Still, I have the same issue with that experiment (which isn't particularly surprising since it is Dawkins), in that you are starting with the end result and contriving a way to generate it. In that way, it isn't much different from an Intelligent Design proponent's argument. In this thought experiment, Dawkins is the intelligent designer, and it's a shame he doesn't see the irony in that.
A better thought experiment would be generating five words, checking each for fitness against the list of ALL dictionary words, and seeing how long it takes to generate 5 words that if arranged correctly would match any 5 word phrase in the complete works of Shakespere.
It's trivially easy when you prevent the computer/monkeys from arriving at a dead end, but the case of guiding the system away from those evolutionary dead ends ends up providing more weight to an ID viewpoint than darwinian evolution.
I'm just waiting for the first anti-ID argument based on this as proof by way of 'million monkeys', it would be deliciously ironic:)
But yeah, it's an interesting exercise in search functions nothing more.
Right, and that's the whole reason why this argument is favored by those who support intelligent design. It only worked here because someone designed an error check system, the thought being that it wouldn't have happened without error checking or comparison to the initial work.
A) Earnhardt is probably contractually obliged to participate (because they pay him to do so).
Actually, Earnhardt had been sim racing in the old Papyrus NASCAR sims, back before they went out of business and were reformed as iRacing. Earnhardt would probably be racing there regardless, he's just an enthusiastic spokesperson because he was interested in the sim and company already. When they invited him to alpha and beta test the software, it's because he knew a developer, loved their sims, and already had a home racing setup.
Dale Earnhardt Jr. competes in the NASCAR iRacing series (won by a Brit, Richard Towler) and several other NASCAR drivers use the service as well (AJ Allmendinger ran a race live on Speed, for example). Also, about half the IRL drivers use iRacing, as well as a smattering of other racers. It's just not rare enough to be interesting anymore, but if you want to find it, there's plenty of video online of pros running iRacing.
A car like this needs to be driven with confidence. For the wings to generate enough downforce to make the corner, you must be going fast. Some corners either need to be taken incredibly slow, or flat out in order to have enough grip. Heck, lifting off the throtle (especially in the first or last corners here) can send you into a spin as the car's weight transfers forward off the rear wheels. Without that confidence they either would have driven significantly off-pace or wrecked the car. That said, I agree that a test with a more beginner-friendly car might be reasonable. You could just look for Skip Barber racing school lap times for beginners, and check the time difference there (iRacing has the Skip Barber car, and all of the tracks they have a school at).
That said, the biggest difference between iRacing and other sims and games is that iRacing laser scans the tracks at 1mm resolution, so it has every bump and crack in the pavement, every tree as a reference point, and so on. Other sims get pretty close, but iRacing really does recreate every square centimetre of the track, not just something close based on GPS coordinates. It's good enough that many IRL drivers use it to learn and practice tracks, and Dale Earnhardt Jr. uses it to brush up on Infineon and Watkins Glen.
I'm not sure what this online racing sim uses as their codebase. It wouldn't suprise me if they both use the same codebase.
IRacing is led by Dave Kaemmer of Papyrus fame, and iRacing uses the NASCAR Racing 2003 code base.
And if you're interested in how in-depth the sim is aiming to be, here's a fantastic video on the upcoming tire model that Dave is developing currently. Basically, he's not aware if anyone else has tried to model a tire the same way, using physical model predictions, rather than curve fits to test data.
one... does need faith to believe in God's compassion
Not if you've witnessed it. If God has shown himself to you, you need no more faith in his existance than you need faith in your dog's existence.
But there's a difference here. I was speaking of faith in the nature of something. I know dogs exist, but I take it on faith that they truly care for their owners. It's one thing to say 'my dog saved my life', and another to say 'I know my dog would save me from a fire, even if he knew it would get him killed'. That's the kind of faith I'm talking about.
Semantically, I would call what you are referring to as the belief portion of faith, rather than faith in its entirity. I can believe someone exists and believe what they say without having any faith in their abilities or sicerity.
It wouldn't be faith, if we could prove the whole thing scientifically.
I think you're looking at the wrong definition of "faith." I think it means being faithful, as in being faithful to your wife; not "believing".
It's both, isn't it? It's both being faithful to your god's expectations, and having faith in their existence and nature.
