Almost any time a store has a huge sale, it's a loss leader. They're trying to get you into the store to buy more stuff. Although this is still slightly different from the razor blade model, the similarities are there.
Actually, the odd thing is that I don't really consider myself to have faith. It's more that a creationist viewpoint is one model of the way things may work, even though it has many many flaws. Like asking if god created man or birds first.
Honestly, I use creationism almost as a foil to bounce other theories off of, almost a control case or placebo to see if these theories explain anything better than creationism. And I find it an interesting mental excercise to think about the world coming to a crossroads on december 22, 2012 (Google the date if unfamiliar) but don't plan my life as though the world will end on that date.
AHA! I just got the miscommunication that we had. I think I was trying to say that science itself really doesn't concern itself with moral judgements, but religion does. This, indeed, does not prevent a scientific minded person from having great moral compunctions. It doesn't stop a religious person from acting without accord to morals either.
Yeah... and Uri Geller fixed my clock through the TV once. I just put it on top of the TV when he was doing my thing, and once I put fresh batteries in, the clock started working again! AMAZING!:b
I was never trying to imply that evolutionists are amoral (which in itself is not to be confused with immoral), but there is an extremely different flavor of morality that comes from the fiat of an all powerful being, versus the morality that would arise within humans created from a purely mechanistic or chaotic system (evolution.) Perhaps it is just that moral issues are a topic that I personally do not have the talent to properly discuss in a purely written concept?
I guess the main difference that I was trying to explain is that an evolutionist point of view would basically be environmentalist to save themselves. In assuming the role of a deistic creationist, environmentalism would arise from trying to preserve that which God has created. These are two points of view which are quite difficult to consolidate, but generally a person who believes the world was created by the mandate of a supreme being should put more weight into morality than one who believes in a purely mechanistic/chaotic system.
A little background on my philosphy might help here: The point of view that I try to hold is that learning BOTH worldviews has value. Trying to picture the universe as purely evolutionary without the intervention of a god explains a different aspect of reality than one created by a god (whether created all as is in The Beginning or with slowl nudges towards perfecting the world.) These might seem to be contradictory views, but science itself brings up contradictions: Is light a wave or a particle? Can the Universe be best explained by Newtonian physics, relativistic physics or quantum mechanics? The proper viewpoint depends on what questions you are trying to ask, and religion/faith puts a greater emphasis on morality than science/logic. If you are to view the mental viewpoints as tools, one knows that different problems requre different tools. A hammer is the best tool for pounding a nail in, but a screwdriver is far better for driving a screw. Using either tool will hold the pieces of wood together, but there are fundamental differences in how well the wood will hold up.
Or maybe I just shouldn't post after coming back from the bar.
While I do consider myself an environmentalist, I am cautious about using the phrase "Carbon Dioxide increases cause global warming." In fact, so cautious that I instead use the phrase "Carbon Dioxide is correlated to global warming."
While there is a model in which carbon dioxide can lead to global warming, there are also several models in which global warming leads to increases in carbon dioxide levels.
1) Permafrosts thaw, allowing the built up organic matter (of which there is quite a lot of under tundra) to decay rapidly, releasing CO2 and CH4.
2) Increasing the temperature of water will decrease the solubility of gasses in that water, therefore increasing the temperature of the oceans will decrease the solubility of carbon dioxide in them, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
While this sounds like I am saying not to worry about CO2 emissions, it does bring about a third possibility: Both models are right. 1)Greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by humans causes global warming. 2)Global warming releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, leading to... more global warming. Uh oh... we found a potential positive feedback loop in which crossing a certain threshold of greenhouse gas emissions will push us past the point of no return.
Then I like to go along with the idea that messing with something you don't know about ends up with that thing broken. What happens if that thing is essential to your life???
I've always thought that creationists would be more worried about environmental causes than evolutionists for one main reason. If traditional evolution theory is correct, then morals really wouldn't come into play as it becomes hard to put "value" on the environment any further than it supports human life. From a creationist standpoint, however, the acts of environmental harm, causing extinction, polluting, etc is destroying God's creation.
I don't think God would be happy with us destroying his magnificent works, in essence keeping ourselves from Eden.
Especially considering that in Texas, the state that GW comes from, only 300 of 1000 students in GW's SHOWCASE school of the no child left behind program actually graduated from high school.
