I don't know the details of your personal beliefs, but I've always had a problem with the attitude that goes, "This set of beliefs give me a sense of meaning/purpose, therefore they must be true." Just because a lot of peple feel that it's useful for God to exist does not mean that He must.
I prefer to determine the workings of the universe the best I can and then see if I can find a meaning and/or purpose from there.
Knuth is great for his theoretical work, but I don't know if he'd rank up there as an important programmer. Although I suppose someone could make an argument for it based on his work on TeX.
The real great programmers omissions I see are Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie. It's hard to top creating the most influencial programming language and the most influential OS of all time. (C and Unix, obviously).
When it comes to the OS, Thompson would be a thousand times more interesting to talk to than Torvalds.
Unless you believe that there is another way of knowing where the ball is going to land, other than math, the dog's brain must be using *some* kind of math at *some* level, in order to move its body to get to where the ball is.
Sure there's a way. Just from experience built from practice and observation. After a while, accurate pictures in the mind can be formed of what the ball is going to do and the dog can take the proper actions to get the ball. Just because all of this can be modeled using mathematics does not necessarily mean that the dog's brain is in some way doing mathematics.
In my opinion, people who make arguments like this are confusing the models we use to describe the world around us with the world itself.
While you (and I) are floating through life trying to figure out what it is that we want, this kid is setting goals and achieving them.
The problem is that nobody can determine what goals work best for them without a period of "floating". If you're single-mindedly working your ass off without taking in the world around you, how can you know all that life has to offer?
MTV, one of the crappiest, most vacuous channels ever to be shat into existence, a boon for music? Maybe in the early days it was. Now I have to agree with Lewis Black when he says, "MTV is to music what KFC is to chicken."
But the one thing I am absolutely certain about? Giving into violent pressure takes us right down a slippery slope we don't need to be on. Chamberlain discovered to his dismay that appeasement never works with madmen.
I'm sorry but that's a horribly misleading argument you have there. You're equating the legalization of alcohol as a form of appeasement to the mafia. Legislation that undermines a lucrative business for an organization is not appeasement. Same argument goes for the violent dealers of illegal drugs today.
You know what's dangerous? Heavily armed gang-bangers that get their power and influence from the highly profitable business of illegal drugs. This brought to us thanks to the War on Drugs. It was created thanks to people like you who perceived such a threat from these junkies. (Junkies who, by the way, would be a lot less desperate/unsafe if they had easier access to their vices).
But now it's created a situation much more dangerous than the one it tried to fix ever could have been. Thanks.
Sorry it's been so long since I got back to you. I didn't want to submit this during work.
My source is a book called "Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography" by Dominic Streatfeild. (Which, despite what the title may lead you to believe, has some pretty heavy research behind it). The author cites American historian Paul Gootenburg. He talks about Stepan Chemicals, a subsidiary of Coca-Cola. It's their job to remove all of the cocaine from the coca leaves before they are used to make Coke.
Building Number 2 of Stepan Chemicals' Maywood, New Jersey plant (where the magic happens) is estimated to import 175,000 kilograms of coca a year, which is referred to as "Merchandise Number 5." As you can imagine, this particular plant is guarded heavily.
There's also more to the story regarding the mutually beneficial relationship between Coca-Cola and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the past. But if you want the details, read the book!
Coca-Cola still contains coca leaf extract. It's just that they chemically remove all traces of cocaine from it.
One reason why Coca-Cola can protect the taste of their product from being replicated is that they are one of the few (if not only) US companies that can legally use coca leaves.
Nothing 'horrific' in that sense happens in films like Donnie Darko, Jacob's Ladder, Requiem for a Dream or Silkwood, but they're far more emotionally disturbing than, say, Doom or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I always thought Donnie Darko was more very very sad than disturbing. And actually, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was pretty disturbing - not at all the gore-fest that most people think it is before seeing it.
As far as an example of a truly disturbing movie, just one word...
I'm thinking that's why the language doesn't have a lot. It's got WAY fewer features than even C.
Errrrrr... what the fuck are you talking about? Java has far more keywords than C. The one major feature C has that Java doesn't is manipulation of pointers, and that adds very little to the language itself. Maybe you're talking about the C preprocessor, but that hardly counts.
Just what strange, fantasitcal definition of the word "features" are you using?
You are making the mistake of equating validity with an adherence to highly structured rationalization. If all that is real to you is what can be quantified using simple rule sets, nothing I say next will be meaningful to you.
I do not believe that all that is real can be quantified by using a simple set of rules. But when someone makes a claim such as "God is omnipotent", they make a specific logical statement. As such, it is subject to rational inquiry.
"God just isn't the kind of thing that can be caused to exist. So asking 'Who caused God?' is like asking 'what does yellow smell like?'. The colour yellow just isn't (and indeed no colour is) the kind of thing that can have a characteristic smell. Neither is God the sort of thing that can have a cause."
How is it that theists can say "It is meaningless to ask what caused God" but demand from others that a cause for the Universe be explained? I side with the positivists on the question of what created the universe by saying "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."
