The first is about not telling lies. The second is a set of man-made rules which govern a person's day-to-day actions.
E.g. You witness a murder of person A by person B. Person B was acquitted by the jury of this murder (of A) despite your testimony.
Then Person B was charged with the murder of person D, and you were called as witness. You were told by the prosecutor that if you testify that you have witness the murder of Person D by B, it will highly likely lead to Person B's conviction.
Problem is : you have not witness Person D's murder by person B.
Question is : what will you do?
(There is no right answer, but this is just an extreme illustration to show there are differences being ethical and being honest.)
you might want to check out nvidia 6150/430 int. GPU. Mobos for these got for sub90 bucks a pop. You get what you pay for, as long as you are not going to play your games at 1600x1200 at "uber" settings.
Before everyone rushed to condemn him (rightfully), he did advance cloning technology. Some of the techniques he pioneered, in particular in nucleus extraction, are now standard procedure.
Which is sad, because one wonders why a technically gifted person such as he would stoop so low.
Dude. Nobody is asking you to watch your kids every waking moment.
Parenting != Supervision.
Parenting means that you go about teaching your kids whatever values you think are agreeable with you and society and then let THEM make the day to day decisions themselves.
Kids are people dude, not robots to be remotely controlled.
The amazing thing is that NEAR was not even designed to land : they mission controllers did it because NEAR was running out of fuel and would be turned off anyway so they decided to chance it. They put it down (after a few bounces on the surface too) and turned it off. One day they might try to turn it on again.
The point is, that it is not impossible to do it. Indeed, the physics is pretty simple. There is no "hitting a fast moving target" problem : the probe is already in orbit and moving pretty slowly relative to the asteroid. The problem is systems engineering : all the problems that you see from the probe is not because some tools malfunctioned outright etc, it is poor integration of systems. Just look at the communications downlink blackout during the landing rehearsal that results in the loss of the MINERVA miniprobe. I mean, come on, you can PREDICT when those blackouts occur!
Finally, your rant about "Japanese cheating to save face" is just pure flamebait.
As for needing wars to get that oil, these wars come about by interacting with a stunted, xenophobic society. It is unfortunate that this happens.
This is the kind of rationalization about wars that scares the hell out of me.
If you have to go to war repeatedlly to maintain your energy policy, despite having being bitten once 30 years ago, then something must be wrong with your policy. Especially when alternatives to oil already exists.
It's just that the populations of Islamic societies don't want to be in contact with Westerners.
This blanket generalization scares me even more.
But just to say oil is evil, etc. is not a solution.
Nobody is saying oil is evil. It is the irresponsible use of a limited resource, in an enviromentally damaging way, maintained by a myopic national energy policy which uses wars as a policy tool, that is evil.
Oh I don't know I agree that "most people" will make this this connection. (Maybe most people in the US, i don't know.) Religious governments don't have to ban goods, they just ban ideas, and vice versa. Indeed, governments don't have to be religious to ban lots of ideas. Singapore, Malaysia's neighbour, is as secular as you can get, but virtually runs a police state. So there.
Just because you don't see the causal connection does not mean it is random. Your claiming so is probably just as big a problem as the "random association so prevalent nowadays".
An assertion (such as the OP) that is based on a false premise is wrong, even if the asserter believe it. Now, one can argue if wrong == non-sequitur. One can split hairs of course:).
Actually, I am Malaysian and my fiancee works in Saudi Arabia. I am an atheist, she is a Christian.
Your assertion about Malaysian government becoming way more hardcore than Middle East is just plain ignorant polemic.
Import customs are tougher in malaysia has nothing to do with government secularity/religiousity. We are more secular than Turkey. It has, however, a lot to do with trade barriers being raised by both countries to protect their goods.
Malaysia has a growing piracy need as the government gets more religious.
The first part of the sentence is true. The second part is debatable. The causal connection claimed is completely non-sequitur. Just another example of random association so prevalent nowadays.
They tested whether bacteria transfers in five seconds. What they should have tested, is whether there was harmful bacteria present. Yes, it transfers. Yes, the food is still most likely safe to eat, due to the lack of harmful bacteria.
That is a classic slippery-slope fallacy. I have heard ID-like questions brought up several times in science class, but never Santa or Mother Goose in any serious way.
Uh. I didn't say Santa Claus exist or not is common question. I am putting ID on equal footing, scientifically, as Santa Claus. If you want to criticize my statement by citing a fallacy, "false analogy" is probably a better way to go.
I disagree. It has never been proven *inherantly* untestable (except in basterdized exteme forms). Multiple Universes is also currently untestable, but it is still "science".
Uh. Sure. On the other hand, evolution is not only eminently testable, it is repeatedly tested and comes through with flying colours. So, yeah, if you think something that is simply "never proven untestable" deserves the same footing as evolution, there is not much i can say to convince you otherwise.