To follow your example, I am both faithful (show fidelity) to my wife, and I have faith (believe) that she will act according to what I know about her.
That said, we're talking about personified entities, here, regardless of your diety or dieties of choice. They are more psychology (soft-science) than physics or math as far as understanding or 'prooving'. There's a reason why the Bible and Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies (and probably others I'm less familiar with) speak of emotions with respect to God and the gods behavior (anger, as a common example), rather than logical rules that one gets from the hard-sciences. As such, one doesn't need faith to believe in gravitational or magnetic forces, but does need faith to believe in God's compassion.
My thumb comes at such an angle that sometimes while attempting to scroll right, my thumb places enough force that the pad also goes up. This is particularly a hassle while navigating my Netflix queue.
According to my calculator, that is DIVBYZERO times more than their competitors!
Their competitors also do not provide matchmaking of any sort, so MS also provides UNDEF more multiplayer services in that arena. That makes the price increase worth it, right?
Then they're wrong. Adultery is something very specific - sexual intercourse where at least one adult is married.
But if you look at Matthew 5:28, Jesus neither specifiesmarried man nor married woman, which to me implies an expansion of the sin of adultery. Sure, initially it was defined as the 'mixing of seed', but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And as I said below, if the act of lust itself is a sin then it follows that all forms of sexual contact would likely follow, as they almost necessarily involve lust. Alternatively, the sin could be against a woman's future husband or her virginity itself.
That said, Miseph has it right in this thread. Whether it is defined as a sin or not should not be used as a hammer to cause guilt. The barrier to sin is relatively low, so much so that we all do it. The message is not (or should not) be 'stop sinning so you can be saved', because it's impossible. Rather, it is a goal for believers, so they can act properly and respectfully towards others.
Put another way, nobody goes to Hell just because they got a BJ in High School. God just doesn't want his people exercising their sexuality outside the bounds of marriage.
Not to get too far off topic, but Christianity doesn't say too much about whether or not it's a sin to have oral sex, mutual masturbation, and other things along those lines that are NOT sexual intercourse. So are they sin or not?
In general, Jesus has wrapped this one up pretty well: Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I doubt that there is a pathway that leads to oral sex/mutual masturbation/other sexual acts that doesn't start with looking at and desiring the person. The sin is not the sexual act per-se, but the uncontrolable desire or fantasy for that sexual act with someone other than a spouse.
That said, many, including a majority of Christians, forget that the entire basis of the Christian message is based on the ubiquity of sin and our forgiveness of it even though it's undeserved. While the Bible still teaches that we should try not to sin (since it brings glory to God), it also teaches that no matter how hard we might try we still will. The focus has shifted from "we're all sinners and need forgiveness", toward defining which sins are the the 'really bad' ones that you're totally going to Hell for.
tl;dr: yes it's a sin, but it's hardly the only sin a teenager or anyone else will commit.
I know of exactly zero computer engineers who work in IT. I have a dual degree in Computer and Electrical Engineering. Most computer engineers get a job writing software or designing digital hardware (VLSI chips, microprocessors, FPGAs). Hell, the degree is basically electrical engineering, just with a focus on digital instead of analog and extra software chops.
Obviously he either wants to exercise his analog skills at home, or he plans to use it for digital circuits but a logic analyzer is out of his price range.
If the student has a learning disability and is unable to learn 70% of the material, then that doesn't mean that they should just get credit. It means that they shouldn't be in the class, or need additional tutoring.
Agreed. This is what IQ was used for, before it was bastardised into a dick-waving competition. If you were below a 70-80 IQ, then you needed remedial help to catch you up with your peers.
The only benefit to passing along a student who doesn't understand the material is preventing the social stigma of 'flunking out'. By requiring a C (similar to most universities), the students can actually be taught, and underperforming students can be identified. Not to point them out and laugh, but to give them the resources to succeed.
Himself. Motorcycles have a lot of speed, high acceleration and maneuverability, little mass, and very little between the rider and the road. If he'd met another vehicle at 127mph, the other vehicle would be operable with a dent, and this video would've ended with road pizza.
Stupid driving? Extremely. Dangerous to those around him? Not really.
That's assuming the other driver doesn't panic after being hit by a man at a difference in velocity of 50+ MPH, maintains control of their vehicle, and that nobody runs over said motorcyclist or bike.
