Unfortunately, all of the democratic and republican presidents have publicly admitted to holding some irrational, religious belief or another. Is there a single, serious, declared atheist candidate? No? Then if we're going to elect another idiot who believes an imaginary friend is telling him to invade other countries, we might as well skip the mainstream irrational and go for the full-on, batshit crazy stuff.
Nothing can save America anymore. May Cthulhu eat us first.
Actually, you've got two different programs mixed up. The Tiangong-1 (the one launched today) will not form a part of the larger space station, and the 2 years lifetime only refers to this experimental module. Also, the Tiangong-1 will first be visited by the unmanned Shenzhou 8 spacecraft (to launch this november), followed by two manned Shenzhou expeditions in 2012. They're only planning to built the 60 ton space station by 2020.
I once heard a jesuit say that, "When you read the Bible, the Bible reads you." I think it applies to just about any religion, substitute Torah, Quran, Bhagavad Gita. etc for Bible and the meaning is the same - if you have ignorance in your heart, then you will find justification for ignorance in the Bible, If you have truth and love in your heart then you will find support for truth and love in the Bible.
That's the difference between religion and rationality - rational people realise that their beliefs about the world can't change the world by themselves, so they adapt their beliefs to reflect reality, not the other way around.
In a perfect world, scientific/engineering degrees would be reserved for people who display rational, scientific thought in all areas of their life, and don't suspend it when it comes to 2000 years old fairy tales promoted by authority figures, yes.
Not every religious person is anti-science. Many of us fully embrace both.
So how do you reconcile the contradiction between looking for the truth about things your holy book doesn't say anything about scientifically, and abandoning the scientific method when dealing with matters it does discuss?
This is what really worries me about "religious scientists" - it's like they don't even fully grasp the reason why we have the scientific method. It is, simply put, the best way ever devised to reach understanding about how the world works. Why would you abandon it selectively to believe stuff with zero observational, experimental or inferential evidence? Is the experimental method just another ritual to you, to be applied when you see fit and disregarded likewise? I seriously don't understand how a scientist can be religious.
Lawyers and doctors crying over their salaries?
Talk to me when my IT job can be replaced with an automated service that tells them to "turn it off, then turn it on again."
Oh wait...
(CEOs could totally be replaced by machines. Oh yes.)
Yeah, you're wrong.
Face it, a representative sample of "the elites" made it there through superior intellect and rationality, not luck, inheritance or chance. "The system" is fundamentally just, fair and meritocratic.
Moore's law doesn't say anything about "performance improvement". Moore's law is precisely about "shrinking the manufacturing process" - how many transistors you can fit on a chip.
I've seen cheaper slabs that are useless, more expensive slabs that are also useless, and the Samsung Galaxy Pad which is the same price and about the same in terms of performance.
Samaung's tablet lines are called Tab, as in Samsung Galaxy Tab.
the concept of assigning more than 1 cores to a single thread
Computing doesn't work that way. At least not with any meaningful speed increase. That may decrease power usage, but you'll still need "parallel programming shit" to make proper use of parallel processing hardware.
See, that's just pure evil. If they really believed that was an explosive, would they let you board the plane after YOU TRIED TO SNEAK AN EXPLOSIVE ON BOARD? No, they'd ship your ass to Guantanamo bay or another "enhanced interrogation" facility in a place where your rights don't apply. Since they let you board the plane, they knew perfectly well you were harmless, and yet they decided to steal your stuff because they're evil, fascist thugs.
if Google wants to track my habits they're welcome to it. If I were a subversive plotting to overthrow the U.S. gov't and commit terrorism I'd probably feel differently.
Oh look, it's the nothing to hide "argument". GET OUT.
The Soyuz requires next to zero ground support for landing. In fact, what they're currently doing is putting it down in the middle of a steppe and recovering it with a truck. There's no reason they couldn't land anywhere else within the orbit's ground track that's dry and relatively flat.
BTW, weren't there a couple of close calls when the re-entry module didn't separate properly? AFAIR the crews survived but had an exciting ride.
That's because Soyuz, unlike the shuttle, has a "survive but have an exciting ride" mode - when the controls on the descent module fail, it can re-enter on a ballistic trajectory and survive. Shuttle only had "textbook-perfect re-entry" and "loss of vehicle and crew" modes.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, all of the democratic and republican presidents have publicly admitted to holding some irrational, religious belief or another. Is there a single, serious, declared atheist candidate? No? Then if we're going to elect another idiot who believes an imaginary friend is telling him to invade other countries, we might as well skip the mainstream irrational and go for the full-on, batshit crazy stuff.
Nothing can save America anymore. May Cthulhu eat us first.
