It is probably going to be said a million times but, here goes:
Firstly, no vaccination is a 100% guarantee. The best give some high 90's percent chance of immunity, many much lower. However, even when you are not fully immunized from a vaccine, it can still mean you get a much milder case of the disease.
Secondly, not all people can be immunized. Children too young to have a fully working immune system, people with cancer or some immunodeficiency. They, in stead, rely on herd immunity: If enough of the surrounding people are immunized, they won't get the disease. So, by choosing to not get immunised when you can, you basically make life much worse for children with cancer. I would say that that is a group who could use any break they can get, and does not deserve to be made more miserable.
It is probably going to be said a million times but, here goes:
Firstly, no vaccination is a 100% guarantee. The best give some high 90's percent chance of immunity, many much lower. However, even when you are not fully immunized from a vaccine, it can still mean you get a much milder case of the disease. Secondly, not all people can be immunized. Children too young to have a fully working immune system, people with cancer or some immunodeficiency. They, in stead, rely on herd immunity: If enough of the surrounding people are immunized, they won't get the disease. So, by choosing to not get immunised when you can, you basically make life much worse for children with cancer. I would say that that is a group who could use any break they can get, and does not deserve to be made more miserable.
Well, for one thing, it only applies to systems which can produce the whole numbers and multiplication, which physics can't in a finite universe (I'm not even sure it can produce all of multiplication in any universe). If you really want axioms in physics, observations are a closer match than laws. The laws are changed if enough observations go against them, and the observations are assumed to be true (sort of). I think this is a problem for using Gödels theorem, as observations are not recursively numerable (but the more I think about this, the more I doubt whether they are numerable. I suppose that depends on the definition of an observation).
In general, Aquinas finds something which he thinks he can prove exists, and calls that god. Of course, you can do that, but it doesn't really speak well of god if you have to do that. As for his individual arguments:
1: The unmoved mover kind of went out the window with quantum mechanics. Also, it assumes a finite amount of time has gone by.
2: First Cause: If god caused the universe, what caused god? If god needs no cause, then why does the universe need a cause? And, again, it assumes a universe that has a finite past.
3. Contingency: Virtual particles blow that out of the water.
4. The Argument from Degree: It assumes that you can talk about "the most $property$". If there is one thing math has taught is, it is that that is not always the case. For example, what is the greatest whole number (and if the answer to that is \Aleph_0, what is the greatest cardinal number?).
5. The Teleological Argument: "We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end" No, we don't. We see them act according to universal laws, and project intent into them.
Pascal's wager? Really? You have got to be kidding me.
Anselms Island is just a more formal version of the argument from degree, and suffers from the same flaw, in addition to the problem of whether being red or green is better (by the way, it was formalised by Gödel, but one of his axioms is that either green is better than red, or vice versa).
I'll stop here by concluding that those of your good arguments for the existence of god which I have analysed fall into one of three categories: Those that are not good arguments, those that are not arguments for the existence of god, and those that are neither good arguments not arguments for the existence of god.
Indeed, it would be more rational, if they didn't insist on using their god to decide how everyone else should live. They do insist on doing so, so it is rational to counter them, as I for one don't want to give up my cotton/polyester blend, or whatever they have decided their god hates today.
No, not really, you can still patent an idea for which you have had outside inspirations (otherwise, not many ideas could be patented). In this case, the outside inspiration was literally outside, and not some other human idea. It can take a lot of effort to find out which parts to copy and which parts to ditch, not to mention knowing which tree to copy in the first place. If no one have done it before, it is probably non-obvious, so I really don't see the problem.
One needs only to define freedom as freedom from responsibility you have not chosen to accept to get to GPP point of view. If I decide to buy you dinner, am I later entitled to everything I claim to have bought with that dinner? Or only what you have agreed to pay for the dinner?
Another possible factor is that the sound quality of cell phones is just on the border of what humans can decipher (by design), meaning much more brain power is used to understand the words when you speak in a phone than it would be if the other person was present. This should change with, I think, 3G networks, which have better sound quality.
No, the US and Osama is not old buddies. Osama fought against taking help from the US from the start, as that would taint the Islamic victory in Afghanistan. They did fight the same fight, but Osama clearly would have preferred winning on his own. I can recommend "The Power of Nightmares" (a BBC documentary about the rise of the neo-conservatives and the Islamists), it highlights a lot of interesting facts, and does a good job of explaining what went wrong in America (in short, the neocons started believing their own lies, which was only meant as a noble lie for hoi poloi)
I was going to write something snarky about neutrinos (which started as a kludge to save conservation of energy), but you just proved you know absolutely nothing of what you are talking about, so I will save it (hint: Gödels incompleteness theorem is about math, and has nothing to do with physics, there are no axioms in physics, axioms aren't proved, etc.).