I'd say it's about as dangerous as a deer on the highway (slightly slower relatively, yet heavier), and we consider that a danger:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year that result in $1 billion in vehicle damage, about 150 human fatalities, and over 10,000 personal injuries. The actual numbers are probably higher because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's figures for deer accidents, rely on inconsistent state reporting- there is no standard reporting of deer accidents in the country yet, and a "reportable deer accident" varies significantly between states.
I don't think it's particularly a price point issue, but a quantity issue. AAA games sell for the same price as non-AAA games, for the most part: $50-60. There's an anecdote drifting around from Spore's development that is costs 4x more to make a game that looks 2x better. If we assume that to be the case (diminishing returns on development when you get into AAA game range), then this all makes sense. If you spend double the money improving a AAA game, but those improvements only gain 50% more buyers, then that game shouldn't be polished to AAA levels for economic reasons.
I am assuming that R&D costs for automated flight control computers will be more expensive than that of pilot controls and comforts, as the latter are more common.
Regardless of R&D costs, operational costs will certainly be less.
It used to be that having more friends in the game unlocked larger farms (and other stuff) without having to spend real money. That may have changed, but the tactic has always been 'friends or dollars'. Either you fund them directly, or you coerce your friends to join, and maybe one of them gives you money.
you now need at least 2 and most of the time 3 or 4 computers to fly the thing plus redundant air data sensors, really good data links, etc... it really adds up
Modern aircraft (particularly combat aircraft) already have redundant computers to move the control surfaces (and the computer is required to make the plane even remotely flyable), multiple sensors are already used because it's equally bad for a pilot to lose sensors, and high quality data links are standard in this age of electronic warfare. The only difference is one additional redundant computer to fly the plane in place of a pilot. Development cost will be higher due to the extra hardware and software work, but operational costs will be way down. Less weight, less fuel, less pilot training.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean it seem's to be the standard the'se day's.
Still, I have the same issue with that experiment (which isn't particularly surprising since it is Dawkins), in that you are starting with the end result and contriving a way to generate it. In that way, it isn't much different from an Intelligent Design proponent's argument. In this thought experiment, Dawkins is the intelligent designer, and it's a shame he doesn't see the irony in that. A better thought experiment would be generating five words, checking each for fitness against the list of ALL dictionary words, and seeing how long it takes to generate 5 words that if arranged correctly would match any 5 word phrase in the complete works of Shakespere. It's trivially easy when you prevent the computer/monkeys from arriving at a dead end, but the case of guiding the system away from those evolutionary dead ends ends up providing more weight to an ID viewpoint than darwinian evolution.
I'm just waiting for the first anti-ID argument based on this as proof by way of 'million monkeys', it would be deliciously ironic :)
But yeah, it's an interesting exercise in search functions nothing more.
Right, and that's the whole reason why this argument is favored by those who support intelligent design. It only worked here because someone designed an error check system, the thought being that it wouldn't have happened without error checking or comparison to the initial work.
You mean analog/digital, not passive/active. An op-amp is just as much an active component as a microcontroller.
A) Earnhardt is probably contractually obliged to participate (because they pay him to do so).
Actually, Earnhardt had been sim racing in the old Papyrus NASCAR sims, back before they went out of business and were reformed as iRacing. Earnhardt would probably be racing there regardless, he's just an enthusiastic spokesperson because he was interested in the sim and company already. When they invited him to alpha and beta test the software, it's because he knew a developer, loved their sims, and already had a home racing setup.
Dale Earnhardt Jr. competes in the NASCAR iRacing series (won by a Brit, Richard Towler) and several other NASCAR drivers use the service as well (AJ Allmendinger ran a race live on Speed, for example). Also, about half the IRL drivers use iRacing, as well as a smattering of other racers. It's just not rare enough to be interesting anymore, but if you want to find it, there's plenty of video online of pros running iRacing.
A car like this needs to be driven with confidence. For the wings to generate enough downforce to make the corner, you must be going fast. Some corners either need to be taken incredibly slow, or flat out in order to have enough grip. Heck, lifting off the throtle (especially in the first or last corners here) can send you into a spin as the car's weight transfers forward off the rear wheels. Without that confidence they either would have driven significantly off-pace or wrecked the car. That said, I agree that a test with a more beginner-friendly car might be reasonable. You could just look for Skip Barber racing school lap times for beginners, and check the time difference there (iRacing has the Skip Barber car, and all of the tracks they have a school at).
