With an EV, you can fuel-up in the places you're going to be, without waiting around your vehicle, without taking any extra time to drive out of your way
Being forced to spend a half hour waiting for a car to charge every 50 miles or so even if it isn't slightly out of your way is going to be *FAR* more time consuming than only stopping for only about 5 minutes at someplace that may have been at most 10 minutes out of your way every 200. Even the Tesla, still assuming you are doing rapid recharging (which is only puts the tank to about 80% capacity so you are charging every 160) still requires a recharge time that is more than twice as long as you would have spent driving to the gas station and filling up *combined*. Over a long drive, that would easily add up to hundreds of miles difference covered in a single day.
And the point remains that if you accidentally forget to charge your EV overnight, then you could be unable to get *anywhere* for hours, while if you forgot to fill your tank before you got home last night, you can make a pit stop at a gas station that, partcularly if you live in an urban area, may not even be out of your way on your way to work in the morning.
There are many technical advantages to EV's, and I can't wait for them to become the norm.... but the inconveniences that they introduce simply does not outweigh that,
In fact, EVs recharge faster than gasoline cars... Why? Because you don't have to drive them out to the middle of nowhere....
You already don't have to drive a gasoline car to the middle of nowhere to fill up because gas stations are quite ubiquitous already. You can recharge an EV anywhere there is electricity, but barring the availability of high speed charging stations, recharging takes *hours*, not mere minutes, as refilling a car today does. Even high speed charging facilities face serious limitations in this regard though... at least at current tech levels, taking over half an hour to charge, which is still more than 5 times longer than what it takes to refill a car. Given the already shorter range of EV's compared to a tank of gas, you'd be having to recharge 3 to 4 times for every one time otherwise spent refueling a gas vehicle, and would in general not even be able to cover half of the distance in the same amount of time simply owing to the time you'd be spending recharging the battery. Finally, given that a person is even only using their EV for commuting to and from work, where long distance travel is not required, if one happened to forget to recharge it overnight, they may not be getting work the following morning at all, where if they forget to fill up with gas, they only need to leave 5 to 10 minutes earlier than normal to allow for a fillup on the way to work. So even for commuting, there are limitations on using EV's that impact their practicality for real world and everyday use. If the recharge was about 5 minutes, that would no longer be an issue. And all of this is still presuming that such high speed recharging facilities can eventually become as ubiquitous as gas stations are today.
Make no mistake, however.... I'd love EV's to really take off and to totally replace ICE in the future... but between the inconvenience of a long recharge time, the lack of current ubiquity of even the current level of fast recharging stations, and the significantly higher up front cost that you have to pay for an EV in the first place (the fact that you'd generally save money in gas in the long run doesn't offset the fact that the monthly payments on an EV are considerably greater that of an otherwise comparable gasoline vehicle *including* the cost of gasoline... so you wouldn't be even starting to see any monetary savings until long after the car was paid for), EV's just are not "there" yet... and barring some unprecedented breakthrough in battery storage technology, I don't anticipate it happening anytime in the next decade or so either.
But one can still always hope... and I have no problem with that. I just prefer to be realistic in my expectations for the future rather than allow what I might hope for or wish for to influence my views.
That's roughly about how long it takes to fill up a car with gasoline, so that's the bar they need to hit to be just as useful. It doesn't matter how much money you save in the long run on gasoline by using an electric car if you live in an apartment that doesn't have outlets for each car so you can charge an EV at night.
Also, if a 300 second recharge was possible, then it would be feasible to drive anywhere as long as there was a charging infrastructure available, and any time spent charging would be no less inconvenient than periodic gasoline refills are right now.
I keep repeating that because it is what the word means... the fact that people are calling themselves atheists when in fact they do not subscribe to atheism is based on a misunderstanding of the definition of the word, and not an indication that the word means anything else. There are a host of terms that they could use... freethinker, materialist, anti-theist... but atheism is, by definition, a religion, and people that don't want to be associated with a religious philosophy should probably not be calling themselves atheists.
