"In science, observation beats models:"
Very well said. However,
You must still define what you observe and what is the experiment
In this case, the experiment is not over and the catastrophic claims will be refuted then, if there is still anyone to make the observation
I agree with you Nyrath, also, we could get rid of a lot of these nonsense theories if only we were able to directly prove that Causality can not be violated
You should make sure not to let your testicles on the charging pad when you go to bed
If you accidentaly do so, make sure they don't send the charging pad the signal 'feed me'
Ok, well, no I didn't tell you to go fuck yourself, I don't even see where in my post you could extract this kind of meaning, but that must be using the same reading comprehension skills you applied before when reading (several times:D (this is such an piece of delight, I'm sure you must be reading it several times a day (seriously, WTF ?)))
Anyway, I was giving you a chance of not making a complete fool of yourself and you just blew it
So well, since you admit having read said article (several times:D were you eating popcorn ? did you invite some friends ?:D) and you clearly don't understand what it says, or pretend not to, well... I don't know, I checked your posting history to see if you were a troll
You clearly are always very harsh (though correct in most of the few examples I saw) so I guess yeah, you must be an overall unsuccessful troll and today was your lucky day, congratulations and have a nice day
Hmm, you are right, this isn't what you said exactly, you just put together the two 'errors' and I assumed you put them in the same category to later make your point
I apologize for "putting words in your mouth", so to speak, but this is because I just didn't imagine that the 'exactly' error you were pointing at was (apart from being *your* error as a matter of fact) just some irrelevant pedantry
So indeed, since my post wasn't a complete copy-paste of the article that *you* referred to, then, it isn't 'exactly' what I was saying
But, the article does make the effort to clarify and make the distinction that I was making myself, so it was in this sense, exactly what I was saying
Did you even read the article ? did you read the parts I quoted for you ?
I really don't think you did, I (but I can be wrong of course and I am certainly don't mean to be rude or anything like that)
I imagine that you have somehow the preconceived 'feeling' of what the word atheism means, that you are certain this is what you think it is, and that when you looked it up just to correct me on wikipedia, you didn't read it past the first sentence
At least this is what it looks like, or, indeed, you would have terrible reading comprehension skills, but I don't think this is it
Now, care to read the whole article, or at least the first 3 or 4 sentences, or just read the parts I quoted for you and explain to me again how this is not exactly what I was saying at the beginning ?
Hmm that wasn't an excuse for my errors, that was an excuse for asking humbly to be explained what was the grammatical error with "exactly".
Thanks to your explanation in which you manage to throw some basic kindergarten level spelling errors (yeah I can tell a typo when I see one, I'm just kidding you and giving you a glance of how effective your harsh attitude can be) it is now effectively clear that one of us has very bad reading comprehension skills
Also, that wasn't a grammatical error, not only was it not an error, but you must not understand well what grammar actually is, but that's OK, English is not your first language either so that must explain everything;)
I agree with you by the way, absence of belief is not belief of absence
But guess what ? sometimes it takes several sentences to convey a message and explain something, in this case the definition of a term (atheism, agnosticism)
For some reason you are sticking to one of them, the one that is ambiguous by the way, then you make your interpretation of the term thanks to this and completely disregard the rest of the definition where the ambiguity is addressed and removed. (??)
The two linked articles make several specific clarifications which I just quoted for you where they specifically make the distinction of 'belief of no existence' vs 'doubt' (or maybe 'non belief of existence')
antitheism is a word I have never heard of, but I agree it is quite unambiguous when you read it, if it was more widespread, that would probably be the term I would use when referring to what I currently qualify as atheism
Taught:) yes thank you, english is not my first language, not even the second
Appart from this, the article is quite clear:
specifically the position that there are no deities.
The term atheism originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"
the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism
This is from your linked article which I clearly misunderstand because of my sub-kindergarten reading comprehension
Looking at the companion link I provided you you get this quite unambiguous precision, which I understand I am totally not comprehending either:
In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.In the strict sense
Anyway, it's not really important, it's just 'names' so to speak, and I was just trying to give a nice hint at my parent poster as to which term is better suited for what he was talking about (as far as I understood him)
Now, you bolded *exactly* just as you bolded *teached* (thank's again). Could you be nice and tell me what is gramatically wrong with it ? I honestly don't know but would apreciate being taught about it:)
Have a nice day...