Also, now a real "false analogy" fallacy : Nobody is proposing that "the multiverse idea" is to be taught to high school kids as science. Besides, there are possibly meaningful ways to interprete the concept of multiverse : anthropic arguments, however distateful it is (there is no accounting for taste in science), is not equivalent to an argument via assertion which is what ID is.
Finally, nobody is saying ID shouldn't be taught in schools. Go ahead, teach them so kids can see the poverty of its premise. Only, don't teach them in science classes, since it is not science.
Actually, I don't think art history has anything to do with science.:P But I like Vermeer a lot and I can't resist!
(I responded to the OP in the way i should have originally done, instead of slipping into "Aha! Let me mock you as a high-and-mighty smartypants scientist" mode.)
Uh. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by this post.
That smacks of so much arrogance it's incredible. If we don't get our way, we're going to fuck your kids forever, is that it?
Actually, nobody is going to "fuck your kids" if "we don't get our way". A science curriculum that places creationism as science is going to do that just fine.
I didn't suggest that ID be included because it is strong, but merely because it is a common question that comes up, and good teaching material anticipates common questions.
Whether ID is true or false is as easy to answer as whether Santa Claus exist or not. You teach it in a class, you inadvertently give it undue attention it does not deserve. Is it a common question? Only if religious zealots have their way.
Besides, science education is about teaching science, not answering "common questions". That belong to philosophy, religious class, or whatever class that those "common questions" belong to.
As I pointed out elsewhere, F.S.M. is simply a subset or variation of ID. The "good form" of ID does not make any claims about the nature of the creator(s) other than intelligence and possibly technical ability or similar power. Thus, F.S.M. does not change anything here.
Uh, this is non-sequitur. The F.S.M. is cited as an example of why you shouldn't teach some stuff just because some people think certain unprovable assertion should be taught as science. There is no "good form of ID". The entire edifice of ID : things cannot be the way they are without some intervention of some higher "intelligent" being, is itself an untestable assertion.
Slashdot Mirror
infringing on His trademark. All proceeds go to the Adam + Eve divorce fund.
http://meta.slashdot.org/~575/
/. was never the same since he last posted 4 years back....
Always posted in limerick or haiku. I rather missed him,
honesty != ethics
The first is about not telling lies.
The second is a set of man-made rules which govern a person's day-to-day actions.
E.g. You witness a murder of person A by person B. Person B was acquitted by the jury of this murder (of A) despite your testimony.
Then Person B was charged with the murder of person D, and you were called as witness. You were told by the prosecutor that if you testify that you have witness the murder of Person D by B, it will highly likely lead to Person B's conviction.
Problem is : you have not witness Person D's murder by person B.
Question is : what will you do?
(There is no right answer, but this is just an extreme illustration to show there are differences being ethical and being honest.)
you might want to check out nvidia 6150/430 int. GPU. Mobos for these got for sub90 bucks a pop. You get what you pay for, as long as you are not going to play your games at 1600x1200 at "uber" settings.
TIE fighters are just short range fighters.
He did cloned Snuppy the dog.
Before everyone rushed to condemn him (rightfully), he did advance cloning technology. Some of the techniques he pioneered, in particular in nucleus extraction, are now standard procedure.
Which is sad, because one wonders why a technically gifted person such as he would stoop so low.
and again I repeat :
Meh.
Dude. Nobody is asking you to watch your kids every waking moment.
Parenting != Supervision.
Parenting means that you go about teaching your kids whatever values you think are agreeable with you and society and then let THEM make the day to day decisions themselves.
Kids are people dude, not robots to be remotely controlled.
The humans of course. They built that damn thing.
ops. Reread your post a bit. Sorry, you are not a troll and I misunderstood you. But hey, it is still useful information!
The first successful asteroid landing attempt was done on Eros by the NEAR spacecraft :
See Here.
The amazing thing is that NEAR was not even designed to land : they mission controllers did it because NEAR was running out of fuel and would be turned off anyway so they decided to chance it. They put it down (after a few bounces on the surface too) and turned it off. One day they might try to turn it on again.
The point is, that it is not impossible to do it. Indeed, the physics is pretty simple. There is no "hitting a fast moving target" problem : the probe is already in orbit and moving pretty slowly relative to the asteroid. The problem is systems engineering : all the problems that you see from the probe is not because some tools malfunctioned outright etc, it is poor integration of systems. Just look at the communications downlink blackout during the landing rehearsal that results in the loss of the MINERVA miniprobe. I mean, come on, you can PREDICT when those blackouts occur!
Finally, your rant about "Japanese cheating to save face" is just pure flamebait.
Yes.
It's called "caveat emptor".
You don't have to use it if you don't want to try Beta software.
Because we Asians want to get more of the US PhDs being churned out each year.
Muahahahahahha!
As for needing wars to get that oil, these wars come about by interacting with a stunted, xenophobic society. It is unfortunate that this happens.
This is the kind of rationalization about wars that scares the hell out of me.
