One of the most difficult things for people to recognize is the difference between blind faith and trust. When a painter puts up a sign with 'wet paint' my experience tells me that I can probably trust it and choose not to test his claim.
I am a skeptic, I don't have blind faith. (I probably have some hidden pieces of superstition left, but have been very thoroughly getting rid of them) But it is simply not practical to be skeptical about everything. At some point I need to be able to trust someone else.... e.g. when going to a doctor I need to be able to trust his knowledge of the human body. Unfortunately we allow some idiots to call themselves 'doctor' while selling quackery like homeopathy.
The hardest part is not just being a skeptic, but knowing where you can let your guard down and trust someone else's skepticism.
I did... but I said 'besides that one book'... And no some early church fathers opinion doesn't mean shit to me...
But lets suppose there really was a fellow named jesus a few thousand years ago. Why should I believe he was the son of some god? (And you also haven't shown any evidence of that ones existence). The romands crucified quite a lot of people and I bet some of them claimed to be the sons of the weirdest things...
1 It doesn't matter who thought of it first or why... That doesn't make it any less or more credible.
2 If I told a lie would it be any less of a lie if millions believed me? Or for that matter wether I tell it now or a long time ago?
3 Same argument... The amount of people that take some guys existence for granted without any proof doesn't give the idea more credibility.
Interestingly both Jesus and the FSM (may his meatballs be ever spicy!) are well documented but you choose to believe a parody to have equal weight to an historic person. Delusional ever?
On that topic... besides that one book those christians keep talking about.... could you show me some actual evidence that he is an actual historic person and not just a mythical figure?
You mean a living being which might have lived 2000 years ago. About the only proof we have of that guy really existing is 2000 years worth of idiots screaming 'its true, he really existed'. (you included)
You are making a mistake in thinking that intelligent design is science. The very idea behind is makes it non-scientific and as such it shouldn't be treated as science. The very fact that it is not falsifiable strips intelligent design from any scientific purpose.
Non-euclidean geometry might have been a niche... but it never was anti-scientific.
Before we start our discussion would you be so kind to state with a few rational arguments why your idea of 'Jesus Christ the savior' deserves more attention from me than the flying spaghetti monster?
Half the size is still very much alike.... And because the configuration is alike (as far as gas giants and there place) it is likely that the evolution of our system is not unique.
Actually if you read the article (I know this is slashdot....) you would know that the current techniques are at the level that an earth like planet could be detected with gravitational lensing. Just not at the distance of this system.
You can have 100% of inbound mail dropped simply by unplugging the network cable.... However, such a filter wouldn't score good if it were judged on the really important metrics like number of false positives.
I think you have no idea how much 'station keeping' the ISS is doing... Its orbit needs very regular boosts. Any discarded spacecraft would need to be capable to boost itself the same amount to stay in the same orbit as ISS. In other words you would need to launch these crafts with a shitload of fuel just to keep them up. And only because some random slashdot reader thought it might be a good idea to keep old junk up there...
It is simply cheaper to launch without all that extra fuel and let it burn once it is not needed anymore.
Suppose we have a group of organisms 'A' Once in a while during that process a member is born with a small mutation. (But not big enough to make them incompatible.. with the ones without the mutation). Suppose that at a certain point a mutation B occurs that makes the organism a lot better suited to its environment. And another member in the group has a mutation C that also gives it an advantadge. Suppose a group member with mutation B is not able to breed with one with mutation C. No problem.... B can breed with all A and C can also breed with all A. Since B and C both have an advantadge over A they will breed alot and after a few generations there will almost only be members having gene B and those having gene C and no original A. From that moment on there will be two seperate species not able to breed....
In this example it was simple: a seperation of 1 mutation means compatible, 2 mutations means incompatible... in reality it will likely take a bigger separation. Things like splitting groups by a natural border also helps a lot....
The important thing to remember is that speciation does not need to happen within a single generation.
He is not just saying they are danceable... Just a few lines later he says: 'In this area, they are simply way better than anything else I have heard prior to their audition.'.
That is a claim of the cable's properties. Appearantly he can hear that this cable is more danceable than another cable. That claim can be verified and James Randi has offered his price if somebody actually succeeds in a double blind test.
It is very simple: The author claims that cables have some property called danceability and that he can hear it. Randi simply takes him up on this claim. Wheter danceability is a real property or a mystical one doesn't matter. What the author claims matters and can be tested.
They tested a short-term effect claimed by people who call themself 'sensitive' to RF transmitters. Those people claim that those transmitters have an almost immediate effect on them.
When a short term effect is claimed, you test for that short term effect. And in this case when they properly blinded those people they found no short term effect.
Simple summary: The short term effect claimed by these people is bullshit, there might or might not be a long term effect but this test doesn't cover it in any way.
