Duh is right. Considering that belief is the opposite of thinking, they would have to be negatively correlated.
Just to play the fictitious Devil's Advocate: You must therefore understand everything about every currently accepted theory, as you seem to have no need to believe anything.
We all have beliefs; some are just a little (or a lot) less plausible than others.
No, no, no! We need this tax. We owe to it our states to bolster their general funds so they can spend more money, and when they grow accustomed to the newly inflated budget can add some more taxes.
Also, I really like the idea of paying in-state tax for out-of-state, on-line purchases. Along those lines, I created a program to add occasional static to my HD Netflix streaming so it is just like watching television back when we used rabbit ears. Old logic ALWAYS applies to new ideas.
Correction: There is no credible metric with which to make such a comparison. There is, however, conjecture, hearsay, anecdote, polemic pontificating, etc. In the spirit thereof, I submit that MSNBC is the opposite of FoxNews; and CNN just sucks.
The simplest conclusion of the two is that Occam's Razor is worthless, therefore no one has ever had four of a kind in poker. Also, we must conclude that the lookouts were not looking, and so the rare optical effect does not exist. In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrast. Thank you.
And when all we care about is the fastest browser - in nanoseconds! - will we begin to forget the truly important criteria for choosing a browser?
Or better still, by the time IE is on par with Chrome the actual browser will be irrelevant because mobile platforms - in which IE has little share - will do to traditional computers what Cromagnons did to Neanderthals. The next generation will use integrated devices, unaware they were using a browser, and with little or no need for even a choice.
I try not to mix politics with food and wine. Also, I didn't mean to imply that I only eat French wine and cheese; rather, I find their offering among the best. I have been known to take great pleasure in South African merlot (surely no Petrus, but excellenet nonetheless); gjetost (the real stuff, not just Ski Queen); and many other non-French delicacies. I love the California red varietals, and there is plenty of good local cheese in New England, as well as a surprising number of good quality German and Polish butchers.
The trick here is that this is an autosuggest. Google is suggesting, now what that means can vary. I take that to mean google is suggesting that these are things commonly searched together. If you take it to mean 'google is suggesting you should search for' or 'google is suggesting that' then the situation is a bit different.
Google is suggesting a query string, not a matter of truth. In fact, there is no truth value associated with the query; the truth lies within the results of the search.
My interpretation: This is another example of people with limited understanding of the internet attempting to regulate it. We will all suffer as a result. OTOH, as long as they are not filtering results we can still search for "french government has their head up their own ass." They are really lucky I like Bordeaux wines and French cheese and pate de campagne.
Corporate origin. Government sponsorship. Plain and simple.
So? All that matters is if Google broke French law.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how something like this is a matter of law. I'm reminded of the South Park "Nigger Guy" episode. Is it, in France, unlawful to say "Lyonnaise de Garantie" within three words of "escroc"? Are there other variations which are also unlawful? Can they throw one in prison before telling them they broke the law? How far will this go?
One would expect an atheist taking more serious approach to his health.
Why? Being atheist doesn't require the wish to live longer - I can see a valid reason behind "Better live less but intense than be bored to death for a century".
Based my personal experience with several people who died or who are clearly dying of their smoking habit, or wwo quit, I would say the only intensity smoking gives is an intensity of coughing; amplification of bronchial illnesses; stale smoke stench; loss of resale value on house and car; muted taste and touch sense (limited cases); and a really horrible death, way worse than boredom, in my opinion.
The whole "be nice to people" is a small part of Christianity. Furthermore, it is not in any way necessary to have Christianity (or any religion at all) to want to "be nice to people". While Christianity might implore you to be nice, it also carries with it severe baggage; homophobia, misogyny, intolerance, and fear. Seriously; if you told your child that you were going to throw her in the furnace for being bad, it would be child abuse; tell your child that God will throw her in a furnace for all eternity and all of a sudden it's OK. Christianity is a festering sore on our moral development, the sooner we can be rid of it, the better. I will close by passing on Hitch's legacy in the form of a question that he was fond of asking believers: Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived of by a person of no faith. Tough question, right? Ok, here's an easier one: Name me one wicked action that was committed in the name of religion. Chew on that one for a little bit, and the cognitive dissonance might wake you up from your intellectual coma.
Throwing your child in a furnace is child abuse; threatening that you will is just bad parenting. But that is a pretty fair comparison.
So, one wicked action in the name of religion makes religion bad, but clearly you don't feel that one wicked action in the name of something other than religion is bad, so only religion is bad? I suppose if you believe that right and wrong exist only with respect to religion then a non-religious person can't possibly do anything wrong because there is no wrong.