Actually, you've got two different programs mixed up. The Tiangong-1 (the one launched today) will not form a part of the larger space station, and the 2 years lifetime only refers to this experimental module. Also, the Tiangong-1 will first be visited by the unmanned Shenzhou 8 spacecraft (to launch this november), followed by two manned Shenzhou expeditions in 2012. They're only planning to built the 60 ton space station by 2020.
Agreed, the charge unit (preferably one defined via the elementary charge) should be the base.
I once heard a jesuit say that, "When you read the Bible, the Bible reads you." I think it applies to just about any religion, substitute Torah, Quran, Bhagavad Gita. etc for Bible and the meaning is the same - if you have ignorance in your heart, then you will find justification for ignorance in the Bible, If you have truth and love in your heart then you will find support for truth and love in the Bible.
That's the difference between religion and rationality - rational people realise that their beliefs about the world can't change the world by themselves, so they adapt their beliefs to reflect reality, not the other way around.
In a perfect world, scientific/engineering degrees would be reserved for people who display rational, scientific thought in all areas of their life, and don't suspend it when it comes to 2000 years old fairy tales promoted by authority figures, yes.
You do realise trolling is supposed to waste other people's time, right?
Not every religious person is anti-science. Many of us fully embrace both.
So how do you reconcile the contradiction between looking for the truth about things your holy book doesn't say anything about scientifically, and abandoning the scientific method when dealing with matters it does discuss?
This is what really worries me about "religious scientists" - it's like they don't even fully grasp the reason why we have the scientific method. It is, simply put, the best way ever devised to reach understanding about how the world works. Why would you abandon it selectively to believe stuff with zero observational, experimental or inferential evidence? Is the experimental method just another ritual to you, to be applied when you see fit and disregarded likewise? I seriously don't understand how a scientist can be religious.
Lawyers and doctors crying over their salaries? Talk to me when my IT job can be replaced with an automated service that tells them to "turn it off, then turn it on again."
Oh wait...
(CEOs could totally be replaced by machines. Oh yes.)
Yeah, you're wrong.
Face it, a representative sample of "the elites" made it there through superior intellect and rationality, not luck, inheritance or chance. "The system" is fundamentally just, fair and meritocratic.
And what would the "underlying cause" be? People having sex? Are you advocating an abstinence-only approach?
For live preview, you'll need LyX and that needs X11.
Live preview, pfft. Real gurus write LaTeX code in ed and render it in their heads.
Moore's law doesn't say anything about "performance improvement". Moore's law is precisely about "shrinking the manufacturing process" - how many transistors you can fit on a chip.
160 000, give or take.
I've seen cheaper slabs that are useless, more expensive slabs that are also useless, and the Samsung Galaxy Pad which is the same price and about the same in terms of performance.
Samaung's tablet lines are called Tab, as in Samsung Galaxy Tab.
the concept of assigning more than 1 cores to a single thread
Computing doesn't work that way. At least not with any meaningful speed increase. That may decrease power usage, but you'll still need "parallel programming shit" to make proper use of parallel processing hardware.
Only when you are doing it wrong.
Sounds like a "no true Scotsman" argument to me.
Haskell has syntax?
I enemy this.
threw out my shaving cream, and I was on my way
See, that's just pure evil. If they really believed that was an explosive, would they let you board the plane after YOU TRIED TO SNEAK AN EXPLOSIVE ON BOARD? No, they'd ship your ass to Guantanamo bay or another "enhanced interrogation" facility in a place where your rights don't apply. Since they let you board the plane, they knew perfectly well you were harmless, and yet they decided to steal your stuff because they're evil, fascist thugs.
It's _space_. Why would it need to be aerodynamic, again?
Burns things how? Pics or it didn't happen. Video is even better.
Search youtube for "1000mW laser". There's a ton of videos of people burning stuff with them.
but omitting an optical drive in a full-size desktop computer build seems something like cheating.
It's 2011, dammit, why do people still use optical drives?
if Google wants to track my habits they're welcome to it. If I were a subversive plotting to overthrow the U.S. gov't and commit terrorism I'd probably feel differently.
Oh look, it's the nothing to hide "argument". GET OUT.
The Soyuz requires next to zero ground support for landing. In fact, what they're currently doing is putting it down in the middle of a steppe and recovering it with a truck. There's no reason they couldn't land anywhere else within the orbit's ground track that's dry and relatively flat.
BTW, weren't there a couple of close calls when the re-entry module didn't separate properly? AFAIR the crews survived but had an exciting ride.
That's because Soyuz, unlike the shuttle, has a "survive but have an exciting ride" mode - when the controls on the descent module fail, it can re-enter on a ballistic trajectory and survive. Shuttle only had "textbook-perfect re-entry" and "loss of vehicle and crew" modes.
No, it isn't. Just because you're killing less people doesn't mean you're saving lives.