Re:The beauty of cats is they can ration their foo
on
Linux-Based Cat Feeder
·
· Score: 1
Definately fish feeder. One of the more common causes of death among fish is the fishsitter overfeeding. Fish have this nasty habit of "looking hungry" even after they've eaten enough. However a fish can look hungry. You're honestly better off just not feeding your fish than having someone do it for you even if you're gone for a week. Actually, especially if you're gone that long. What kills the fish is a buildup of uneaten food that starts to rot and... okay. This is getting too in depth for a response to a joke.
My basic point was that letting cats out absolutely does not lead to healthier and happier kitties. Keeping them indoors is much better for the cats. Yeah, shit happens to cats. It's my job to clean up after that shit, so I take this matter a little personally and try to inform people on some of the problems that something as apparantly innocuous as letting cats out can be.
You mean healthy as in always getting fleas? Being exposed to such wonderful diseases as FIV, distemper and Feline Leukemia? Getting into fights with racoons, other cats, kids, dogs and cars? How about getting into that rat poison or pan of antifreeze that your neighbors left out? Being put to sleep because they bit your neighbors kid (Yes, some communities can force you to do that.)
Cats that are regularilly allowed to roam live an average of less than three years. Cats that are kept indoors live an average of 15-18 years according to the Humane Society of the United States.
And if your pets are not spayed or neutered, I suggest you go talk to some of the people who have to perfom euthanasia every day. Of shelters that responded to a federal survey of the 1,759,743 cats that entered shelters in 1997, 71.0%, or about 1.25 MILLION were euthanized. The actual numbers are actually much higher as not all shelters responded, and only shelters which can house over 100 animals were questioned for the survey. Many of these cats were euthanized simply because there are not enough homes available to place them all. And that's the cats that were lucky enough to make it to a shelter in the first place and don't die on the streets from starvation, cold, infected wounds, parasites, dog attacks, cruelty of strangers and on and on.
Actually it looked like the article was saying that all of those checks are wasteful, and there are situations where we should be able to deal with a wrong answer.
My question is, what happens when that error comes not in a number being worked with, but an operation? Operations are just thrown at the CPU as a bunch of 1s and 0s, so would be succeptible to the same flaws.
Lets see, social security number... XXX-XX-XXXX... nine digits. I don't remember it being that hard to remember. Needed a couple of mnemonics at first, but now I can remember my SSN without any trouble at all. Ditto for my bank account number which I believe is also 9 digits.
And if it came down to it, remembering a 14 digit number shouldn't be much harder than remembering two 7 digit numbers...
I'd imagine the cadaver attack (I agree... great term) could be somewhat mitigated by a combination finger scan/retina scan, ensuring that the pulse is on target for the two. I assume that a sophisticated enough retinal scan can get a pulse, and many exercise machines these days have a finger or ear clip that reads pulse.
Wouldn't solve the problem completely, but might make it harder to crack.
Sort of like my cell phone? I just select the person I want, and hit dial. I wouldn't care if phone numbers are 10, 15 or 100 digits (as long as my phone was compatible with the system) for numbers I call with any regularity. It's only numbers I call infrequently that I actually punch in, and I'm generally reading those off of a piece of paper or something anyways.
Honestly, autodial has been around in some form since what... the 80's? Although maybe that was only 5 or 10 numbers that could be stored.
It's not so much that they lose more water, as they can't replace it because the groundwater is all frozen. Trees do lose massive amounts of water through their leaves: so much so that rain forests can become deserts if you cut down the trees (The humidity and therefore rain come from the water lost from the trees due to transpiration. Sounds crazy, but it can happen.)
And not to mention, the dust from a pencil could cause massive problems in spacecraft, both medical and maintenance problems. Fine pieces (As well as larger broken tips) of graphite building up between electrical contacts. And wooden pencils are actually quite a fire hazard aboard spacecraft.
For some reason that urban legend reminds me of the Chevy Nova story about how the Nova didn't sell well in Spanish speaking parts of the world, because No Va means "doesn't go." First of all, that would be "No Vas" or something like that. Second, the word Nova means the same thing in Spanish as it does in English, so the same connotation is made. Third, and most importantly, the Nova sold better abroad than most other Chevy's of the time, because the smaller, more fuel efficient Nova (compared to a Caprice with a 350 CI engine...) was a better choice for people in most Latin areas. Might as well get the real info from Snopes.
I might as well go back on topic and link to the Space Pen urban legend as well.
Another area that he is plain wrong is non-deciduous trees not dropping their leaves. Go into a pine forest, or just under a pine tree somewhere. What do you see? Needles. Conifers etc all lose their leaves, just not all at one time. Would you rather have to rake a whole lot at once, or a little bit every week.