Yes, its a very common practise called vaccination. It is usually done by growing a weakened variant (today often through genetic manipulation but you can also take a relative of the virus that is faught back by the body easily) that resembles the virus you want to protect against. This virus is similar enough that the antibodies generated against it will also work against the real thing.
It is just how science works.... 1. Gather measurements 2. Set up hypothesis that explain measurements 3. Do more measurements 4. Find measurement that doesn't fit with hypothesis. 5. Find mistake in previously mentioned measurement or set up new hypothesis that also explains new measurements. 6. goto 3.
Take religion as a contrast: 1. Come up with a nice book/scripture/bedtimestory 2. Defend it at all cost no mather how absurd it looks/sounds and how much evidence contradicts it.
No, looking at the world around me he is either a nowhere near almighty or he is not such a nice guy at all or just doesn't care. In any way its easier to just assume there is no god since there is about as much evidence for a god as there is for invisible pink elephants.
Sure, you could have a security hit squad jump them..... But most of the time someone looking out of place has a good reason to be there, maybe a new guy or someone from another department or just some guy with a bad sense of direction. In those cases just talking to them will be enough. Also most of the times this will be during regular office times when you outnumber them 10:1.
Late at night you are right ofcourse, just call security.
Unless Alaska has had such large spillings that all ice is covered in black oil your post is pretty much 100% bullshit. Ice reflects (that is why it is shiny white....) and thus does not absorb heath as good as e.g water. Have you ever wondered why infrared satellite images have black seas? Its because they don't reflect heath, they absorb it.
Are you just using Marxism as a nice term to sound convincing?
Both capitalism and socialism are about exploiting resources (in this case labor). The difference between them is not wether or not you get any reward out of it, its about where this reward is going. In a socialist system the rewards are going to the workers. (I mean pure implementations of a socialist system here, not the trainwrecks the last century brought us) If your system has some social safeguards (such as minimum wages) there is a guarantee that at least some of the rewards are going to the workers. In this case Apple is the one that is evading these safeguards in order to get more for itself. So yes, if you treasure such safeguards it is alright to focus on Apple, or any other company using similar techniques.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately many don't even learn from that....
You might even get some good old excuse like a government/bigoil/bigpharma/alien cover up.
One of the most difficult things for people to recognize is the difference between blind faith and trust.
When a painter puts up a sign with 'wet paint' my experience tells me that I can probably trust it and choose not to test his claim.
I am a skeptic, I don't have blind faith. (I probably have some hidden pieces of superstition left, but have been very thoroughly getting rid of them)
But it is simply not practical to be skeptical about everything. At some point I need to be able to trust someone else....
e.g. when going to a doctor I need to be able to trust his knowledge of the human body. Unfortunately we allow some idiots to call themselves 'doctor' while selling quackery like homeopathy.
The hardest part is not just being a skeptic, but knowing where you can let your guard down and trust someone else's skepticism.
I did... but I said 'besides that one book'...
And no some early church fathers opinion doesn't mean shit to me...
But lets suppose there really was a fellow named jesus a few thousand years ago.
Why should I believe he was the son of some god? (And you also haven't shown any evidence of that ones existence).
The romands crucified quite a lot of people and I bet some of them claimed to be the sons of the weirdest things...
1 It doesn't matter who thought of it first or why... That doesn't make it any less or more credible.
2 If I told a lie would it be any less of a lie if millions believed me? Or for that matter wether I tell it now or a long time ago?
3 Same argument... The amount of people that take some guys existence for granted without any proof doesn't give the idea more credibility.
Interestingly both Jesus and the FSM (may his meatballs be ever spicy!) are well documented but you choose to believe a parody to have equal weight to an historic person. Delusional ever?
On that topic... besides that one book those christians keep talking about.... could you show me some actual evidence that he is an actual historic person and not just a mythical figure?
You mean a living being which might have lived 2000 years ago.
About the only proof we have of that guy really existing is 2000 years worth of idiots screaming 'its true, he really existed'. (you included)
You are making a mistake in thinking that intelligent design is science.
The very idea behind is makes it non-scientific and as such it shouldn't be treated as science.
The very fact that it is not falsifiable strips intelligent design from any scientific purpose.
Non-euclidean geometry might have been a niche... but it never was anti-scientific.
I don't.
Before we start our discussion would you be so kind to state with a few rational arguments why your idea of 'Jesus Christ the savior' deserves more attention from me than the flying spaghetti monster?
Half the size is still very much alike....
And because the configuration is alike (as far as gas giants and there place) it is likely that the evolution of our system is not unique.
Actually if you read the article (I know this is slashdot....) you would know that the current techniques are at the level that an earth like planet could be detected with gravitational lensing.
Just not at the distance of this system.
An earth size rock could be detected any day now.
You can have 100% of inbound mail dropped simply by unplugging the network cable....
However, such a filter wouldn't score good if it were judged on the really important metrics like number of false positives.