"Most quotes on the Internet are false." -- Abraham Lincoln (way before the Internet)
Ahhh interesting, I suspected those two opposite quotes were entangled but I had to measure it by posting it to make sure, it seems to work
What you are describing is agnosticism
Atheism does indeed imply a strong belief in the non existence of a deity exactly as the opposite view of theism
It's just a definition, though, not that it matters that much in this conversation:)
I have to admit you are probably trying to get through some of my code right now and I appologize
But I am getting better and better, so if it is old code, well you should just rewrite it it's not efficient and it's buggy
if it's recent code, well, it overalls is better so if after reading it you don't feel safe, well, rewrite the thing, otherwise, just let it be or improve on the comments in place
You will know it's recent code precisely because there are some comments, pretty much every method / class begins with this: // TODO: comment it
And is also a human with no hope whatsoever to compete with a real cheetah after which the bot was named (and is more look-like/work-like anyway)...
It's a sad way to present what is on its own an impressive achievement
Pappus is already in trouble you know...
But I think congressmen and politicians in general are safe, no sane AI would allow itself to pretend it performs like a flawed abachus requiring a nuclear power plant to run
Yes yes, except it is not really a copy (lookup for no cloning theorem) as this is impossible
What happens is what you had at Alice's place is now at Bob's place, Alice has now just noise at her place, the original was 'destroyed'
This is sort of neat too because in this way it really is what one would expect for teleportation vs telecopy
Slashdot Mirror
"In science, observation beats models:"
Very well said. However,
You must still define what you observe and what is the experiment
In this case, the experiment is not over and the catastrophic claims will be refuted then, if there is still anyone to make the observation
however... :)
Why not ?
I could swear I have seen this somewhere else:
"16 chars ought to be enough for anyone"
In death, luggage has a name, its name is Bob Paulson
Since warp drives and biologists questioning relativity completely messed up causality
I agree with you Nyrath, also, we could get rid of a lot of these nonsense theories if only we were able to directly prove that Causality can not be violated
Or on a wii-fit challenge :)
You should make sure not to let your testicles on the charging pad when you go to bed
If you accidentaly do so, make sure they don't send the charging pad the signal 'feed me'
So do I, and I plaid guilty for this absurd deviation
Ok, well, no I didn't tell you to go fuck yourself, I don't even see where in my post you could extract this kind of meaning, but that must be using the same reading comprehension skills you applied before when reading (several times :D (this is such an piece of delight, I'm sure you must be reading it several times a day (seriously, WTF ?))) :D were you eating popcorn ? did you invite some friends ? :D) and you clearly don't understand what it says, or pretend not to, well... I don't know, I checked your posting history to see if you were a troll
Anyway, I was giving you a chance of not making a complete fool of yourself and you just blew it
So well, since you admit having read said article (several times
You clearly are always very harsh (though correct in most of the few examples I saw) so I guess yeah, you must be an overall unsuccessful troll and today was your lucky day, congratulations and have a nice day
Hmm, you are right, this isn't what you said exactly, you just put together the two 'errors' and I assumed you put them in the same category to later make your point
I apologize for "putting words in your mouth", so to speak, but this is because I just didn't imagine that the 'exactly' error you were pointing at was (apart from being *your* error as a matter of fact) just some irrelevant pedantry
So indeed, since my post wasn't a complete copy-paste of the article that *you* referred to, then, it isn't 'exactly' what I was saying
But, the article does make the effort to clarify and make the distinction that I was making myself, so it was in this sense, exactly what I was saying
Did you even read the article ? did you read the parts I quoted for you ?
