If we can convert long half life materials to short halflife materials, would those short halflife materials provide enough decay heat to harvest energy from? Why not hook a turbine up to the waste pools and get some useful work out of that?
Just run Linux. Linux was fully featured enough to get me through college over a decade ago. Should work for you now. If you have apps that require Windows, put it on a VM which is used for nothing else. Problem solved.
It is easy to form an argument that it does under the assumptions of religion.
If you allow people to assume whatever they want, you can make an argument for anything. This is why I said "material harm". If you can't measure the harm done, it may as well not exist.
Yes, to our neighbor's dismay we let them roam free. It was a rural environment, but more than a couple times they wandered a quarter mile or so through the woods to our neighbor's garden. He also kept chickens, so the last time it happened we let him keep them.
I've also bought free range eggs at the farmers market here a few times. They do have a firmer yolk before cooking, because they're fresher. But I can't detect any difference in flavor, so I don't do that anymore.
Basically it comes down to how the cows dont have the digestive system to handle the grains which results in PH changes in their stomaches allowing e.coli to thrive and survive being "passed" by the cows.
Sounds like the solution isn't antibiotics, but antacids.
One would, naively, expect that the infinite valuation of salvation goods would lead to fanatical behavior on a scale that would leave the world knee deep in mangled corpses and televangelists. But it doesn't.
So I'm missing the point of life because I'm not draining my bank account down at the whorehouse with the periodic stop by my local crack dealer?
You can't take it with you. If you actually find those things pleasurable, and wouldn't have the pleasure offset by regret afterwards, then I would encourage you to do so. The tricky part with hedonism isn't whether maximizing pleasure is good(duh), it's whether short term or long term pleasure should be a higher priority.
You're trying to project your values on everyone else and act smug thinking that we're suffering for not following your way of life.
Not at all, if you don't find something pleasurable don't do it.
I raised chickens in high school, free range in my back yard, and there was nothing obvious about the difference between them and store bought eggs. If it is that obvious, it should be easy enough to conduct a double blind study. As you note, you would have to control for freshness.
The amount of beef you need to eat on a daily basis for your protein needs would be a cube (raw) is about 1.5 inches on a side, anything after that is just clogging up your colon and your arteries.
You're neglecting what it does to my taste buds and the pleasure center of my brain. Again, false economy.
If you like to eat it, add it to things, like stir-fry or stew,
I like stirfry and stew, but they are no substitute for a medium rare New York strip stake grilled over hot coals.
Inconveniently, while somebody's degree of 'tolerance' relative to a pre-supplied set assignment is measureable, and you can argue for or against given actions and policies based on how tolerant they are, the set assignment itself is basically in the same boat as the rest of moral philosophy: little more than handwaving and appeals to 'intuition' or emotion, or imaginary friends.
No, you can easily come up with empirical measures to determine whether something should be tolerated. Does it materially harm anyone other than the person doing it? If not, it must be tolerated. I don't see anyone claiming that blasphemy causes anyone any specific harm, so it must be tolerated.
You also don't give philosophy enough credit. Remember, logic is a branch of philososphy. And we can make irrefutable logical arguments about what should be tolerated. Assume for the sake of argument that causing someone offense should not be tolerated. You would then advocate for laws against offense. However, I find such laws themselves offensive, as offensive as any religious person finds blasphemy. Therefore the laws themselves would be illegal. QED, a simple logical proof by contradiction that offense should be tolerated.
If I eat beef every two days will I live twice as long? If not, I think you're practicing false economy. Beef is delicious. If you're trying to extend your life by avoiding pleasurable things, you're missing the point of life.
Cheap beef came from feeding cows corn. A median income family in the US could eat beef for dinner every day because of corn fed cows. These days it's getting out of reach.
Although, I am a bit worried about what this will do to gummy worm prices.
Fact is, when you compare the worst of the atheistic or agnostic regimes, like the communists and the German fascists, to the worst of the religious nuts, you don't really see all that much of a difference
Compare the best of the theocracies to the best of the secular nations and you'll see the difference more clearly.
Point being, every moment wasting time about abolishing religion being a major solution to the world's problems is just that, a waste of time. If you want to stop wars and killings you go after the real issues: the need for humans to compete for resources, and the human instinct to be suspicious of people outside their own group.
This I agree with. Religion is not the root problem, it is a symptom of the root problem. But that doesn't change much. It stands that abolishing religion is a necessary, if not sufficient condition for true peace and freedom.
But I honestly can't say any one else I elect is going to give those things up.
That exact line of thought is why no one else can get elected. Breaking the two party hegemony is the most important issue, nay, the ONLY important issue. If you're not voting third party, you're part of the problem.
You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.
As an atheist, I fear what people will do based on what they believe in. If they wreck our educational system because it conflicts with their beliefs, I suffer. If they prohibit birth control because it conflicts with their beliefs, I suffer. If they goad us into a third world war because of their apocalyptic beliefs, I suffer.
Slashdot Mirror
If we can convert long half life materials to short halflife materials, would those short halflife materials provide enough decay heat to harvest energy from? Why not hook a turbine up to the waste pools and get some useful work out of that?
Rather than banning ultrasounds, how about we subsidize the production of girls? Use the carrot, not the stick.
Just run Linux. Linux was fully featured enough to get me through college over a decade ago. Should work for you now. If you have apps that require Windows, put it on a VM which is used for nothing else. Problem solved.
It is easy to form an argument that it does under the assumptions of religion.