If you have to go to war repeatedlly to maintain your energy policy, despite having being bitten once 30 years ago, then something must be wrong with your policy. Especially when alternatives to oil already exists.
It's just that the populations of Islamic societies don't want to be in contact with Westerners.
This blanket generalization scares me even more.
But just to say oil is evil, etc. is not a solution.
Nobody is saying oil is evil. It is the irresponsible use of a limited resource, in an enviromentally damaging way, maintained by a myopic national energy policy which uses wars as a policy tool, that is evil.
Oh I don't know I agree that "most people" will make this this connection. (Maybe most people in the US, i don't know.) Religious governments don't have to ban goods, they just ban ideas, and vice versa. Indeed, governments don't have to be religious to ban lots of ideas. Singapore, Malaysia's neighbour, is as secular as you can get, but virtually runs a police state. So there.
Just because you don't see the causal connection does not mean it is random. Your claiming so is probably just as big a problem as the "random association so prevalent nowadays".
An assertion (such as the OP) that is based on a false premise is wrong, even if the asserter believe it. Now, one can argue if wrong == non-sequitur. One can split hairs of course
Actually, I am Malaysian and my fiancee works in Saudi Arabia. I am an atheist, she is a Christian.
Your assertion about Malaysian government becoming way more hardcore than Middle East is just plain ignorant polemic.
Import customs are tougher in malaysia has nothing to do with government secularity/religiousity. We are more secular than Turkey. It has, however, a lot to do with trade barriers being raised by both countries to protect their goods.
Malaysia has a growing piracy need as the government gets more religious.
The first part of the sentence is true. The second part is debatable. The causal connection claimed is completely non-sequitur. Just another example of random association so prevalent nowadays.
They tested whether bacteria transfers in five seconds. What they should have tested, is whether there was harmful bacteria present. Yes, it transfers. Yes, the food is still most likely safe to eat, due to the lack of harmful bacteria.
Uh, I think you are being pedantic there.
Heinlein's grave moved a bit I think.
Well, the point is that the fuel is already there, so you can use it to power your moon base.
However, don't get be started about using this self-powered moonbase as a springboard to Mars and beyond.
That is a classic slippery-slope fallacy. I have heard ID-like questions brought up several times in science class, but never Santa or Mother Goose in any serious way.
Uh. I didn't say Santa Claus exist or not is common question. I am putting ID on equal footing, scientifically, as Santa Claus. If you want to criticize my statement by citing a fallacy, "false analogy" is probably a better way to go.
I disagree. It has never been proven *inherantly* untestable (except in basterdized exteme forms). Multiple Universes is also currently untestable, but it is still "science".
Uh. Sure. On the other hand, evolution is not only eminently testable, it is repeatedly tested and comes through with flying colours. So, yeah, if you think something that is simply "never proven untestable" deserves the same footing as evolution, there is not much i can say to convince you otherwise.
Also, now a real "false analogy" fallacy : Nobody is proposing that "the multiverse idea" is to be taught to high school kids as science. Besides, there are possibly meaningful ways to interprete the concept of multiverse : anthropic arguments, however distateful it is (there is no accounting for taste in science), is not equivalent to an argument via assertion which is what ID is.
Finally, nobody is saying ID shouldn't be taught in schools. Go ahead, teach them so kids can see the poverty of its premise. Only, don't teach them in science classes, since it is not science.
Actually, I don't think art history has anything to do with science. :P But I like Vermeer a lot and I can't resist!
(I responded to the OP in the way i should have originally done, instead of slipping into "Aha! Let me mock you as a high-and-mighty smartypants scientist" mode.)
Uh. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by this post.
That smacks of so much arrogance it's incredible. If we don't get our way, we're going to fuck your kids forever, is that it?
Actually, nobody is going to "fuck your kids" if "we don't get our way". A science curriculum that places creationism as science is going to do that just fine.
And these politically-orientated Scientists will say that you are committing both the "Attacking the person" and "strawman" fallacies.
I didn't suggest that ID be included because it is strong, but merely because it is a common question that comes up, and good teaching material anticipates common questions.
Whether ID is true or false is as easy to answer as whether Santa Claus exist or not. You teach it in a class, you inadvertently give it undue attention it does not deserve. Is it a common question? Only if religious zealots have their way.
Besides, science education is about teaching science, not answering "common questions". That belong to philosophy, religious class, or whatever class that those "common questions" belong to.
As I pointed out elsewhere, F.S.M. is simply a subset or variation of ID. The "good form" of ID does not make any claims about the nature of the creator(s) other than intelligence and possibly technical ability or similar power. Thus, F.S.M. does not change anything here.
Uh, this is non-sequitur. The F.S.M. is cited as an example of why you shouldn't teach some stuff just because some people think certain unprovable assertion should be taught as science. There is no "good form of ID". The entire edifice of ID : things cannot be the way they are without some intervention of some higher "intelligent" being, is itself an untestable assertion.