That said, the biggest difference between iRacing and other sims and games is that iRacing laser scans the tracks at 1mm resolution, so it has every bump and crack in the pavement, every tree as a reference point, and so on. Other sims get pretty close, but iRacing really does recreate every square centimetre of the track, not just something close based on GPS coordinates. It's good enough that many IRL drivers use it to learn and practice tracks, and Dale Earnhardt Jr. uses it to brush up on Infineon and Watkins Glen.
It has also been mentioned that a combination of jet-lag and possible food poisoning may have contributed as well.
I'm not sure what this online racing sim uses as their codebase. It wouldn't suprise me if they both use the same codebase.
IRacing is led by Dave Kaemmer of Papyrus fame, and iRacing uses the NASCAR Racing 2003 code base.
And if you're interested in how in-depth the sim is aiming to be, here's a fantastic video on the upcoming tire model that Dave is developing currently. Basically, he's not aware if anyone else has tried to model a tire the same way, using physical model predictions, rather than curve fits to test data.
I guess a video's incoming, but has been delayed due to the presenter being involved in a serious car crash.
passBall(player Passer, player Receiver)
{
if(Receiver.opposingPlayersBetweenSelfAndOpposingGoal.isLessThan(2)) {Receiver.isOffside = TRUE;}
else {Receiver.isOffside = FALSE;}
Passer.kickBallTo(Receiver);
if(Receiver.touchBallFirst == TRUE && Receiver.isOffside) {callPenalty(offside);}
else {return;}
}
one... does need faith to believe in God's compassion
Not if you've witnessed it. If God has shown himself to you, you need no more faith in his existance than you need faith in your dog's existence.
But there's a difference here. I was speaking of faith in the nature of something. I know dogs exist, but I take it on faith that they truly care for their owners. It's one thing to say 'my dog saved my life', and another to say 'I know my dog would save me from a fire, even if he knew it would get him killed'. That's the kind of faith I'm talking about.
Semantically, I would call what you are referring to as the belief portion of faith, rather than faith in its entirity. I can believe someone exists and believe what they say without having any faith in their abilities or sicerity.
It wouldn't be faith, if we could prove the whole thing scientifically.
I think you're looking at the wrong definition of "faith." I think it means being faithful, as in being faithful to your wife; not "believing".
It's both, isn't it? It's both being faithful to your god's expectations, and having faith in their existence and nature.
To follow your example, I am both faithful (show fidelity) to my wife, and I have faith (believe) that she will act according to what I know about her.
That said, we're talking about personified entities, here, regardless of your diety or dieties of choice. They are more psychology (soft-science) than physics or math as far as understanding or 'prooving'. There's a reason why the Bible and Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies (and probably others I'm less familiar with) speak of emotions with respect to God and the gods behavior (anger, as a common example), rather than logical rules that one gets from the hard-sciences. As such, one doesn't need faith to believe in gravitational or magnetic forces, but does need faith to believe in God's compassion.
My thumb comes at such an angle that sometimes while attempting to scroll right, my thumb places enough force that the pad also goes up. This is particularly a hassle while navigating my Netflix queue.
According to my calculator, that is DIVBYZERO times more than their competitors!
Their competitors also do not provide matchmaking of any sort, so MS also provides UNDEF more multiplayer services in that arena. That makes the price increase worth it, right?
Then they're wrong. Adultery is something very specific - sexual intercourse where at least one adult is married.
But if you look at Matthew 5:28, Jesus neither specifies married man nor married woman, which to me implies an expansion of the sin of adultery. Sure, initially it was defined as the 'mixing of seed', but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And as I said below, if the act of lust itself is a sin then it follows that all forms of sexual contact would likely follow, as they almost necessarily involve lust. Alternatively, the sin could be against a woman's future husband or her virginity itself.
That said, Miseph has it right in this thread. Whether it is defined as a sin or not should not be used as a hammer to cause guilt. The barrier to sin is relatively low, so much so that we all do it. The message is not (or should not) be 'stop sinning so you can be saved', because it's impossible. Rather, it is a goal for believers, so they can act properly and respectfully towards others.
Put another way, nobody goes to Hell just because they got a BJ in High School. God just doesn't want his people exercising their sexuality outside the bounds of marriage.