If you're thinking about the environment, why not just stop mowing? Some benefits of a naturalized lawn are:
Less maintenance once it's going (In fact, the modern grass lawn oringinally became desirable because it is so hard to maintain... it required a lot of xervants, and so showed off wealth.)
Eliminates the need to water during drought
Decreases erosion
Provides habitat and food for wildlife
Looks a whole lot better than uniform blades of grass, in my opinion.
If you want a place for your kids to kick a ball and run around, go to a park. Realistically they spend about as much time playing in the yard as most parents do maintaining. Kids can still play in a naturalized yard, in fact it can be more inspiring to their imagination.
A small area of "traditional" mowed lawn can be left for barbecueing, kids running around etc... but acres of lawn to mow is really just wasteful.
Then you have penalties for lying about your snitching. You'd probably get the full sentence for the crimes you did commit (I highly doubt any judge would be lenient here) PLUS obstruction of justice. Maybe throw in some contempt of court, and you would never be offered immunity on something like this again.
Hmm... I was trying to find a link on the web site, but it seemed every product was billed as a "personal lubricant" which "allows you to reach a new level of intimacy."
Great, add the word medical to the search and you end up with a medical fetish/BDSM site as the first hit. Okay, maybe I should give up this argument.
Joking about such grim things is actually a very normal part of people being in stressful situations. People who work in ERs, morgues, crime scenes, who perform euthanasia, soldiers in combat/etc generally end up making jokes about it. There's even a term for it: gallows humor. The ones who don't, usually end up not able to cut it emotionally.
I've always thought laughter was related to fear: it is generally a reaction to the unknown/unexpected, it is extremely communicable, and even the facial expressions and sounds of laughter and fear are actually quite similar. If I was going into psychology I would probably study this relationship myself.
Actually, digital photos generally are not considered strong evidence in a court. It is gnerally advised to take pictures with a film camera if the purpose is gathering evidence for a trial, simply because it is so easy to fake digital photos, and most people (I.E. jurors) don't necesarilly know that. So the authenticity of any digital photos will be immediately called into question.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost any time a store has a huge sale, it's a loss leader. They're trying to get you into the store to buy more stuff. Although this is still slightly different from the razor blade model, the similarities are there.
Actually, the odd thing is that I don't really consider myself to have faith. It's more that a creationist viewpoint is one model of the way things may work, even though it has many many flaws. Like asking if god created man or birds first.
:b
Honestly, I use creationism almost as a foil to bounce other theories off of, almost a control case or placebo to see if these theories explain anything better than creationism. And I find it an interesting mental excercise to think about the world coming to a crossroads on december 22, 2012 (Google the date if unfamiliar) but don't plan my life as though the world will end on that date. AHA! I just got the miscommunication that we had. I think I was trying to say that science itself really doesn't concern itself with moral judgements, but religion does. This, indeed, does not prevent a scientific minded person from having great moral compunctions. It doesn't stop a religious person from acting without accord to morals either.
Yeah... and Uri Geller fixed my clock through the TV once. I just put it on top of the TV when he was doing my thing, and once I put fresh batteries in, the clock started working again! AMAZING!
I was never trying to imply that evolutionists are amoral (which in itself is not to be confused with immoral), but there is an extremely different flavor of morality that comes from the fiat of an all powerful being, versus the morality that would arise within humans created from a purely mechanistic or chaotic system (evolution.) Perhaps it is just that moral issues are a topic that I personally do not have the talent to properly discuss in a purely written concept?
I guess the main difference that I was trying to explain is that an evolutionist point of view would basically be environmentalist to save themselves. In assuming the role of a deistic creationist, environmentalism would arise from trying to preserve that which God has created. These are two points of view which are quite difficult to consolidate, but generally a person who believes the world was created by the mandate of a supreme being should put more weight into morality than one who believes in a purely mechanistic/chaotic system.
A little background on my philosphy might help here: The point of view that I try to hold is that learning BOTH worldviews has value. Trying to picture the universe as purely evolutionary without the intervention of a god explains a different aspect of reality than one created by a god (whether created all as is in The Beginning or with slowl nudges towards perfecting the world.) These might seem to be contradictory views, but science itself brings up contradictions: Is light a wave or a particle? Can the Universe be best explained by Newtonian physics, relativistic physics or quantum mechanics? The proper viewpoint depends on what questions you are trying to ask, and religion/faith puts a greater emphasis on morality than science/logic. If you are to view the mental viewpoints as tools, one knows that different problems requre different tools. A hammer is the best tool for pounding a nail in, but a screwdriver is far better for driving a screw. Using either tool will hold the pieces of wood together, but there are fundamental differences in how well the wood will hold up.
