Clearly you and I are on different ideological grounds, but that does not preclude us from agreeing.
There must be some limit for parents' rights to fsck the lives of their children!! Children are people; it is illegal to rape them, too.
Granted it is illegal to rape them. Why is it illegal to rape them? If we use your arguments, the idea of society and social norms (like rape, murder, etc.) comes from induced mental programming by parents, teachers, peers, etc. What if the opposite norms were induced? (Rape and murder are acceptable...) As a person living in that kind of society would you have the same views? This kind of relativistic (and circular) thinking is flawed. You can't tell me that there must be a limit on how parents teach their children by pointing out that society (a product of parental teaching) mandates this.
Cure what!?!? The point of my example was that it is hard to decide what should be cured.
Lots of things. Down's syndrome, heart disease, palsey, alsheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. Genetic screening and genetic manipulation are whay is being discussed in the article and can cure the above diseases/conditions.
I consider religion to be insane ideas that you can inflict on children if you indoctrinate them early enough.
To each his own, but you cannot enforce your views on other people, just like I cannot make you believe in God.
Something some religious people would do.
How do you know what all religious people would do? Sweeping generalizations like that are at the root of most hate in the world. I don't pretend to believe that all religious people are great, but that does not make the reverse true.
I was thinking more like this hypothetical case that might show up in ten years:
Some common combinations of genes might give a high chance of some mental disease. But also a high chance of artistic talent. Would it be worth losing those artists to save some people from mental disease?
Good point. Another one would be concentrated leadership skills tied with megolomania. It is too easy for people in general to want their kids to "have it all" and they would want to take this to extremes. I am someone who dislikes governmental control in any form, so to embrace this technology with the caveat of regulation is a very scary proposition. I would rather see the technology only used to cure existing people as in the linked story, rather than to design people. But then again, I am a card carrying religous freak so I am not to be trusted...
It is not trivially a good thing to remove "unpopular" features like low intelligence from the gene pool since those features probably have other genetic effects that we might be poorer as humans if they are not in our societies.
Yeah, features like being able to dig ditches and operate heavy machinery. If we were all smart, there would be no room for eveyone in the smart jobs. Unless of course we use our smarts and create robots to do the dumb jobs a la animatrix.
Disclaimer: This is not my view, but is one that is alive and well.
There is no evidence that "transcendental thinking" has any validity. Point to one demonstrably valid conclusion that has been reached by transcendental thinking.
That is just my point. Empirical thinking is but one of the options to find truth. Transcendentalists find truth in a different way. Your method of reasoning is astoundingly empirical and cannot be used to determine the truthfulness or validity of another thinking method. It would be circular in nature and would not lead you anywhere meaningful. Of course, if you really wanted to understand transcendental thinking, then you would have to try it, not apply scientific reasoning to a non scientific idea or method.
Must be one of the few religions without omnipotent or omniscient gods.
Actually, my God is omnipotent, but He is subject to the laws and order of the universe. I know you are thinking that He cannot be omnipotent if he has limitations. Think of it this way: God *can* break the rules, but if He did, He would cease to be God. One of the requirements of being a God is that you have to be perfect. "With great power comes great responsibility". Change that to perfect power and perfect responsibility and you are getting somewhere.
I would claim that the truth you speak about is neither sought by nor included in any religion.
You can certainly claim that, but it is a well held facet of my religion.
And we see how well religion treated Galileo in return. At least he didn't end up like Giordano Bruno.
Irrelevant.
Kepler may have been motivated by his love of astrology, but his belief in non-existant order in the cosmos led him astray. I seen no reason the we should be hobbled by the same superstitions that they were.
You are certainly free to build yourself in whatever fashion you see fit. These men, although scientists viewed religion as something worthy to pursue. All I am saying is that there are still scientists out there who feel this way and to them it is an asset.
We're beginning to (scientifically) understand what brain structures are responsible for this. There are reasonable hypotheses for why animals would evolve to have a religious instinct. None of this suggests validity of regligion. I choose not to be limited by my instincts.
Two things. First, trying to understand the way humans think will likely never be accomplished using empirical means. I say this because I believe the brain is that part of the body where it interfaces with spirit (I know, no evidence to support a spirit). As both a spiritual and physical organ, it cannot be fully understood with empirical thinking.
Second, I am not trying to propose evidence to support religion, because it cannot be understood with scientific reasoning. Therefore, evidence would be irrelevant even if I could provide it for you. Finally, there is a large distinction between religion and instincts. It is instinctive to build a fire to stay warm, it is not to build a cathedral and have mass every Sunday. Perhaps the propensity to be religios is instinctive, but that is a different matter. Besides, I think you will agree that instincts are both good and bad. You would likely not choose to live without your instinct to eat or reproduce. So being "limited" by your instincts is a relative state of mind.
I disagree that religion can be used to gain knowledge, unless you want to invent such a thing as "spiritual knowledge."
Science is learning through empirical thinking. Religion is learning through transcendental thinking. Do you know the difference? Plato and Socrates taught transcendental thinking before most of the mainstream religions were conceptualized. Just because it is different than empirical thinking does not mean it is any less valid.
They can't co-exist because they are contradictory. Religion is the statement that the physical laws that govern the universe are arbitrary and subject to change at any time.