As for the argument against the argument against Omnipotence, I don't think it works. I agree that naming some external logical contradiction as something that God cannot do (such as "Can God create a square cirlce?") does not argue against omnipotence as no "thing" has been named. However, the example I gave is different. It goes to the heart of what it means to be "omnipotent". After all, the answer to "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" is "mu" as a Universe simultaneously containing an irresistible force and an immovalbe object is impossible as this leads to a logical contradiction. I'd argue that in the same way, since the concept of an Omnipotent being leads to a contradiction, such a being cannot exist. Your quoted article states The only difference being that one of the two already exists - namely God. when talking about God and the stone with nothing more to back it up with than "Because we assumed God exists, God must exist."
Why do atheists always insist "The belief in god is not scientific, it is not falsifiable" (which is correct), then proceed to try to "prove" that God must not exist?
Although the existence of God is not a posteriori falsifiable, it may be a priori falsifiable. God (as we commonly consider Him) is defined as an omnipotent being. One could make a case that the very concept of omnipotence is contradictory. For example, can God create an object too heavy for him to lift? No matter how this question is answered, we have an example of something that God cannot do, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.
Also, we can make a case that a disproof of God is not necessary. If we allow ourselves to consider the existence of God, why do we not consider the possible exitstences of infinite other metaphysical entities? For example, little fairies that disappear whenver anyone looks for them along with any evidence that they were ever there. Just because God is offered as such a powerful being is no reason to give it any more credence then any other metaphysical consideration. As Occam states, "Do not multiply entities beyond necesity."
Oddly enough, asserting or denying a god are equally matters of faith...
I agree that they are both matters of faith, but to state that they are equally so is laughable at best.
If you're developing for a project where efficiency/speed is a big issue then, yeah, C++ can be more productive than Java.
Better than writing the whold thing in Java, finding out *oh shit* it doesn't perform up to snuff, then having to rewrite it in C++.
Projects where C++ is a better fit than Java tend to be much more fun, innovative and interesting anyways. "Oooo, I get to write another enterprise application? Well I feel like an uber-hacker already!"
What Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states is that we will never have a finite list of axioms which constitutes a consistent system that can prove or disprove every mathematical statement. It means we will have a plurality of deductive systems which cover many different domains.
But that means we can have different axiomatic systems such that the answer to a statement can be "true" in one and "false" in another. Then if someone wants to ask, "But what is the real answer?" all we can do is shrug our shoulders and reply, "Mu." This can be disconcerting to some who believe in the certainty of mathematics.
I don't think this in any way takes away from the power of mathematics. But shows the limited abilities of human beings or rather the immensity of the universe.
Wrong. It has nothing to do with the limited abilities of human beings but the limitations of pure logic itself. It doesn't matter if the beings trying to figure shit out is us, some advanced alien race or God Almighty Himself. There are limitations to the set of things that can be known.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know the details of your personal beliefs, but I've always had a problem with the attitude that goes, "This set of beliefs give me a sense of meaning/purpose, therefore they must be true." Just because a lot of peple feel that it's useful for God to exist does not mean that He must.
I prefer to determine the workings of the universe the best I can and then see if I can find a meaning and/or purpose from there.
I don't know. Name one recent OS innovation that will be as relevant as Unix is now in 20 years.
Knuth is great for his theoretical work, but I don't know if he'd rank up there as an important programmer. Although I suppose someone could make an argument for it based on his work on TeX.
The real great programmers omissions I see are Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie. It's hard to top creating the most influencial programming language and the most influential OS of all time. (C and Unix, obviously).
When it comes to the OS, Thompson would be a thousand times more interesting to talk to than Torvalds.
Yeah, whatever. The Bush administration is the antithesis of "taking responsibility of one's actions."
Republicans talk a good game about it to get votes, but are utterly incapable of living up to this ideal.
Sure there's a way. Just from experience built from practice and observation. After a while, accurate pictures in the mind can be formed of what the ball is going to do and the dog can take the proper actions to get the ball. Just because all of this can be modeled using mathematics does not necessarily mean that the dog's brain is in some way doing mathematics.
In my opinion, people who make arguments like this are confusing the models we use to describe the world around us with the world itself.
Maybe. But you don't know hilarious until you've seen him mocking the competition while doing the Safety Dance. (And no, this isn't really from BK).
The problem is that nobody can determine what goals work best for them without a period of "floating". If you're single-mindedly working your ass off without taking in the world around you, how can you know all that life has to offer?
Better than being married.
What about those of us who are smart enough to stay single and not fall for all of that "You need a wife/children to complete your life" bullshit?
MTV, one of the crappiest, most vacuous channels ever to be shat into existence, a boon for music? Maybe in the early days it was. Now I have to agree with Lewis Black when he says, "MTV is to music what KFC is to chicken."
I'm sorry but that's a horribly misleading argument you have there. You're equating the legalization of alcohol as a form of appeasement to the mafia. Legislation that undermines a lucrative business for an organization is not appeasement. Same argument goes for the violent dealers of illegal drugs today.
You know what's dangerous? Heavily armed gang-bangers that get their power and influence from the highly profitable business of illegal drugs. This brought to us thanks to the War on Drugs. It was created thanks to people like you who perceived such a threat from these junkies. (Junkies who, by the way, would be a lot less desperate/unsafe if they had easier access to their vices).