That's sort of the point... if one means to say that they do not subscribe to any religious philosophy then that is what they should be saying. Atheism literally means having a belief in no gods... like any belief, it can be changed by the presentation of new information that convinces the person they were wrong in their former belief, but it is definitely a full on belief system. It is considered a faith because it is based only on the personal sensibilities of the person who holds those views, rather than on irrefutable proof to substantiate it. The lack of materialistic evidence of a non-materialistic god is no more of a disproof that a god exists than the existence of the universe in the first place is evidence that there is one (and it is a fallacy that you cannot prove something does not exist, as the Michelson-Morley experiment shows). The biggest reason that you wouldn't be able to prove or disprove the existence of God is not because the deity does or does not exist, but because the definition of God is so poorly-defined that you cannot establish a proof of it one way or the other.
I''d argue that the only reason we won't ever have AI is because the all-important part of it, "intelligence", is ill defined in the first place. Although we seem to presume to have intelligence ourselves (rather baselessly, I might add), lacking a rigid definition, how could we ascertain if any other apparently living creature is genuinely intelligent, or if they were actually just issuing programmed responses to stimulation, not unlike computers?
If we can come up with a solid definition of what intelligence actually is, we may very well be able to create AI. But probably not before.
Why, may I ask, is it so important for people who claim to not have any religion to identify specifically as atheists, which are, by definition, followers of atheism, which as an -ism, is expressly a philosophy or a practice, and by extension, an actual belief? If they don't want to be religious, nobody's twisting their arm and forcing them to be... but why is it so important to atheists that they pick a word that expressly means that they *do* believe in a particular philosophy when they are trying to suggest that it means only that they *don't* believe in one particular philosophy? Bear in mind that lack of belief in god is certainly a preqresite for atheism, but quite far removed from the only criteria for it.
And I am talking here about what the word atheism actually means, both by linguistic construction and historically. I remain entirely baffled as to the objection over the notion that atheism is actually a religion when a perfectly legitimate term that could apply to people that don't subscribe to any religious belief, nonreligious, exists.
Someone who denies gods is by definition someone who lacks belief in gods
the latter is included in the former, but is not sufficient for it.
. You require atheists to have faith that there is no God, when in fact the absence of faith is what most atheists have.
If a so-called atheist claims to not believe in either the existence or nonexistence of god, then I would suggest that they aren't atheists in the first place.
Truthfully, I am rather perplexed by the notion that it should be offensive to consider atheism a religion when there is another perfectly valid term that exists in our language to describe people that do not subscribe to any religion: nonreligious. Why is so important to people who actually just want to identify as nonreligious that the specific term 'atheist' should somehow be made to apply to include them? Is the atheism club that cool or something that everyone wants to join or what?
I'm picking that one definition because linguistically, that is what the word means. a- means not, the root word 'theos' comes from the greek word for god, and the -ism suffix refers to the practing or philosphy of something. Atheism is therefore the belief that no gods exist. People who claim to believe no such thing, but simply lack any belief in god would more correctly simply call themselves nonreligious.
I didn't suggest that we were a significant part... only that if the universe was a simulation, then complex life was probably an intended byproduct of that in the same way that when we design software, we can write it for a specific purpose to do a particular thing, and even though all of the results and byproducts of the software are exactly what we expected, the software can still be useful (or entertaining, or what have you).
If people who call themselves atheists are offended at it being called a religion, then perhaps they shouldn't call themselves atheists in the first place, but simply categorize themselves as not being theists... which is entirely valid, and wouldn't imply having any religion at all. The word atheism has three components... a- meaning not, the root word theos, the Greek word for god, and -ism, which indicates the practicing or the philosophy of something. Atheism is therefore the belief that there is no god (or gods). It implies the absence of a belief in any gods, but the latter is not actually a sufficient condition for what atheism really is.
I'm not sure what persisting in a belief has to do with anything... a person can change their beliefs based on new information, after all. A person who believes there is no god may alter their view if they have had sufficient basis to do so, and a theist is just as likely to change his mind if circumstances occur that convince them that there is no god.