That wouldn't make you a religious man. It would make you an idiot. Jesus specifically said nobody can know when the end will be to prevent idiots from screeching "The end is near!"
The only Christians you will here saying that are ones that don't understand their own religion, and I don't know of any other religion that has given an end date to the world.
To be fair, the bible contains so many contradictions that you can't blame Christians for not following any specific part. It's not like they could follow all of it anyway, so which parts you think they should follow is just as much a choice as what parts they think they should follow.
HAH, real men don't use periods, the name is just too feminine
The reason the study did so badly is that real men doesn't use the internet, they are too busy boar-hunting using only a knife Wait, DAMN! Oh, and an exclamation mark:(
you can't get rid of your accent, if you learned a new language past a certain age (teens?).
Probably around the age of 12, after that, the brain has a really hard time learning new sounds, or distinguishing sounds which wasn't distinguished before that (some Asians and l/r is a prime example).
There are other uses of this work. It highlights the differences in how the genders use the language, and how different the uses are. That could be useful in sociology; the methodology could be novel and useful for other works etc. If the standard your post hints at was applied to the natural sciences, we should complain about using millions to better understand fruit flies (as some politicians have done).
Except it doesn't scale as nicely. People who has made one gender-neutral (or cross-gender) tweet are more likely to do it again than people who has made one same-gender tweet. From a quick scan of the article, it seems that without screen-name (which you would assume would be the first thing people under assumed personas adjusts), they get a 76% chance. The average number of tweets per tweeter is around 20, so one must assume that we are in the area of diminishing returns (the first tweet gives a bigger boost than the remaining 19).
The FTL particles reach their destination before they leave their origin, for the frame of reference of some inertial systems, as I also said in my first comment.
What do you mean with "the frame of reference is larger than your lightcone."? The frame of reference does not have a size, it is simply a way to categorise events (places and times). Things outside of my light cone can be expressed in my frame of reference.
Moonwalking and other marvels are on the other side of the uncanny valley: They keep breaking the rules. With your explanation of the uncanny valley, the effect would be greatest for something that seemed to follow the rules, and then broke them sometimes, then followed them for long enough for us to start expecting it to follow them, then broke them, etc.
It might be, but I think that explanation is somewhat superfluous. We know that missmatch of expectation and sensaes gives problems (motion sickness is a prime example), so why go any further to explain this? The brain tries to model the other human, and keeps failing, as it doesn't quite move in the right way.
So, now we have two hypothesis (evolutionary versus expectation mismatch). I don't see data today that can speak for one or the other, and we already know that one is functional (though not in that area, and not with that effect). Unless I am missing something (I might be, please inform me), or until we get new data, I would say that the evolutionary explanation is interesting, but not necessary right now.
To rephrase my point: "[Y]ou can pick at most two members of the set {special relativity, causality, FTL}" (from comment by Rich) Now, general relativity is a really successful theory (it explains a lot of the observations it is supposed to explain), so guessing that that is the one to go is not a good bet.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a frame of reference outside your lightcone". If it makes my OP any easier to read, please substitute "frame of reference" for "inertial frame".
There is no universally defined "now" in a relativistic universe. Observers travelling at different speeds will disagree on whether something happens at the same time or not (see the pole-barn paradox). For every two points A and B outside of each others light cones, there is a frame of reference which sees them as simultaneous (the path is space-like), and a frame of reference that sees A as happening before B, and a frame of reference that sees B as happening before A.
If A causes B outside it's own light cone (as it can with FTL communication), for one frame of reference, A has caused something that happened before A. Now we just need to make sure that that frame of reference is our frame of reference, which can be done by selecting the frames of reference of A and B.
And the corruption. And the client/patron nature of their political system (Group Y votes for guy X, guy X gives group Y state money once he is elected. This is somewhat the case in every democracy, but not as ingrained as in Greece). And their absurd retirement age. And the massive black economy, by everyone, including the middle class.
Slashdot Mirror
It is probably going to be said a million times but, here goes:
Firstly, no vaccination is a 100% guarantee. The best give some high 90's percent chance of immunity, many much lower. However, even when you are not fully immunized from a vaccine, it can still mean you get a much milder case of the disease.
