Neither the scientific method nor the concept thereof are incompatible with faith.
The concept is that you do not accept unproven concepts, you only show that a hypothesis to an observation is wrong. You do not say an unproven concept is wrong, you just don't accept them. That is a complete contradiction with taking faith, which is accepting an unproven concept as true. In fact, in science, there are no absolute truths, just accepted observations and explanations. "Accepted" meaning that the hypothesis has yet to be shown wrong with respect to given data and agreed upon error.
That's such a ridiculous assertion that only a slashdotter could have made it.
How is that any more ridiculous than ignorance of what the scientific method is?
Alternative? Science and religion are not alternatives to each other.
The concept of the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with faith.
Science merely illuminates the majesty of God's creation.
Or gods. Or no god. The assertion that there exists such things is unfounded and thus incompatible with statement #1.
It attempts to explain how it came to be, but it does nothing to explain why it came to be or what our role within it is.
Well, if our role is to cause misery, we're bloody good at that. Although if one is to say we have a role - from a skeptical POV - it would be to do our best to propagate our genetic information. Why? Because those that don't do so aren't around to fill that role.
As opposed to instinctively grabbing a text book? We all forget stuff over time if the knowledge isn't used, technology hasn't changed that one bit. All that's changed is that we know that it can be faster and easier to look it up on the web. This is just the brain trying to take the easiest route and being lazy, and such has always been a part of human nature; all that has changed is the specific route. And trust me, there will be *no* technology or societal shift that will ever change that.;)
But fact is, 16 year olds are adult already. Most can act and think that way too. At least I could.
... not because 16 year olds are wise and advanced mentally/emotionally, but because adults aren't... . Otherwise our world would have a tiny, tiny, tiny fractions of the problems it has now.
Only a git uses Mac OS X. A real OS is Darwin BSD! (To those modding parent down, it's a sarcastic joke. A lot of OS X (user space and kernel space (and nested parenthesis space!)) is derived from BSD).
Then they'd just fight over another hunk of dirt. Hell, we could all live atop an infinite plane of uniform density and there'd still be folks insisting that this patch of nothingness sacred because it has a p-brane shadow of Jesus. Or Mohamed. Or a Dirichlet function. They all look the same.
That only applies for current / savings accounts, who's interest rates barely keep up with inflation. If your balance stays still, you're losing money.
At a rate two hella of a lot lower than bitcoins or any like it. When I deposit my check to the bank, I can be sure it'll have virtually the same buying power until I get my next one.
Green companies are (usually*) not profitable when competing with . . . uh . . . "dirtier" competitors without government subsidies . . .
But, as any one could have guessed this was coming, that's not factoring in that said competitors are inherently subsidized by not paying for all external costs. That's a very, very important note. Coal is cheap and profitable, but has huge external costs. Nuclear is very expensive and nowhere near as profitable, but it pays off a much higher portion of its external costs. Same with a lot of greener technology. So it's a market failure that's helping tip the scales.
* There are exceptions, of course. I've heard that the paper industry has been moving progressively more sustainable because it's in their favor. IIRC, modern paper plants obtain most of their power from their own waste. They still do pollute, but then again I imagine that's the fundamental nature of having to serve a tremendous worldwide demand.
No, expressive power has nothing to do with abstraction or how much you can do with one line. If you have two sets of actions A and B, and define sets A' and B' to be the set of all possible outputs for A and B respectively, then A is considered to have more expressive power than B if B' is a subset of A'.
What you're talking about is the expressiveness of a line of code from a language, which is a very different thing than that of a language itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither the scientific method nor the concept thereof are incompatible with faith.
The concept is that you do not accept unproven concepts, you only show that a hypothesis to an observation is wrong. You do not say an unproven concept is wrong, you just don't accept them. That is a complete contradiction with taking faith, which is accepting an unproven concept as true. In fact, in science, there are no absolute truths, just accepted observations and explanations. "Accepted" meaning that the hypothesis has yet to be shown wrong with respect to given data and agreed upon error.
That's such a ridiculous assertion that only a slashdotter could have made it.
How is that any more ridiculous than ignorance of what the scientific method is?
Alternative? Science and religion are not alternatives to each other.