Nothing about belief suggests that it persists in the face of what a disproof presented by a person with a differing belief system, it only means that the person believes something to be true.
Atheists believe that there is no god. It is, in the end, still an -ism, and by virtue of that represents either a practice or philosophy of something. In this case, a- (or not), theos (Greek root word for god). The absence of a philosophy is simply the lack of that philosophy... there is no distinctive term for it that I know of.
Saying "purpose" was overkill.... I was only rather suggesting that if what we experience as the universe were a simulation, there is no particular reason to believe that we were not an intended byproduct of that simulation... not because we are necessarily special, but because it makes the assumption that the designer or designers of the simulation did not account for all of the factors in the simulation before they started it running. We can't understand everything about the universe because we are *part* of that system, but there is no reason to presume that someone who could have designed would not understand every aspect of its operation as well as we might be able to understand something that *we* create ourselves.
Atheism literally means the practice or philosophy (from the -ism suffix) of no (from the a- prefix) gods (from the greek word for god, 'theos'). Your dog is not an atheist, your dog is simply not a theist.
Sure..... but if the universe were a simulation, then what makes us think that the fact that we can't see what kind of purpose we might have in it means that we don't have one? It arrogantly assumes that we know more than we really do about what the intentions of the designer of the simulation would be.
You are failing to understand the etymology of "theism" and how an inverse would reasonably apply to it.
Theism has a root word that comes from the Greek word "theos", which simply means god. Negating that with "a-" literally means "not god". The -ism suffix refers to a distinctive practice or philosophy, and atheism, carrying that suffix, would reasonably be the distinctive belief that no god exists. Theists are followers of theism, and atheists are followers of atheism... by definition.
The lack of any belief in god is certainly a subset of atheism, but is not atheism. People who abstain from any belief in god are simply not followers of theism, but that does not make them atheists.
There are other things that can govern how you behave in life other than one's beliefs about god (or gods) Religion only refers to the set of beliefs that one has about any gods which do so.
Atheism is also not merely the absence of any belief in a deity, it is the actual belief that no deities exist, and as such is certainly a religion.
You can further have a religion with being religious. This applies equally to theism as well as atheism.
No... atheism is not simply the absence of a belief in the existence of any god, it is the specific belief that no god exists.. Suggesting that atheism is not a religion simply because it is the very opposite of theism is like saying that if joy is an emotion, then grief is not one.
The only way the CC companies would see any financial advantage from this is if a retailer that regularly allowed fraudulent transactions to go through continued to do so after the CC company shifted liability to them.
You may be right about it not being enough time, however.
Yes. Atheism is a belief about the nature of god, to the point that it governs how you behave in life, even if that belief is that god does not exist. To not have a religion one must not believe anything about the nature of god. Being agnostic is much closer to not having a religion than atheism is. It can be argued that even if you say you do not know that god exists, but live your life as if you believe that god does not exist, then you are still a practicing atheist, so I'd suggest that not being religious is actually pretty difficult, and probably not the norm for humanity.
No. A sex position is a position where the assumption is made that one is having sex in the first place. Your question is not entirely unlike asking if the square root of x a polynomial in x. The answer, of course, is no, because of what a polynomial is.
No. It exists, but it is not an object.
It depends. Chromatically yes, physically, no.
Yes. By definition.
No. It is permission to borrow money before the need to do so arises. Some might treat it as identical to money, but that does not mean that it is money.
Sure... but I think that's a bit of a hand-waving argument when we don't know a thing about what is outside of the allegedly simulated system.
I would further suggest that if we are an intended byproduct of the simulation, the so-called assorted random factors that led to our origins may have easily been the easiest method available at the time to have actually created us. In the same way that it is often easier to design a full blown physics simulation system for a 3d game and let the physics engine take care of the details of object interaction instead of trying to code all of that directly into the game logic, even if the latter may appear more efficient for certain limited behaviors.
The october 2015 deadline was announced in the latter half of 2011, with Amex and MC announcing the same deadline in early 2012. There was no lack of time to make the switch. Some retailer are even being given until 2017 owing to the expense of completing the switchover (most notably involving fuel pump card readers).