Secondly, not all people can be immunized. Children too young to have a fully working immune system, people with cancer or some immunodeficiency. They, in stead, rely on herd immunity: If enough of the surrounding people are immunized, they won't get the disease. So, by choosing to not get immunised when you can, you basically make life much worse for children with cancer. I would say that that is a group who could use any break they can get, and does not deserve to be made more miserable.
It is probably going to be said a million times but, here goes:
Firstly, no vaccination is a 100% guarantee. The best give some high 90's percent chance of immunity, many much lower. However, even when you are not fully immunized from a vaccine, it can still mean you get a much milder case of the disease.
Secondly, not all people can be immunized. Children too young to have a fully working immune system, people with cancer or some immunodeficiency. They, in stead, rely on herd immunity: If enough of the surrounding people are immunized, they won't get the disease. So, by choosing to not get immunised when you can, you basically make life much worse for children with cancer. I would say that that is a group who could use any break they can get, and does not deserve to be made more miserable.
Well, for one thing, it only applies to systems which can produce the whole numbers and multiplication, which physics can't in a finite universe (I'm not even sure it can produce all of multiplication in any universe). If you really want axioms in physics, observations are a closer match than laws. The laws are changed if enough observations go against them, and the observations are assumed to be true (sort of). I think this is a problem for using Gödels theorem, as observations are not recursively numerable (but the more I think about this, the more I doubt whether they are numerable. I suppose that depends on the definition of an observation).
In general, Aquinas finds something which he thinks he can prove exists, and calls that god. Of course, you can do that, but it doesn't really speak well of god if you have to do that. As for his individual arguments:
1: The unmoved mover kind of went out the window with quantum mechanics. Also, it assumes a finite amount of time has gone by.
2: First Cause: If god caused the universe, what caused god? If god needs no cause, then why does the universe need a cause? And, again, it assumes a universe that has a finite past.
3. Contingency: Virtual particles blow that out of the water.
4. The Argument from Degree: It assumes that you can talk about "the most $property$". If there is one thing math has taught is, it is that that is not always the case. For example, what is the greatest whole number (and if the answer to that is \Aleph_0, what is the greatest cardinal number?).
5. The Teleological Argument: "We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end" No, we don't. We see them act according to universal laws, and project intent into them.
Pascal's wager? Really? You have got to be kidding me.
Anselms Island is just a more formal version of the argument from degree, and suffers from the same flaw, in addition to the problem of whether being red or green is better (by the way, it was formalised by Gödel, but one of his axioms is that either green is better than red, or vice versa).
I'll stop here by concluding that those of your good arguments for the existence of god which I have analysed fall into one of three categories: Those that are not good arguments, those that are not arguments for the existence of god, and those that are neither good arguments not arguments for the existence of god.
Indeed, it would be more rational, if they didn't insist on using their god to decide how everyone else should live. They do insist on doing so, so it is rational to counter them, as I for one don't want to give up my cotton/polyester blend, or whatever they have decided their god hates today.
No, not really, you can still patent an idea for which you have had outside inspirations (otherwise, not many ideas could be patented). In this case, the outside inspiration was literally outside, and not some other human idea. It can take a lot of effort to find out which parts to copy and which parts to ditch, not to mention knowing which tree to copy in the first place. If no one have done it before, it is probably non-obvious, so I really don't see the problem.
One needs only to define freedom as freedom from responsibility you have not chosen to accept to get to GPP point of view. If I decide to buy you dinner, am I later entitled to everything I claim to have bought with that dinner? Or only what you have agreed to pay for the dinner?
Another possible factor is that the sound quality of cell phones is just on the border of what humans can decipher (by design), meaning much more brain power is used to understand the words when you speak in a phone than it would be if the other person was present. This should change with, I think, 3G networks, which have better sound quality.
Your uncle and the felon are old buddies
No, the US and Osama is not old buddies. Osama fought against taking help from the US from the start, as that would taint the Islamic victory in Afghanistan. They did fight the same fight, but Osama clearly would have preferred winning on his own. I can recommend "The Power of Nightmares" (a BBC documentary about the rise of the neo-conservatives and the Islamists), it highlights a lot of interesting facts, and does a good job of explaining what went wrong in America (in short, the neocons started believing their own lies, which was only meant as a noble lie for hoi poloi)
I was going to write something snarky about neutrinos (which started as a kludge to save conservation of energy), but you just proved you know absolutely nothing of what you are talking about, so I will save it (hint: Gödels incompleteness theorem is about math, and has nothing to do with physics, there are no axioms in physics, axioms aren't proved, etc.).