The concept of the scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with faith.
Science merely illuminates the majesty of God's creation.
Or gods. Or no god. The assertion that there exists such things is unfounded and thus incompatible with statement #1.
It attempts to explain how it came to be, but it does nothing to explain why it came to be or what our role within it is.
Well, if our role is to cause misery, we're bloody good at that. Although if one is to say we have a role - from a skeptical POV - it would be to do our best to propagate our genetic information. Why? Because those that don't do so aren't around to fill that role.
As opposed to instinctively grabbing a text book? We all forget stuff over time if the knowledge isn't used, technology hasn't changed that one bit. All that's changed is that we know that it can be faster and easier to look it up on the web. This is just the brain trying to take the easiest route and being lazy, and such has always been a part of human nature; all that has changed is the specific route. And trust me, there will be *no* technology or societal shift that will ever change that. ;)
If only they just named it EULA.txt, nobody's information would have been stolen. :P
Fragmentation? Please, we got nothing on mother nature when it comes to fragmentation. :P
But fact is, 16 year olds are adult already. Most can act and think that way too. At least I could.
"but"? I think you meant "Also". :P
Only a git uses Mac OS X. A real OS is Darwin BSD! (To those modding parent down, it's a sarcastic joke. A lot of OS X (user space and kernel space (and nested parenthesis space!)) is derived from BSD).
The generalized form of the joke is supposed to be "{[pro]noun 1} {verb 2} {[pro]noun 3}" => "In Soviet Russia, {[pro]noun 3} {verb 2} {[pro]noun 1}!"
While I disagree with Australia's ban on "high power lasers" (i.e., lasers strong enough to be seen at distance), I do see their point.
-- BMO
Not for much longer if you keep looking at it. :P
I think the 500 limit policy is stupid, but couldn't you save a whole lot of trouble by using mailing lists?
Are you still in Grade 3? This is slashdot, where the lack of misinterpretations would cause more confusion than excess. :D
If we're talking about the Canadian space agency, those are the same things.
Then they'd just fight over another hunk of dirt. Hell, we could all live atop an infinite plane of uniform density and there'd still be folks insisting that this patch of nothingness sacred because it has a p-brane shadow of Jesus. Or Mohamed. Or a Dirichlet function. They all look the same.
Assuming the circle meters don't get hit first, yes.
I'm normally not one for slipper slope arguments, but this is a creep that is happening right before our eyes.
If they wanted to be *really* clever, it wouldn't have any border at all. It'd be shaped like a fractal. :D
Patent that, bitches.
That only applies for current / savings accounts, who's interest rates barely keep up with inflation. If your balance stays still, you're losing money.
At a rate two hella of a lot lower than bitcoins or any like it. When I deposit my check to the bank, I can be sure it'll have virtually the same buying power until I get my next one.
As long as you didn't think "SyFy", you're fine. :P
. . . and exactly how is that a bad thing? :P
Green companies are (usually*) not profitable when competing with . . . uh . . . "dirtier" competitors without government subsidies . . .
But, as any one could have guessed this was coming, that's not factoring in that said competitors are inherently subsidized by not paying for all external costs. That's a very, very important note. Coal is cheap and profitable, but has huge external costs. Nuclear is very expensive and nowhere near as profitable, but it pays off a much higher portion of its external costs. Same with a lot of greener technology. So it's a market failure that's helping tip the scales.
* There are exceptions, of course. I've heard that the paper industry has been moving progressively more sustainable because it's in their favor. IIRC, modern paper plants obtain most of their power from their own waste. They still do pollute, but then again I imagine that's the fundamental nature of having to serve a tremendous worldwide demand.
Pink Invisible ones too, apparently.
ftfy :D
No, expressive power has nothing to do with abstraction or how much you can do with one line. If you have two sets of actions A and B, and define sets A' and B' to be the set of all possible outputs for A and B respectively, then A is considered to have more expressive power than B if B' is a subset of A'.
What you're talking about is the expressiveness of a line of code from a language, which is a very different thing than that of a language itself.
Assembly!
:P
It's fast.
It's lightweight.
It has the most expressive power
It's easy to use . . . so as long as you stick to "Hello World" programs.
And a very prolific writer.