Slashdot Mirror
Being forced to spend a half hour waiting for a car to charge every 50 miles or so even if it isn't slightly out of your way is going to be *FAR* more time consuming than only stopping for only about 5 minutes at someplace that may have been at most 10 minutes out of your way every 200. Even the Tesla, still assuming you are doing rapid recharging (which is only puts the tank to about 80% capacity so you are charging every 160) still requires a recharge time that is more than twice as long as you would have spent driving to the gas station and filling up *combined*. Over a long drive, that would easily add up to hundreds of miles difference covered in a single day.
And the point remains that if you accidentally forget to charge your EV overnight, then you could be unable to get *anywhere* for hours, while if you forgot to fill your tank before you got home last night, you can make a pit stop at a gas station that, partcularly if you live in an urban area, may not even be out of your way on your way to work in the morning.
There are many technical advantages to EV's, and I can't wait for them to become the norm.... but the inconveniences that they introduce simply does not outweigh that,
You already don't have to drive a gasoline car to the middle of nowhere to fill up because gas stations are quite ubiquitous already. You can recharge an EV anywhere there is electricity, but barring the availability of high speed charging stations, recharging takes *hours*, not mere minutes, as refilling a car today does. Even high speed charging facilities face serious limitations in this regard though... at least at current tech levels, taking over half an hour to charge, which is still more than 5 times longer than what it takes to refill a car. Given the already shorter range of EV's compared to a tank of gas, you'd be having to recharge 3 to 4 times for every one time otherwise spent refueling a gas vehicle, and would in general not even be able to cover half of the distance in the same amount of time simply owing to the time you'd be spending recharging the battery. Finally, given that a person is even only using their EV for commuting to and from work, where long distance travel is not required, if one happened to forget to recharge it overnight, they may not be getting work the following morning at all, where if they forget to fill up with gas, they only need to leave 5 to 10 minutes earlier than normal to allow for a fillup on the way to work. So even for commuting, there are limitations on using EV's that impact their practicality for real world and everyday use. If the recharge was about 5 minutes, that would no longer be an issue. And all of this is still presuming that such high speed recharging facilities can eventually become as ubiquitous as gas stations are today.
Make no mistake, however.... I'd love EV's to really take off and to totally replace ICE in the future... but between the inconvenience of a long recharge time, the lack of current ubiquity of even the current level of fast recharging stations, and the significantly higher up front cost that you have to pay for an EV in the first place (the fact that you'd generally save money in gas in the long run doesn't offset the fact that the monthly payments on an EV are considerably greater that of an otherwise comparable gasoline vehicle *including* the cost of gasoline... so you wouldn't be even starting to see any monetary savings until long after the car was paid for), EV's just are not "there" yet... and barring some unprecedented breakthrough in battery storage technology, I don't anticipate it happening anytime in the next decade or so either.
But one can still always hope... and I have no problem with that. I just prefer to be realistic in my expectations for the future rather than allow what I might hope for or wish for to influence my views.
That's roughly about how long it takes to fill up a car with gasoline, so that's the bar they need to hit to be just as useful. It doesn't matter how much money you save in the long run on gasoline by using an electric car if you live in an apartment that doesn't have outlets for each car so you can charge an EV at night.
Also, if a 300 second recharge was possible, then it would be feasible to drive anywhere as long as there was a charging infrastructure available, and any time spent charging would be no less inconvenient than periodic gasoline refills are right now.
I keep repeating that because it is what the word means... the fact that people are calling themselves atheists when in fact they do not subscribe to atheism is based on a misunderstanding of the definition of the word, and not an indication that the word means anything else. There are a host of terms that they could use... freethinker, materialist, anti-theist... but atheism is, by definition, a religion, and people that don't want to be associated with a religious philosophy should probably not be calling themselves atheists.