Or maybe I just shouldn't post after coming back from the bar.
While I do consider myself an environmentalist, I am cautious about using the phrase "Carbon Dioxide increases cause global warming." In fact, so cautious that I instead use the phrase "Carbon Dioxide is correlated to global warming."
While there is a model in which carbon dioxide can lead to global warming, there are also several models in which global warming leads to increases in carbon dioxide levels.
1) Permafrosts thaw, allowing the built up organic matter (of which there is quite a lot of under tundra) to decay rapidly, releasing CO2 and CH4.
2) Increasing the temperature of water will decrease the solubility of gasses in that water, therefore increasing the temperature of the oceans will decrease the solubility of carbon dioxide in them, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
While this sounds like I am saying not to worry about CO2 emissions, it does bring about a third possibility: Both models are right. 1)Greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by humans causes global warming. 2)Global warming releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, leading to... more global warming. Uh oh... we found a potential positive feedback loop in which crossing a certain threshold of greenhouse gas emissions will push us past the point of no return.
Then I like to go along with the idea that messing with something you don't know about ends up with that thing broken. What happens if that thing is essential to your life???
I've always thought that creationists would be more worried about environmental causes than evolutionists for one main reason. If traditional evolution theory is correct, then morals really wouldn't come into play as it becomes hard to put "value" on the environment any further than it supports human life. From a creationist standpoint, however, the acts of environmental harm, causing extinction, polluting, etc is destroying God's creation.
I don't think God would be happy with us destroying his magnificent works, in essence keeping ourselves from Eden.
Especially considering that in Texas, the state that GW comes from, only 300 of 1000 students in GW's SHOWCASE school of the no child left behind program actually graduated from high school.
Definately fish feeder. One of the more common causes of death among fish is the fishsitter overfeeding. Fish have this nasty habit of "looking hungry" even after they've eaten enough. However a fish can look hungry. You're honestly better off just not feeding your fish than having someone do it for you even if you're gone for a week. Actually, especially if you're gone that long. What kills the fish is a buildup of uneaten food that starts to rot and... okay. This is getting too in depth for a response to a joke.
My basic point was that letting cats out absolutely does not lead to healthier and happier kitties. Keeping them indoors is much better for the cats. Yeah, shit happens to cats. It's my job to clean up after that shit, so I take this matter a little personally and try to inform people on some of the problems that something as apparantly innocuous as letting cats out can be.
You mean healthy as in always getting fleas? Being exposed to such wonderful diseases as FIV, distemper and Feline Leukemia? Getting into fights with racoons, other cats, kids, dogs and cars? How about getting into that rat poison or pan of antifreeze that your neighbors left out? Being put to sleep because they bit your neighbors kid (Yes, some communities can force you to do that.)
Cats that are regularilly allowed to roam live an average of less than three years. Cats that are kept indoors live an average of 15-18 years according to the Humane Society of the United States.
And if your pets are not spayed or neutered, I suggest you go talk to some of the people who have to perfom euthanasia every day. Of shelters that responded to a federal survey of the 1,759,743 cats that entered shelters in 1997, 71.0%, or about 1.25 MILLION were euthanized. The actual numbers are actually much higher as not all shelters responded, and only shelters which can house over 100 animals were questioned for the survey. Many of these cats were euthanized simply because there are not enough homes available to place them all. And that's the cats that were lucky enough to make it to a shelter in the first place and don't die on the streets from starvation, cold, infected wounds, parasites, dog attacks, cruelty of strangers and on and on.
Actually it looked like the article was saying that all of those checks are wasteful, and there are situations where we should be able to deal with a wrong answer.
My question is, what happens when that error comes not in a number being worked with, but an operation? Operations are just thrown at the CPU as a bunch of 1s and 0s, so would be succeptible to the same flaws.
Lets see, social security number... XXX-XX-XXXX... nine digits. I don't remember it being that hard to remember. Needed a couple of mnemonics at first, but now I can remember my SSN without any trouble at all. Ditto for my bank account number which I believe is also 9 digits.
And if it came down to it, remembering a 14 digit number shouldn't be much harder than remembering two 7 digit numbers...
I'd imagine the cadaver attack (I agree... great term) could be somewhat mitigated by a combination finger scan/retina scan, ensuring that the pulse is on target for the two. I assume that a sophisticated enough retinal scan can get a pulse, and many exercise machines these days have a finger or ear clip that reads pulse.