Now, has religion - Christianity or otherwise - been used to commit horrible atrocities? Absolutely. Does that mean religion is bad? Well, if one is in the practice of ascribing evil to inanimate objects, then I guess it is. I, on the other hand, think people are to blame. And "most people" are nothing. Rather, we are just inundated with bullshit from a very loud few. When a person blows up an abortion clinic for Jesus or blows up a crowded disco for Allah, their ignorance is projected onto the lives of many innocent people, and that is truly a tragedy. But once again, let's not lose focus on the fact that people do this shit, not their religion. If any of you religion haters spent any amount of time with typical religious people, you would find they abhor blowing shit up as much as you do. Yes, even the nice ones often let their belief cloud their otherwise intelligent minds into ignoring some really good science. And yes, sometimes large groups of people get stirred into a frenzy (crusades, witch trials, jihad), but other than jihad we are pretty much passed those days.
For the record, I am not religious or christian or anything. Since there is no way to prove the existence of god, I think believers and non-believers alike are both wrong. It's not that one has the wrong answer; it's that neither is answering an answerable question.
The thing is (coming from an IT guy who works in HS education), everything is going touch screen and simplified interfaces. On one hand I completely agree that children should be educated in typing before anything else but the reality is, with smartphones, most children can text/type quicker on a touch screen than on a keyboard. On the comment about the file system....in its essence a file system is a series of folders which is exactly what the organization unit is on smartphones and tablets and of course traditional OS's.
It is kind of like saying...when I was a lad...but maybe they just don't NEED to know all the complexities anymore....when I started webpage design for example about 15 years ago I wrote the code as WYSIWYG editors really did not exist - now I do 99% of my work in DreamWeaver and just touch the code to double check things but I would not need to use the code at all if I had not learnt it to begin with - things move on.
I agree and I do not agree. It is hard to find a plausible reason that someone will ever need to pull a Gates or a Woz and assemble a computer out of spare parts in their garage, but what happens when this knowledge is completely decentralized and everyone is so specialize that no one can?
Likewise, most kids these days may never need to interface with a computer the way we did twenty years ago, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't learn.
Oh good, Apple took a trick from Microsoft on indoctrinating the next generation.
I was amazed recently to see my 15 month old niece playing with an iPad. As I watched my first thought was how lucky she is to be creating those connections in her brain at such a young age, but then I realized we are raising a generation of newly-born children who may very well reach a significant age (say, 8, when I started using computers [in 1980]) before they ever need to touch a real keyboard. Their expectations of a user interface will far exceed ours, and at the same time they may be more a prisoner to the technology because - forget about command line - they'll barely know how to use access a file system using a GUI and a mouse.
At least they will be inside on their computers and not trampling all over my lawn.
Ha ha, Viewing the source code is even funnier:
if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) {
document.write("YUP.");
} else {
document.write("NOPE.");
}
That code obviously isn't peer reviewed. Shouldn't it say if(!(typeof theWorld == "undefined"))...? The variable worldHasEnded will require updating to indicate that it has ended, which will be impossible once it actually ends.
and Silverlight will go the way of mobile Flash. Plug-ins simply must die for the web to thrive in the future.
Silverlight is actually a pretty cool way to handle data in ways tedious or unwieldy in HTML or Xml/Xslt. And if you work for a company totally wrapped up in Microsoft technology and you find you have this requirement for an internal application, I say run with it. I do agree, however, that requiring plug-ins for end users, particularly infrequent or uneducated ones, is a bad practice. But give the browser market two or three years - in which time I expect a radical shift in consuming web-based content - and plug-ins may be a moot point.
Sounds like paleo. My wife's lab is always covering up bones and such when people visit because apparently in that field you can publish based solely on what you remember seeing at someone else's university. Maybe, the more imaginary the discipline, the more likely that shenanigans comes into play? So, psychology, paleontology, string theory...
Slashdot Mirror
Duh is right. Considering that belief is the opposite of thinking, they would have to be negatively correlated.
Just to play the fictitious Devil's Advocate: You must therefore understand everything about every currently accepted theory, as you seem to have no need to believe anything.
We all have beliefs; some are just a little (or a lot) less plausible than others.
Then would the religious folks all go to hell?
"all liars"
lol
If the scripture is false, then there is no hell to which they can go. If the scripture is true, then they are telling the truth.
Trojans offer excellent protection against pregnancy and disease. What is everyone here so damn concerned about?