That's sort of the point... if one means to say that they do not subscribe to any religious philosophy then that is what they should be saying. Atheism literally means having a belief in no gods... like any belief, it can be changed by the presentation of new information that convinces the person they were wrong in their former belief, but it is definitely a full on belief system. It is considered a faith because it is based only on the personal sensibilities of the person who holds those views, rather than on irrefutable proof to substantiate it. The lack of materialistic evidence of a non-materialistic god is no more of a disproof that a god exists than the existence of the universe in the first place is evidence that there is one (and it is a fallacy that you cannot prove something does not exist, as the Michelson-Morley experiment shows). The biggest reason that you wouldn't be able to prove or disprove the existence of God is not because the deity does or does not exist, but because the definition of God is so poorly-defined that you cannot establish a proof of it one way or the other.
I''d argue that the only reason we won't ever have AI is because the all-important part of it, "intelligence", is ill defined in the first place. Although we seem to presume to have intelligence ourselves (rather baselessly, I might add), lacking a rigid definition, how could we ascertain if any other apparently living creature is genuinely intelligent, or if they were actually just issuing programmed responses to stimulation, not unlike computers?
If we can come up with a solid definition of what intelligence actually is, we may very well be able to create AI. But probably not before.
Why, may I ask, is it so important for people who claim to not have any religion to identify specifically as atheists, which are, by definition, followers of atheism, which as an -ism, is expressly a philosophy or a practice, and by extension, an actual belief? If they don't want to be religious, nobody's twisting their arm and forcing them to be... but why is it so important to atheists that they pick a word that expressly means that they *do* believe in a particular philosophy when they are trying to suggest that it means only that they *don't* believe in one particular philosophy? Bear in mind that lack of belief in god is certainly a preqresite for atheism, but quite far removed from the only criteria for it.
And I am talking here about what the word atheism actually means, both by linguistic construction and historically. I remain entirely baffled as to the objection over the notion that atheism is actually a religion when a perfectly legitimate term that could apply to people that don't subscribe to any religious belief, nonreligious, exists.
the latter is included in the former, but is not sufficient for it.
If a so-called atheist claims to not believe in either the existence or nonexistence of god, then I would suggest that they aren't atheists in the first place.
Truthfully, I am rather perplexed by the notion that it should be offensive to consider atheism a religion when there is another perfectly valid term that exists in our language to describe people that do not subscribe to any religion: nonreligious. Why is so important to people who actually just want to identify as nonreligious that the specific term 'atheist' should somehow be made to apply to include them? Is the atheism club that cool or something that everyone wants to join or what?
I'm picking that one definition because linguistically, that is what the word means. a- means not, the root word 'theos' comes from the greek word for god, and the -ism suffix refers to the practing or philosphy of something. Atheism is therefore the belief that no gods exist. People who claim to believe no such thing, but simply lack any belief in god would more correctly simply call themselves nonreligious.
I didn't suggest that we were a significant part... only that if the universe was a simulation, then complex life was probably an intended byproduct of that in the same way that when we design software, we can write it for a specific purpose to do a particular thing, and even though all of the results and byproducts of the software are exactly what we expected, the software can still be useful (or entertaining, or what have you).
If people who call themselves atheists are offended at it being called a religion, then perhaps they shouldn't call themselves atheists in the first place, but simply categorize themselves as not being theists... which is entirely valid, and wouldn't imply having any religion at all. The word atheism has three components... a- meaning not, the root word theos, the Greek word for god, and -ism, which indicates the practicing or the philosophy of something. Atheism is therefore the belief that there is no god (or gods). It implies the absence of a belief in any gods, but the latter is not actually a sufficient condition for what atheism really is.
I'm not sure what persisting in a belief has to do with anything... a person can change their beliefs based on new information, after all. A person who believes there is no god may alter their view if they have had sufficient basis to do so, and a theist is just as likely to change his mind if circumstances occur that convince them that there is no god.
Nothing about belief suggests that it persists in the face of what a disproof presented by a person with a differing belief system, it only means that the person believes something to be true.
Atheists believe that there is no god. It is, in the end, still an -ism, and by virtue of that represents either a practice or philosophy of something. In this case, a- (or not), theos (Greek root word for god). The absence of a philosophy is simply the lack of that philosophy... there is no distinctive term for it that I know of.