Wouldn't solve the problem completely, but might make it harder to crack.
Sort of like my cell phone? I just select the person I want, and hit dial. I wouldn't care if phone numbers are 10, 15 or 100 digits (as long as my phone was compatible with the system) for numbers I call with any regularity. It's only numbers I call infrequently that I actually punch in, and I'm generally reading those off of a piece of paper or something anyways.
Honestly, autodial has been around in some form since what... the 80's? Although maybe that was only 5 or 10 numbers that could be stored.
Kind or reminds me of this. Not that this is exactly the way it will work, but that site has a lot of interesting end of the world scenarios.
Or sculptural work in progress, constantly changing as an expression of exercise and diet.
Hmm... I wonder how tatoos would fit into copyright, especially with someone who makes money based on their appearances (model/actor etc.)
I guess I got that wrong (Never took spanish) but the phrase _IS_ idiomatically incorrect, just something they wouldn't use.
It's not so much that they lose more water, as they can't replace it because the groundwater is all frozen. Trees do lose massive amounts of water through their leaves: so much so that rain forests can become deserts if you cut down the trees (The humidity and therefore rain come from the water lost from the trees due to transpiration. Sounds crazy, but it can happen.)
Probably less time than mowing and watering that lawn to keep it green. Well, at least if it was in L.A. or something.
And not to mention, the dust from a pencil could cause massive problems in spacecraft, both medical and maintenance problems. Fine pieces (As well as larger broken tips) of graphite building up between electrical contacts. And wooden pencils are actually quite a fire hazard aboard spacecraft.
For some reason that urban legend reminds me of the Chevy Nova story about how the Nova didn't sell well in Spanish speaking parts of the world, because No Va means "doesn't go." First of all, that would be "No Vas" or something like that. Second, the word Nova means the same thing in Spanish as it does in English, so the same connotation is made. Third, and most importantly, the Nova sold better abroad than most other Chevy's of the time, because the smaller, more fuel efficient Nova (compared to a Caprice with a 350 CI engine...) was a better choice for people in most Latin areas. Might as well get the real info from Snopes.
I might as well go back on topic and link to the Space Pen urban legend as well.
Another area that he is plain wrong is non-deciduous trees not dropping their leaves. Go into a pine forest, or just under a pine tree somewhere. What do you see? Needles. Conifers etc all lose their leaves, just not all at one time. Would you rather have to rake a whole lot at once, or a little bit every week.
If you're thinking about the environment, why not just stop mowing? Some benefits of a naturalized lawn are:
Less maintenance once it's going (In fact, the modern grass lawn oringinally became desirable because it is so hard to maintain... it required a lot of xervants, and so showed off wealth.)
Eliminates the need to water during drought
Decreases erosion
Provides habitat and food for wildlife
Looks a whole lot better than uniform blades of grass, in my opinion.
If you want a place for your kids to kick a ball and run around, go to a park. Realistically they spend about as much time playing in the yard as most parents do maintaining. Kids can still play in a naturalized yard, in fact it can be more inspiring to their imagination.
A small area of "traditional" mowed lawn can be left for barbecueing, kids running around etc... but acres of lawn to mow is really just wasteful.
Then you have penalties for lying about your snitching. You'd probably get the full sentence for the crimes you did commit (I highly doubt any judge would be lenient here) PLUS obstruction of justice. Maybe throw in some contempt of court, and you would never be offered immunity on something like this again.
KY actually has many legitimate medical uses.
Hmm... I was trying to find a link on the web site, but it seemed every product was billed as a "personal lubricant" which "allows you to reach a new level of intimacy."
Great, add the word medical to the search and you end up with a medical fetish/BDSM site as the first hit. Okay, maybe I should give up this argument.
Joking about such grim things is actually a very normal part of people being in stressful situations. People who work in ERs, morgues, crime scenes, who perform euthanasia, soldiers in combat/etc generally end up making jokes about it. There's even a term for it: gallows humor. The ones who don't, usually end up not able to cut it emotionally.
I've always thought laughter was related to fear: it is generally a reaction to the unknown/unexpected, it is extremely communicable, and even the facial expressions and sounds of laughter and fear are actually quite similar. If I was going into psychology I would probably study this relationship myself.
Actually, digital photos generally are not considered strong evidence in a court. It is gnerally advised to take pictures with a film camera if the purpose is gathering evidence for a trial, simply because it is so easy to fake digital photos, and most people (I.E. jurors) don't necesarilly know that. So the authenticity of any digital photos will be immediately called into question.