That wouldn't make you a religious man. It would make you an idiot. Jesus specifically said nobody can know when the end will be to prevent idiots from screeching "The end is near!" The only Christians you will here saying that are ones that don't understand their own religion, and I don't know of any other religion that has given an end date to the world.
To be fair, the bible contains so many contradictions that you can't blame Christians for not following any specific part. It's not like they could follow all of it anyway, so which parts you think they should follow is just as much a choice as what parts they think they should follow.
What, arrogant? Estimating that having employees unpack the drives, clean them, and pack them again cost more than new drives is arrogant? How?
HAH, real men don't use periods, the name is just too feminine
:(
The reason the study did so badly is that real men doesn't use the internet, they are too busy boar-hunting using only a knife
Wait, DAMN! Oh, and an exclamation mark
you can't get rid of your accent, if you learned a new language past a certain age (teens?).
Probably around the age of 12, after that, the brain has a really hard time learning new sounds, or distinguishing sounds which wasn't distinguished before that (some Asians and l/r is a prime example).
I don't think that comment even makes sense unless gender is a Bell curve (and even if we accept that it is a continuum, I would say it is bimodal).
There are other uses of this work. It highlights the differences in how the genders use the language, and how different the uses are. That could be useful in sociology; the methodology could be novel and useful for other works etc.
If the standard your post hints at was applied to the natural sciences, we should complain about using millions to better understand fruit flies (as some politicians have done).
Except it doesn't scale as nicely. People who has made one gender-neutral (or cross-gender) tweet are more likely to do it again than people who has made one same-gender tweet. From a quick scan of the article, it seems that without screen-name (which you would assume would be the first thing people under assumed personas adjusts), they get a 76% chance. The average number of tweets per tweeter is around 20, so one must assume that we are in the area of diminishing returns (the first tweet gives a bigger boost than the remaining 19).
The FTL particles reach their destination before they leave their origin, for the frame of reference of some inertial systems, as I also said in my first comment.
What do you mean with "the frame of reference is larger than your lightcone."? The frame of reference does not have a size, it is simply a way to categorise events (places and times). Things outside of my light cone can be expressed in my frame of reference.
Please learn what constitutes a limerick. For a start, you need five lines.
Moonwalking and other marvels are on the other side of the uncanny valley: They keep breaking the rules. With your explanation of the uncanny valley, the effect would be greatest for something that seemed to follow the rules, and then broke them sometimes, then followed them for long enough for us to start expecting it to follow them, then broke them, etc.
It might be, but I think that explanation is somewhat superfluous. We know that missmatch of expectation and sensaes gives problems (motion sickness is a prime example), so why go any further to explain this? The brain tries to model the other human, and keeps failing, as it doesn't quite move in the right way.
So, now we have two hypothesis (evolutionary versus expectation mismatch). I don't see data today that can speak for one or the other, and we already know that one is functional (though not in that area, and not with that effect). Unless I am missing something (I might be, please inform me), or until we get new data, I would say that the evolutionary explanation is interesting, but not necessary right now.
To rephrase my point: "[Y]ou can pick at most two members of the set {special relativity, causality, FTL}" (from comment by Rich) Now, general relativity is a really successful theory (it explains a lot of the observations it is supposed to explain), so guessing that that is the one to go is not a good bet.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a frame of reference outside your lightcone". If it makes my OP any easier to read, please substitute "frame of reference" for "inertial frame".
There is no universally defined "now" in a relativistic universe. Observers travelling at different speeds will disagree on whether something happens at the same time or not (see the pole-barn paradox). For every two points A and B outside of each others light cones, there is a frame of reference which sees them as simultaneous (the path is space-like), and a frame of reference that sees A as happening before B, and a frame of reference that sees B as happening before A.
If A causes B outside it's own light cone (as it can with FTL communication), for one frame of reference, A has caused something that happened before A. Now we just need to make sure that that frame of reference is our frame of reference, which can be done by selecting the frames of reference of A and B.
But how do you get a rubber nub on the top of a lightening strike?
And the corruption. And the client/patron nature of their political system (Group Y votes for guy X, guy X gives group Y state money once he is elected. This is somewhat the case in every democracy, but not as ingrained as in Greece). And their absurd retirement age. And the massive black economy, by everyone, including the middle class.