Saying "purpose" was overkill.... I was only rather suggesting that if what we experience as the universe were a simulation, there is no particular reason to believe that we were not an intended byproduct of that simulation... not because we are necessarily special, but because it makes the assumption that the designer or designers of the simulation did not account for all of the factors in the simulation before they started it running. We can't understand everything about the universe because we are *part* of that system, but there is no reason to presume that someone who could have designed would not understand every aspect of its operation as well as we might be able to understand something that *we* create ourselves.
Atheism literally means the practice or philosophy (from the -ism suffix) of no (from the a- prefix) gods (from the greek word for god, 'theos'). Your dog is not an atheist, your dog is simply not a theist.
Sure..... but if the universe were a simulation, then what makes us think that the fact that we can't see what kind of purpose we might have in it means that we don't have one? It arrogantly assumes that we know more than we really do about what the intentions of the designer of the simulation would be.
You are failing to understand the etymology of "theism" and how an inverse would reasonably apply to it.
Theism has a root word that comes from the Greek word "theos", which simply means god. Negating that with "a-" literally means "not god". The -ism suffix refers to a distinctive practice or philosophy, and atheism, carrying that suffix, would reasonably be the distinctive belief that no god exists. Theists are followers of theism, and atheists are followers of atheism... by definition.
The lack of any belief in god is certainly a subset of atheism, but is not atheism. People who abstain from any belief in god are simply not followers of theism, but that does not make them atheists.
Theism is the belief that god or gods exist.
Atheism is the belief that no gods exist.
Agnosticism is the lack of either belief.
Atheism is not merely the absence of a belief in any god it is a belief that there is no god. The former is just a subset of the latter.
There are other things that can govern how you behave in life other than one's beliefs about god (or gods) Religion only refers to the set of beliefs that one has about any gods which do so.
Atheism is also not merely the absence of any belief in a deity, it is the actual belief that no deities exist, and as such is certainly a religion.
You can further have a religion with being religious. This applies equally to theism as well as atheism.
No... atheism is not simply the absence of a belief in the existence of any god, it is the specific belief that no god exists.. Suggesting that atheism is not a religion simply because it is the very opposite of theism is like saying that if joy is an emotion, then grief is not one.
The only way the CC companies would see any financial advantage from this is if a retailer that regularly allowed fraudulent transactions to go through continued to do so after the CC company shifted liability to them.
You may be right about it not being enough time, however.
Yes. Atheism is a belief about the nature of god, to the point that it governs how you behave in life, even if that belief is that god does not exist. To not have a religion one must not believe anything about the nature of god. Being agnostic is much closer to not having a religion than atheism is. It can be argued that even if you say you do not know that god exists, but live your life as if you believe that god does not exist, then you are still a practicing atheist, so I'd suggest that not being religious is actually pretty difficult, and probably not the norm for humanity.
No. A sex position is a position where the assumption is made that one is having sex in the first place. Your question is not entirely unlike asking if the square root of x a polynomial in x. The answer, of course, is no, because of what a polynomial is.
No. It exists, but it is not an object.
It depends. Chromatically yes, physically, no.
Yes. By definition.
No. It is permission to borrow money before the need to do so arises. Some might treat it as identical to money, but that does not mean that it is money.
Sure... but I think that's a bit of a hand-waving argument when we don't know a thing about what is outside of the allegedly simulated system.
I would further suggest that if we are an intended byproduct of the simulation, the so-called assorted random factors that led to our origins may have easily been the easiest method available at the time to have actually created us. In the same way that it is often easier to design a full blown physics simulation system for a 3d game and let the physics engine take care of the details of object interaction instead of trying to code all of that directly into the game logic, even if the latter may appear more efficient for certain limited behaviors.
But can you explain why the exact same reasoning cannot be utilized to just as readily dispute the likelihood of us living in a simulation?
The october 2015 deadline was announced in the latter half of 2011, with Amex and MC announcing the same deadline in early 2012. There was no lack of time to make the switch. Some retailer are even being given until 2017 owing to the expense of completing the switchover (most notably involving fuel pump card readers).