Not to get too far off topic, but Christianity doesn't say too much about whether or not it's a sin to have oral sex, mutual masturbation, and other things along those lines that are NOT sexual intercourse. So are they sin or not?
In general, Jesus has wrapped this one up pretty well: Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I doubt that there is a pathway that leads to oral sex/mutual masturbation/other sexual acts that doesn't start with looking at and desiring the person. The sin is not the sexual act per-se, but the uncontrolable desire or fantasy for that sexual act with someone other than a spouse.
That said, many, including a majority of Christians, forget that the entire basis of the Christian message is based on the ubiquity of sin and our forgiveness of it even though it's undeserved. While the Bible still teaches that we should try not to sin (since it brings glory to God), it also teaches that no matter how hard we might try we still will. The focus has shifted from "we're all sinners and need forgiveness", toward defining which sins are the the 'really bad' ones that you're totally going to Hell for.
tl;dr: yes it's a sin, but it's hardly the only sin a teenager or anyone else will commit.
I know of exactly zero computer engineers who work in IT. I have a dual degree in Computer and Electrical Engineering. Most computer engineers get a job writing software or designing digital hardware (VLSI chips, microprocessors, FPGAs). Hell, the degree is basically electrical engineering, just with a focus on digital instead of analog and extra software chops.
Obviously he either wants to exercise his analog skills at home, or he plans to use it for digital circuits but a logic analyzer is out of his price range.
If the student has a learning disability and is unable to learn 70% of the material, then that doesn't mean that they should just get credit. It means that they shouldn't be in the class, or need additional tutoring.
Agreed. This is what IQ was used for, before it was bastardised into a dick-waving competition. If you were below a 70-80 IQ, then you needed remedial help to catch you up with your peers.
The only benefit to passing along a student who doesn't understand the material is preventing the social stigma of 'flunking out'. By requiring a C (similar to most universities), the students can actually be taught, and underperforming students can be identified. Not to point them out and laugh, but to give them the resources to succeed.
Himself. Motorcycles have a lot of speed, high acceleration and maneuverability, little mass, and very little between the rider and the road. If he'd met another vehicle at 127mph, the other vehicle would be operable with a dent, and this video would've ended with road pizza.
Stupid driving? Extremely. Dangerous to those around him? Not really.
That's assuming the other driver doesn't panic after being hit by a man at a difference in velocity of 50+ MPH, maintains control of their vehicle, and that nobody runs over said motorcyclist or bike.
I'd say it's about as dangerous as a deer on the highway (slightly slower relatively, yet heavier), and we consider that a danger:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year that result in $1 billion in vehicle damage, about 150 human fatalities, and over 10,000 personal injuries. The actual numbers are probably higher because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's figures for deer accidents, rely on inconsistent state reporting- there is no standard reporting of deer accidents in the country yet, and a "reportable deer accident" varies significantly between states.
I don't think it's particularly a price point issue, but a quantity issue. AAA games sell for the same price as non-AAA games, for the most part: $50-60. There's an anecdote drifting around from Spore's development that is costs 4x more to make a game that looks 2x better. If we assume that to be the case (diminishing returns on development when you get into AAA game range), then this all makes sense. If you spend double the money improving a AAA game, but those improvements only gain 50% more buyers, then that game shouldn't be polished to AAA levels for economic reasons.
I am assuming that R&D costs for automated flight control computers will be more expensive than that of pilot controls and comforts, as the latter are more common.
Regardless of R&D costs, operational costs will certainly be less.
It used to be that having more friends in the game unlocked larger farms (and other stuff) without having to spend real money. That may have changed, but the tactic has always been 'friends or dollars'. Either you fund them directly, or you coerce your friends to join, and maybe one of them gives you money.
you now need at least 2 and most of the time 3 or 4 computers to fly the thing plus redundant air data sensors, really good data links, etc... it really adds up
Modern aircraft (particularly combat aircraft) already have redundant computers to move the control surfaces (and the computer is required to make the plane even remotely flyable), multiple sensors are already used because it's equally bad for a pilot to lose sensors, and high quality data links are standard in this age of electronic warfare. The only difference is one additional redundant computer to fly the plane in place of a pilot. Development cost will be higher due to the extra hardware and software work, but operational costs will be way down. Less weight, less fuel, less pilot training.