If you allow people to assume whatever they want, you can make an argument for anything. This is why I said "material harm". If you can't measure the harm done, it may as well not exist.
If there weren't evidence, it wouldn't be faith
Since there is no evidence for anything supernatural there is no faith.
True faith is necessary for a true religion
Since there is no faith (see above), there is no true religion.
That's a good point. Thanks.
Yes, to our neighbor's dismay we let them roam free. It was a rural environment, but more than a couple times they wandered a quarter mile or so through the woods to our neighbor's garden. He also kept chickens, so the last time it happened we let him keep them.
I've also bought free range eggs at the farmers market here a few times. They do have a firmer yolk before cooking, because they're fresher. But I can't detect any difference in flavor, so I don't do that anymore.
Basically it comes down to how the cows dont have the digestive system to handle the grains which results in PH changes in their stomaches allowing e.coli to thrive and survive being "passed" by the cows.
Sounds like the solution isn't antibiotics, but antacids.
Executive function is a great means to increase total pleasure, but pleasure is still the ultimate goal.
One would, naively, expect that the infinite valuation of salvation goods would lead to fanatical behavior on a scale that would leave the world knee deep in mangled corpses and televangelists. But it doesn't.
It doesn't?
the US is not rules by an 18% majority system.
Of course not. The US is ruled by .1%.
So I'm missing the point of life because I'm not draining my bank account down at the whorehouse with the periodic stop by my local crack dealer?
You can't take it with you. If you actually find those things pleasurable, and wouldn't have the pleasure offset by regret afterwards, then I would encourage you to do so. The tricky part with hedonism isn't whether maximizing pleasure is good(duh), it's whether short term or long term pleasure should be a higher priority.
You're trying to project your values on everyone else and act smug thinking that we're suffering for not following your way of life.
Not at all, if you don't find something pleasurable don't do it.
I raised chickens in high school, free range in my back yard, and there was nothing obvious about the difference between them and store bought eggs. If it is that obvious, it should be easy enough to conduct a double blind study. As you note, you would have to control for freshness.
Increased nutrients are good, but the parent post was talking about taste.
The amount of beef you need to eat on a daily basis for your protein needs would be a cube (raw) is about 1.5 inches on a side, anything after that is just clogging up your colon and your arteries.
You're neglecting what it does to my taste buds and the pleasure center of my brain. Again, false economy.
If you like to eat it, add it to things, like stir-fry or stew,
I like stirfry and stew, but they are no substitute for a medium rare New York strip stake grilled over hot coals.
If there were evidence it wouldn't be religion, it would be science.
Inconveniently, while somebody's degree of 'tolerance' relative to a pre-supplied set assignment is measureable, and you can argue for or against given actions and policies based on how tolerant they are, the set assignment itself is basically in the same boat as the rest of moral philosophy: little more than handwaving and appeals to 'intuition' or emotion, or imaginary friends.
No, you can easily come up with empirical measures to determine whether something should be tolerated. Does it materially harm anyone other than the person doing it? If not, it must be tolerated. I don't see anyone claiming that blasphemy causes anyone any specific harm, so it must be tolerated.
You also don't give philosophy enough credit. Remember, logic is a branch of philososphy. And we can make irrefutable logical arguments about what should be tolerated. Assume for the sake of argument that causing someone offense should not be tolerated. You would then advocate for laws against offense. However, I find such laws themselves offensive, as offensive as any religious person finds blasphemy. Therefore the laws themselves would be illegal. QED, a simple logical proof by contradiction that offense should be tolerated.
Just because someone subscribes to at least one unethical and foolish position does not justify categorizing them and hating them.
Why not? If they refuse to be convinced of right and good positions through facts and logical argument, are they not themselves unethical and foolish?
My boss has a small farm and the eggs are like night-and-day between the regular supermarket fair.
Have you tried this double blind?
If I eat beef every two days will I live twice as long? If not, I think you're practicing false economy. Beef is delicious. If you're trying to extend your life by avoiding pleasurable things, you're missing the point of life.
Cheap beef came from feeding cows corn. A median income family in the US could eat beef for dinner every day because of corn fed cows. These days it's getting out of reach.
Although, I am a bit worried about what this will do to gummy worm prices.
Fact is, when you compare the worst of the atheistic or agnostic regimes, like the communists and the German fascists, to the worst of the religious nuts, you don't really see all that much of a difference
Compare the best of the theocracies to the best of the secular nations and you'll see the difference more clearly.
Point being, every moment wasting time about abolishing religion being a major solution to the world's problems is just that, a waste of time. If you want to stop wars and killings you go after the real issues: the need for humans to compete for resources, and the human instinct to be suspicious of people outside their own group.
This I agree with. Religion is not the root problem, it is a symptom of the root problem. But that doesn't change much. It stands that abolishing religion is a necessary, if not sufficient condition for true peace and freedom.
But I honestly can't say any one else I elect is going to give those things up.
That exact line of thought is why no one else can get elected. Breaking the two party hegemony is the most important issue, nay, the ONLY important issue. If you're not voting third party, you're part of the problem.
Blasphemy laws are legislating disrespect. Disrespect for each individual's free thought.
You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.
As an atheist, I fear what people will do based on what they believe in. If they wreck our educational system because it conflicts with their beliefs, I suffer. If they prohibit birth control because it conflicts with their beliefs, I suffer. If they goad us into a third world war because of their apocalyptic beliefs, I suffer.