But now it's created a situation much more dangerous than the one it tried to fix ever could have been. Thanks.
Sorry it's been so long since I got back to you. I didn't want to submit this during work.
My source is a book called "Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography" by Dominic Streatfeild. (Which, despite what the title may lead you to believe, has some pretty heavy research behind it). The author cites American historian Paul Gootenburg. He talks about Stepan Chemicals, a subsidiary of Coca-Cola. It's their job to remove all of the cocaine from the coca leaves before they are used to make Coke.
Building Number 2 of Stepan Chemicals' Maywood, New Jersey plant (where the magic happens) is estimated to import 175,000 kilograms of coca a year, which is referred to as "Merchandise Number 5." As you can imagine, this particular plant is guarded heavily.
There's also more to the story regarding the mutually beneficial relationship between Coca-Cola and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the past. But if you want the details, read the book!
Coca-Cola still contains coca leaf extract. It's just that they chemically remove all traces of cocaine from it.
One reason why Coca-Cola can protect the taste of their product from being replicated is that they are one of the few (if not only) US companies that can legally use coca leaves.
Protons on a Blimp - The Story of the Hindenburg
A song for you.
I always thought Donnie Darko was more very very sad than disturbing. And actually, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was pretty disturbing - not at all the gore-fest that most people think it is before seeing it.
As far as an example of a truly disturbing movie, just one word...
Eraserhead
The AC speaketh the truth.
I found out the same thing while trying out kernel development.
Errrrrr... what the fuck are you talking about? Java has far more keywords than C. The one major feature C has that Java doesn't is manipulation of pointers, and that adds very little to the language itself. Maybe you're talking about the C preprocessor, but that hardly counts.
Just what strange, fantasitcal definition of the word "features" are you using?
I do not believe that all that is real can be quantified by using a simple set of rules. But when someone makes a claim such as "God is omnipotent", they make a specific logical statement. As such, it is subject to rational inquiry.
"God just isn't the kind of thing that can be caused to exist. So asking 'Who caused God?' is like asking 'what does yellow smell like?'. The colour yellow just isn't (and indeed no colour is) the kind of thing that can have a characteristic smell. Neither is God the sort of thing that can have a cause."
How is it that theists can say "It is meaningless to ask what caused God" but demand from others that a cause for the Universe be explained? I side with the positivists on the question of what created the universe by saying "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."
As for the argument against the argument against Omnipotence, I don't think it works. I agree that naming some external logical contradiction as something that God cannot do (such as "Can God create a square cirlce?") does not argue against omnipotence as no "thing" has been named. However, the example I gave is different. It goes to the heart of what it means to be "omnipotent". After all, the answer to "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" is "mu" as a Universe simultaneously containing an irresistible force and an immovalbe object is impossible as this leads to a logical contradiction. I'd argue that in the same way, since the concept of an Omnipotent being leads to a contradiction, such a being cannot exist. Your quoted article states The only difference being that one of the two already exists - namely God. when talking about God and the stone with nothing more to back it up with than "Because we assumed God exists, God must exist."
And, yeah, I've thought a lot about this stuff. :)
Although the existence of God is not a posteriori falsifiable, it may be a priori falsifiable. God (as we commonly consider Him) is defined as an omnipotent being. One could make a case that the very concept of omnipotence is contradictory. For example, can God create an object too heavy for him to lift? No matter how this question is answered, we have an example of something that God cannot do, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.
Also, we can make a case that a disproof of God is not necessary. If we allow ourselves to consider the existence of God, why do we not consider the possible exitstences of infinite other metaphysical entities? For example, little fairies that disappear whenver anyone looks for them along with any evidence that they were ever there. Just because God is offered as such a powerful being is no reason to give it any more credence then any other metaphysical consideration. As Occam states, "Do not multiply entities beyond necesity."
Oddly enough, asserting or denying a god are equally matters of faith...
I agree that they are both matters of faith, but to state that they are equally so is laughable at best.
This is false. In half of bankruptcies filed in the US, medical expenses are a major cause.
Better than writing the whold thing in Java, finding out *oh shit* it doesn't perform up to snuff, then having to rewrite it in C++.
Projects where C++ is a better fit than Java tend to be much more fun, innovative and interesting anyways. "Oooo, I get to write another enterprise application? Well I feel like an uber-hacker already!"
The ironic thing about your comment is that you sound like someone who has reached Enlightenment.
But that means we can have different axiomatic systems such that the answer to a statement can be "true" in one and "false" in another. Then if someone wants to ask, "But what is the real answer?" all we can do is shrug our shoulders and reply, "Mu." This can be disconcerting to some who believe in the certainty of mathematics.
I don't think this in any way takes away from the power of mathematics. But shows the limited abilities of human beings or rather the immensity of the universe.
Wrong. It has nothing to do with the limited abilities of human beings but the limitations of pure logic itself. It doesn't matter if the beings trying to figure shit out is us, some advanced alien race or God Almighty Himself. There are limitations to the set of things that can be known.