No, no, no! We need this tax. We owe to it our states to bolster their general funds so they can spend more money, and when they grow accustomed to the newly inflated budget can add some more taxes.
Also, I really like the idea of paying in-state tax for out-of-state, on-line purchases. Along those lines, I created a program to add occasional static to my HD Netflix streaming so it is just like watching television back when we used rabbit ears. Old logic ALWAYS applies to new ideas.
While I'm at it...God Bless the RIAA!
I side with the plaintiffs.
Sincerely,
John Wayne Gacy Jones
The only remaining question is, what's his name?
Dunno but I 'm starting a shortlist
Rob A. Bank Jay Walker Nick A Telly
George Bush
P.S. This is a joke; not a troll.
Correction: There is no credible metric with which to make such a comparison. There is, however, conjecture, hearsay, anecdote, polemic pontificating, etc. In the spirit thereof, I submit that MSNBC is the opposite of FoxNews; and CNN just sucks.
The simplest conclusion of the two is that Occam's Razor is worthless, therefore no one has ever had four of a kind in poker. Also, we must conclude that the lookouts were not looking, and so the rare optical effect does not exist. In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrast. Thank you.
Did you ever see South End Park (1999 or thereabouts South Park parody)? If that was all Flash was ever used for I'd think it was worthwhile.
And when all we care about is the fastest browser - in nanoseconds! - will we begin to forget the truly important criteria for choosing a browser?
Or better still, by the time IE is on par with Chrome the actual browser will be irrelevant because mobile platforms - in which IE has little share - will do to traditional computers what Cromagnons did to Neanderthals. The next generation will use integrated devices, unaware they were using a browser, and with little or no need for even a choice.
Who would want to shop at $1.06 Heaven? Sounds way more expensive than that other place - 99 Cent Heaven.
I try not to mix politics with food and wine. Also, I didn't mean to imply that I only eat French wine and cheese; rather, I find their offering among the best. I have been known to take great pleasure in South African merlot (surely no Petrus, but excellenet nonetheless); gjetost (the real stuff, not just Ski Queen); and many other non-French delicacies. I love the California red varietals, and there is plenty of good local cheese in New England, as well as a surprising number of good quality German and Polish butchers.
The trick here is that this is an autosuggest. Google is suggesting, now what that means can vary. I take that to mean google is suggesting that these are things commonly searched together. If you take it to mean 'google is suggesting you should search for' or 'google is suggesting that' then the situation is a bit different.
Google is suggesting a query string, not a matter of truth. In fact, there is no truth value associated with the query; the truth lies within the results of the search.
My interpretation: This is another example of people with limited understanding of the internet attempting to regulate it. We will all suffer as a result. OTOH, as long as they are not filtering results we can still search for "french government has their head up their own ass." They are really lucky I like Bordeaux wines and French cheese and pate de campagne.
Corporate origin. Government sponsorship. Plain and simple.
So? All that matters is if Google broke French law.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how something like this is a matter of law. I'm reminded of the South Park "Nigger Guy" episode. Is it, in France, unlawful to say "Lyonnaise de Garantie" within three words of "escroc"? Are there other variations which are also unlawful? Can they throw one in prison before telling them they broke the law? How far will this go?
Virtual reality was way cooler in 90s. That wasn't even first-person.
One would expect an atheist taking more serious approach to his health.
Why? Being atheist doesn't require the wish to live longer - I can see a valid reason behind "Better live less but intense than be bored to death for a century".
Based my personal experience with several people who died or who are clearly dying of their smoking habit, or wwo quit, I would say the only intensity smoking gives is an intensity of coughing; amplification of bronchial illnesses; stale smoke stench; loss of resale value on house and car; muted taste and touch sense (limited cases); and a really horrible death, way worse than boredom, in my opinion.
When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer.
That's why I don't believe in string theory, quantum theory or people from Iceland.
The whole "be nice to people" is a small part of Christianity. Furthermore, it is not in any way necessary to have Christianity (or any religion at all) to want to "be nice to people". While Christianity might implore you to be nice, it also carries with it severe baggage; homophobia, misogyny, intolerance, and fear. Seriously; if you told your child that you were going to throw her in the furnace for being bad, it would be child abuse; tell your child that God will throw her in a furnace for all eternity and all of a sudden it's OK. Christianity is a festering sore on our moral development, the sooner we can be rid of it, the better. I will close by passing on Hitch's legacy in the form of a question that he was fond of asking believers: Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived of by a person of no faith. Tough question, right? Ok, here's an easier one: Name me one wicked action that was committed in the name of religion. Chew on that one for a little bit, and the cognitive dissonance might wake you up from your intellectual coma.
