hasn't been disproven and he's desperately trying to keep it alive.
I don't know about the situation deeply as you both seem to, however that statement should still hold true regardless of the exact details of this theory he's supporting. His religion doesn't play into it, but if he's harming the signal/noise ratio of knowledge then it becomes a problem.
Alright, now my question is that since both of you are right, (Gandhi didn't get the award, and they do give it out to a veriety of people)... why in the hell didn't Gandhi get it?
That man was the personification of peace... I honestly thought he HAD gotten it.
The problem is that the LHC has caused the production of strange moron particles, which seem to bump into normal people and turn them into more strange morons. The collective outgassing of stupidity causes a supernova brain implosion.
Really there's nothing to be worried about. These particals are naturally occuring and mankind survives with them around us all the time. We've found that as long as you can keep these "M-Particals" away from "Evangelical Particals", reactions are short lived and non-sustanible.
If the pope is good with it, i don't see any elected official having a problem with it.
Really! That's fantastic! That means we can lay another annoying thing to rest now doesn't it...
"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such." October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II
"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." Pope Pius XII
We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.
This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive Pope Benedict XVI
Have a look at this page to learn more about the history of the church and evolution
So the argument is either
A: No fertility allowed for couples in these situations. This means all those potential lives aren't given a chance.
B: Give birth to them all, which means they have to deal with 7-12 kids instead of one. Just what we need, a family who wanted 1 kid raising 12. Who else would expect a dozen more ignored children.
C: Throw them out like trash, making their "Lives" if you want to call a few cells that, meaningless. (This is the current standard)
D: Have that set of cells save countless lives, keep familys together, treat illnesses...
Well just remember the american belief that it's better to have someone of SOME faith in charge then an athiest. Athiests are morally bankrupt and not capable of anything but looking out for themselves... much better to have a nation of walking bombs on the hunt for virgins in the afterlife then an evil athiest. If you put an athiest in charge he'll eat your babys for science, have police in your house saying you can't pray, and kill god when the rapture happens.
...I still say if babys didn't want to be eaten they wouldn't taste like candy.
Slashdot Mirror
Not guilty?
You seem to be confused... in america you're either a terrorist or a potential terrorist
Want to read something beutiful and haunting?
Look up George Washingtons farwell adress to the nation, read it top to bottom (yes it's long)... make a list of everything he says would one day be a risk to the country... then look around today.
So it's sentient when it says it is?
Print = "I'm Alive!"
Thus the problem defining intelligence... "I think therefor I am" breaks down when the method of thought isn't human.
And yeah, that's a joking simple version... but to look at it on an evolutionary method; if you delete every program that doesn't act human, and form more programs similar to them, and again delete the non-humanish ones... eventually your result will seem human. Does that make them sentient or does it question our own sentience?
because gov.palin@yahoo.com doesn't seem to indicate it...
...but yes, the emails were things relating to the campain... she wasn't discussing financing, but it was stuff that was about the campain that she didn't want on her own email server. Since that would be 'bad' for her.
... you are seriously voting mccain for the SPACE PROGRAM!?
You have got to be the dumbest Anon Coward I've seen. Mod me down, I don't care... but if he honestly thinks McCain is going to spend a dime on space he's insane. No matter WHO wins no money is going to be spent on space, we don't have the spare funds. There are a thousand reasons for and against McCain, but space? Just wow.
Obama isn't going to have enough money to do any damn thing, so I can't really start laying blame to hard already... Bush DID have the money, and chose to invest in Iraq
We don't have time to spend money on microbiology, we have more pressing matters, like half the country having smallpox and polio!
Just being smart doesn't mean what they know is directly applicable to these other fields. You underestimate how specialized many people in these feilds are... when you dedicate 50 years to learning how gases expand in space, you're damn smart, however you aren't the right man for the job if someone needs to build a mine.
The beurocracy has expanded to sustain the expanding beurocracy
Forget the religious nonsense, answer the only question that should matter; is this man doing science right?
If his actions are not scientific or anti-science, then it's a problem.
If his actions are not harming science or causing confusion where there shouldn't be, then it's not.
If he is in fact advocating a theory because of faith only and not evidence, or intentionally altering his results... that's very bad. However if this guy just looked at the theory, felt it looked correct, and is seeking to prove it if he can, that's still science. Provided the theory hasn't been disproven and he's desperately trying to keep it alive.
I don't know about the situation deeply as you both seem to, however that statement should still hold true regardless of the exact details of this theory he's supporting. His religion doesn't play into it, but if he's harming the signal/noise ratio of knowledge then it becomes a problem.
Alright, now my question is that since both of you are right, (Gandhi didn't get the award, and they do give it out to a veriety of people)... why in the hell didn't Gandhi get it?
That man was the personification of peace... I honestly thought he HAD gotten it.
Screw PETA... mod me troll if you want, but that group of idiots needs to be ended
haha, the line between funny and flamebait/troll is the mods choice of invisable friend :)
Plain wrong....
...or fair and ballenced?
NEXT ON FOX!
Christianity?
Really there's nothing to be worried about. These particals are naturally occuring and mankind survives with them around us all the time. We've found that as long as you can keep these "M-Particals" away from "Evangelical Particals", reactions are short lived and non-sustanible.
Depends which side you ask.
None, because after careful analisis we've determined it won't happen
-Science
An explosion that would likely cause the END OF THE UNIVERSE AND KILL GOD! (add video clip of a van exploding)
-Fox News (story at 11)
Really! That's fantastic! That means we can lay another annoying thing to rest now doesn't it...
Have a look at this page to learn more about the history of the church and evolution
ugh, not the baby killing argument.
Protip: No one wants to kill babies, they want to use embros that were going to be thrown out anyway, and that happens a lot.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/souls_on_ice.html
The more you know.
So the argument is either
A: No fertility allowed for couples in these situations. This means all those potential lives aren't given a chance.
B: Give birth to them all, which means they have to deal with 7-12 kids instead of one. Just what we need, a family who wanted 1 kid raising 12. Who else would expect a dozen more ignored children.
C: Throw them out like trash, making their "Lives" if you want to call a few cells that, meaningless. (This is the current standard)
D: Have that set of cells save countless lives, keep familys together, treat illnesses...
You're outsourcing our P2P now? Where will it end!
Troll? learn to mod idiot. THIS is troll, THAT was funny
Well just remember the american belief that it's better to have someone of SOME faith in charge then an athiest. Athiests are morally bankrupt and not capable of anything but looking out for themselves... much better to have a nation of walking bombs on the hunt for virgins in the afterlife then an evil athiest. If you put an athiest in charge he'll eat your babys for science, have police in your house saying you can't pray, and kill god when the rapture happens.
...I still say if babys didn't want to be eaten they wouldn't taste like candy.
Jack T has been quoted as saying "If you strike me down I'll become more f-ing crazy then you can imagine"
MIMES! Mimes are killing our CHILDREN!!!!!
maybe we'll get lucky and he'll sit on his ass unemployed with a bag of natchos playing GTA and finally realize "Hey... what's wrong with this?"