Over 4 times a year is quite a lot especially if you have lots of dead weigth attached to it 'just in case'
I think you have no idea how much 'station keeping' the ISS is doing...
Its orbit needs very regular boosts. Any discarded spacecraft would need to be capable to boost itself the same amount to stay in the same orbit as ISS.
In other words you would need to launch these crafts with a shitload of fuel just to keep them up. And only because some random slashdot reader thought it might be a good idea to keep old junk up there...
It is simply cheaper to launch without all that extra fuel and let it burn once it is not needed anymore.
It has no heat shield... It will burn up on reentry.
I think you might need to read up on the SpaceX Dragon capsule....
It won't be able to dock without help from the station's arm.
Wouldn't they get a clue if you walked into their main office breathing and all?
Suppose we have a group of organisms 'A'
Once in a while during that process a member is born with a small mutation. (But not big enough to make them incompatible.. with the ones without the mutation). Suppose that at a certain point a mutation B occurs that makes the organism a lot better suited to its environment. And another member in the group has a mutation C that also gives it an advantadge. Suppose a group member with mutation B is not able to breed with one with mutation C.
No problem.... B can breed with all A and C can also breed with all A.
Since B and C both have an advantadge over A they will breed alot and after a few generations there will almost only be members having gene B and those having gene C and no original A. From that moment on there will be two seperate species not able to breed....
In this example it was simple: a seperation of 1 mutation means compatible, 2 mutations means incompatible... in reality it will likely take a bigger separation.
Things like splitting groups by a natural border also helps a lot....
The important thing to remember is that speciation does not need to happen within a single generation.
He is not just saying they are danceable...
Just a few lines later he says: 'In this area, they are simply way better than anything else I have heard prior to their audition.'.
That is a claim of the cable's properties. Appearantly he can hear that this cable is more danceable than another cable. That claim can be verified and James Randi has offered his price if somebody actually succeeds in a double blind test.
It is very simple: The author claims that cables have some property called danceability and that he can hear it. Randi simply takes him up on this claim.
Wheter danceability is a real property or a mystical one doesn't matter. What the author claims matters and can be tested.
That was not the reason for the test....
They tested a short-term effect claimed by people who call themself 'sensitive' to RF transmitters.
Those people claim that those transmitters have an almost immediate effect on them.
When a short term effect is claimed, you test for that short term effect.
And in this case when they properly blinded those people they found no short term effect.
Simple summary: The short term effect claimed by these people is bullshit, there might or might not be a long term effect but this test doesn't cover it in any way.
How about objective analysis instead?
How about reading the article and point out some actual errors in it?
I did, and most points she makes seem valid to me...
What facts did you use for your objective analysis of groklaw?
Yes, its a very common practise called vaccination. It is usually done by growing a weakened variant (today often through genetic manipulation but you can also take a relative of the virus that is faught back by the body easily) that resembles the virus you want to protect against. This virus is similar enough that the antibodies generated against it will also work against the real thing.
You never learn't this in biology?
It is just how science works....
1. Gather measurements
2. Set up hypothesis that explain measurements
3. Do more measurements
4. Find measurement that doesn't fit with hypothesis.
5. Find mistake in previously mentioned measurement or set up new hypothesis that also explains new measurements.
6. goto 3.
Take religion as a contrast:
1. Come up with a nice book/scripture/bedtimestory
2. Defend it at all cost no mather how absurd it looks/sounds and how much evidence contradicts it.
No, looking at the world around me he is either a nowhere near almighty or he is not such a nice guy at all or just doesn't care. In any way its easier to just assume there is no god since there is about as much evidence for a god as there is for invisible pink elephants.
Sure, you could have a security hit squad jump them.....
But most of the time someone looking out of place has a good reason to be there, maybe a new guy or someone from another department or just some guy with a bad sense of direction. In those cases just talking to them will be enough.
Also most of the times this will be during regular office times when you outnumber them 10:1.
Late at night you are right ofcourse, just call security.
Huh?????
Unless Alaska has had such large spillings that all ice is covered in black oil your post is pretty much 100% bullshit.
Ice reflects (that is why it is shiny white....) and thus does not absorb heath as good as e.g water.
Have you ever wondered why infrared satellite images have black seas? Its because they don't reflect heath, they absorb it.
Are you just using Marxism as a nice term to sound convincing?
Both capitalism and socialism are about exploiting resources (in this case labor).
The difference between them is not wether or not you get any reward out of it, its about where this reward is going.
In a socialist system the rewards are going to the workers.
(I mean pure implementations of a socialist system here, not the trainwrecks the last century brought us)
If your system has some social safeguards (such as minimum wages) there is a guarantee that at least some of the rewards are going to the workers.
In this case Apple is the one that is evading these safeguards in order to get more for itself. So yes, if you treasure such safeguards it is alright to focus on Apple, or any other company using similar techniques.