Throwing your child in a furnace is child abuse; threatening that you will is just bad parenting. But that is a pretty fair comparison.
So, one wicked action in the name of religion makes religion bad, but clearly you don't feel that one wicked action in the name of something other than religion is bad, so only religion is bad? I suppose if you believe that right and wrong exist only with respect to religion then a non-religious person can't possibly do anything wrong because there is no wrong.
Now, has religion - Christianity or otherwise - been used to commit horrible atrocities? Absolutely. Does that mean religion is bad? Well, if one is in the practice of ascribing evil to inanimate objects, then I guess it is. I, on the other hand, think people are to blame. And "most people" are nothing. Rather, we are just inundated with bullshit from a very loud few. When a person blows up an abortion clinic for Jesus or blows up a crowded disco for Allah, their ignorance is projected onto the lives of many innocent people, and that is truly a tragedy. But once again, let's not lose focus on the fact that people do this shit, not their religion. If any of you religion haters spent any amount of time with typical religious people, you would find they abhor blowing shit up as much as you do. Yes, even the nice ones often let their belief cloud their otherwise intelligent minds into ignoring some really good science. And yes, sometimes large groups of people get stirred into a frenzy (crusades, witch trials, jihad), but other than jihad we are pretty much passed those days.
For the record, I am not religious or christian or anything. Since there is no way to prove the existence of god, I think believers and non-believers alike are both wrong. It's not that one has the wrong answer; it's that neither is answering an answerable question.
The thing is (coming from an IT guy who works in HS education), everything is going touch screen and simplified interfaces. On one hand I completely agree that children should be educated in typing before anything else but the reality is, with smartphones, most children can text/type quicker on a touch screen than on a keyboard. On the comment about the file system....in its essence a file system is a series of folders which is exactly what the organization unit is on smartphones and tablets and of course traditional OS's.
It is kind of like saying...when I was a lad...but maybe they just don't NEED to know all the complexities anymore....when I started webpage design for example about 15 years ago I wrote the code as WYSIWYG editors really did not exist - now I do 99% of my work in DreamWeaver and just touch the code to double check things but I would not need to use the code at all if I had not learnt it to begin with - things move on.
I agree and I do not agree. It is hard to find a plausible reason that someone will ever need to pull a Gates or a Woz and assemble a computer out of spare parts in their garage, but what happens when this knowledge is completely decentralized and everyone is so specialize that no one can?
Likewise, most kids these days may never need to interface with a computer the way we did twenty years ago, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't learn.
Oh good, Apple took a trick from Microsoft on indoctrinating the next generation.
I was amazed recently to see my 15 month old niece playing with an iPad. As I watched my first thought was how lucky she is to be creating those connections in her brain at such a young age, but then I realized we are raising a generation of newly-born children who may very well reach a significant age (say, 8, when I started using computers [in 1980]) before they ever need to touch a real keyboard. Their expectations of a user interface will far exceed ours, and at the same time they may be more a prisoner to the technology because - forget about command line - they'll barely know how to use access a file system using a GUI and a mouse.
At least they will be inside on their computers and not trampling all over my lawn.
Ha ha, Viewing the source code is even funnier: if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) { document.write("YUP."); } else { document.write("NOPE."); }
That code obviously isn't peer reviewed. Shouldn't it say if(!(typeof theWorld == "undefined")) ...? The variable worldHasEnded will require updating to indicate that it has ended, which will be impossible once it actually ends.
But I bet a hundred could. And that's only $50,000!
Touché.
and Silverlight will go the way of mobile Flash. Plug-ins simply must die for the web to thrive in the future.
Silverlight is actually a pretty cool way to handle data in ways tedious or unwieldy in HTML or Xml/Xslt. And if you work for a company totally wrapped up in Microsoft technology and you find you have this requirement for an internal application, I say run with it. I do agree, however, that requiring plug-ins for end users, particularly infrequent or uneducated ones, is a bad practice. But give the browser market two or three years - in which time I expect a radical shift in consuming web-based content - and plug-ins may be a moot point.
Sounds like paleo. My wife's lab is always covering up bones and such when people visit because apparently in that field you can publish based solely on what you remember seeing at someone else's university. Maybe, the more imaginary the discipline, the more likely that shenanigans comes into play? So, psychology, paleontology, string theory...
My $500 iPad's battery outlasts that of my friend's $90,000 Mercedes.
Your iPad battery can't start your friend's Mercedes.