I really don't think you did, I (but I can be wrong of course and I am certainly don't mean to be rude or anything like that)
I imagine that you have somehow the preconceived 'feeling' of what the word atheism means, that you are certain this is what you think it is, and that when you looked it up just to correct me on wikipedia, you didn't read it past the first sentence
At least this is what it looks like, or, indeed, you would have terrible reading comprehension skills, but I don't think this is it
Now, care to read the whole article, or at least the first 3 or 4 sentences, or just read the parts I quoted for you and explain to me again how this is not exactly what I was saying at the beginning ?
Hmm that wasn't an excuse for my errors, that was an excuse for asking humbly to be explained what was the grammatical error with "exactly". ;)
Thanks to your explanation in which you manage to throw some basic kindergarten level spelling errors (yeah I can tell a typo when I see one, I'm just kidding you and giving you a glance of how effective your harsh attitude can be) it is now effectively clear that one of us has very bad reading comprehension skills
Also, that wasn't a grammatical error, not only was it not an error, but you must not understand well what grammar actually is, but that's OK, English is not your first language either so that must explain everything
I agree with you by the way, absence of belief is not belief of absence
But guess what ? sometimes it takes several sentences to convey a message and explain something, in this case the definition of a term (atheism, agnosticism)
For some reason you are sticking to one of them, the one that is ambiguous by the way, then you make your interpretation of the term thanks to this and completely disregard the rest of the definition where the ambiguity is addressed and removed. (??)
The two linked articles make several specific clarifications which I just quoted for you where they specifically make the distinction of 'belief of no existence' vs 'doubt' (or maybe 'non belief of existence')
antitheism is a word I have never heard of, but I agree it is quite unambiguous when you read it, if it was more widespread, that would probably be the term I would use when referring to what I currently qualify as atheism
Appart from this, the article is quite clear:
specifically the position that there are no deities.
The term atheism originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"
the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism
This is from your linked article which I clearly misunderstand because of my sub-kindergarten reading comprehension
Looking at the companion link I provided you you get this quite unambiguous precision, which I understand I am totally not comprehending either:
In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.In the strict sense
Anyway, it's not really important, it's just 'names' so to speak, and I was just trying to give a nice hint at my parent poster as to which term is better suited for what he was talking about (as far as I understood him) :)
Now, you bolded *exactly* just as you bolded *teached* (thank's again). Could you be nice and tell me what is gramatically wrong with it ? I honestly don't know but would apreciate being taught about it
Have a nice day...
"Most quotes on the Internet are false." -- Abraham Lincoln (way before the Internet)
Ahhh interesting, I suspected those two opposite quotes were entangled but I had to measure it by posting it to make sure, it seems to work
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
(second sentence of the article)
here is the companion article that also agrees with what I said (which is just what I have been teached at some point anyway, it could be 'wrong')
What you are describing is agnosticism :)
Atheism does indeed imply a strong belief in the non existence of a deity exactly as the opposite view of theism
It's just a definition, though, not that it matters that much in this conversation
Indeed, it was, yes, that too, invented by Apple
They really are unstoppable
It's not judo, it's hapkido ;)
I have to admit you are probably trying to get through some of my code right now and I appologize
// TODO: comment it
But I am getting better and better, so if it is old code, well you should just rewrite it it's not efficient and it's buggy
if it's recent code, well, it overalls is better so if after reading it you don't feel safe, well, rewrite the thing, otherwise, just let it be or improve on the comments in place
You will know it's recent code precisely because there are some comments, pretty much every method / class begins with this:
And is also a human with no hope whatsoever to compete with a real cheetah after which the bot was named (and is more look-like/work-like anyway)...
It's a sad way to present what is on its own an impressive achievement
Pappus is already in trouble you know...
But I think congressmen and politicians in general are safe, no sane AI would allow itself to pretend it performs like a flawed abachus requiring a nuclear power plant to run
it's 13 even, since it was supposed to be 10 times that much ;)
Awesome, thank you
Yes yes, except it is not really a copy (lookup for no cloning theorem) as this is impossible
What happens is what you had at Alice's place is now at Bob's place, Alice has now just noise at her place, the original was 'destroyed'
This is sort of neat too because in this way it really is what one would expect for teleportation vs telecopy