That is not the definition of religion that I know. Religion does not place restraints on the universe. On the contrary, religion has the capacity to explain everything in the universe all at once, science does not. Science works on the precept of relative truth. If I produce a fusion reaction, science demands that someone else duplicate the experiment. My fusion reaction is relatively true to me. It gains relevance the more it is duplicated and the relative truth extends to other people. Religion claims absolute truth, i.e. there is one truth for all people and the entire universe. Like science, there is a process to obtain truth, religon claims the entire truth exists within each person. Religion just uses different means to get there. Different means do not connotate invalid results.
Science is the statement that there exist a set of immutable rules that govern all physical processes.
You are correct and religion (at least the one I adhere to) claims the same thing. But keep in mind that as knowledge increases, the ideas that science has given us change and new ones present themselves. The truth has always been there, we just lacked the ability to see it.
Of course, but then again the definition of a "religious question" would be "one without a valid answer."
Why so closed minded? I must point out that religous questions have spurred much innovation in science and vice-versa. Gallileo, Kepler and Newton all looked at the world with empirical minds, but were motivated by deep spiritual feelings.
At some point we, as a species, have to realize that the universe isn't a story about us. I don't think we'll survive for long without coming to that realization.
At some point we have to realize, as a species, that religion and spirituality are part of our nature. I don't think we can survive for long without coming to that realization.
Follow me? I would think you'd be able to, with all your high-falutin philosophical knowledge!
You have obviously got the sarcasm down...
Sure, as long as you don't try to provide religious answers to scientific questions. Something like, "what was the mechanism for biological adaptation?"--well, god is not a scientific answer, no matter how you slice it. And that's what most creationists, as they call themselves and are generally known to the world, would have you believe.
First of all, we have to understand each other. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, nor are they opposite ends of a spectrum. Science is a tool used to gain knowledge. I submit that religion is similarly a tool used to gain knowledge, albeit in a different way.
We're talking the difference between pseudo-science and science here, remember.
Okay, I think I understand something here. Tell me if I get this right: you believe that religion is a pseudo-science. Meaning that it tries to be scientific, but really isn't. If that is true, then we are talking about two different definitions of religion. I don't claim religion is a replacement or substitute for science. Religion is a tool, science is a tool with simliar purposes but different mechanisms. Arguing that science is 'better' than religion is like arguing that a screwdriver is 'better' than a hammer. They are both tools and they both do their jobs well. I wouldn't ask you to drive a nail with a screwdriver (although I have done it), similarly, I would not ask you to understand religion with science. Make sense?
As for creationism, it means only one thing to me: the belief in the creation of the universe by a supreme being. That definition never changes for me, regardless of context. I am sorry that it changes for you, but I cannot and do not want to forcefully change your view.
When I said tackle philosophy, I meant something like: "solve" philosophy. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
Looks like you are very good with the sarcasm. Sorry to have doubted you. I don't quite know what it means to "solve" philosophy but it is probably irrelevant.
There's the beginnings of the problems of introducing god(s) into science; people can't agree upon basic terms well enough to even solve the problems of whether or not god(s) exist.
Agree completely. Science and religion serve different purposes even if they attempt to answer the same questions. I don't propose that we integrate them together for the very reasons you mention. People have a hard enough time understanding one another, let alone trying to reconcile their religions!
This also goes back to answer your question about why science and god are a bad mix, if you didn't figure that out already.
I don't recall asking why they would be a bad mix, but I did wonder why they can't co-exist. It would be bad to introduce religious ideology into science. I also feel that trying to answer religous questions with science is a farce.
Problems between religion and science arise as any other conflict does. Misunderstanding and greed. People who claim superior knowledge are always going to piss off the other camp(s). Just because you have the answer for you questions doesn't mean that you will for mine. I simply want to dispell the feelings that many people like yourself seem to have that I can't reconcile my religous feelings with scientific ones. It is just a matter of perspective and understanding.
The problem with the "creationists" s/he is talking about it that they confuse science with faith, as you are doing now.
There is no confusion. Science and religion can coincide perfectly with one another. This is not a zero sum equation. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why I can't believe in a Divinly created earth and think empirically?
...but you would be altering the definition for the context which we are in.
So you are saying that creationism means different things depending on the context? Is this the same for evolution?
but if you want your god to be involved with science...well, first tackle philosophy and then we'll talk. Otherwise leave your god out of it.
Got the philosophy part down. Where would you like to start? Modern thinking with Hobbes, Locke and Thoreau or more classical stuff like Plato and Aristotle? As for God being involved in science, what's the big deal? I don't understand the stark contrast. If God is who I think He is, then science fits nicely into the plan. If I am wrong, then who cares? I am not trying to convince you of the creation...
Also, lay off the violence buddy! How Christian (or whatever your variation) is that?
Are you referring to the clue stick comment? If not I am afraid you have me at a loss. Otherwise, check a handy dictionary for the words 'sarcasm' and 'symbolism'.
Okay, but whose? I would argue that Jews, Christians and Muslims (who all profess a belief in the creation) look at it in starkly different ways.
The second tenet is "the Bible is inerrant".
I strongly disagree. The Bible is very errant, even within its own pages. After all, it was written (and translated) by men who have demonstrated time after time their ability to err.
Evolution doesn't deal with creation of the universe nor with the creation of life. Evolution deals with a very specific problem: the origin of species.
Bang on the dot. I quite agree, but you must consider that evolutionists also concede the point that the formation of the Earth greatly affected evolution. Logically, the formation of the solar system affected the formation of the earth and therefore the formation of the galaxy affected the formation of the solar system, etc... Origin of species is different but very much related to origin of the universe.
Where the "first species" came from is pure conjecture.
This is but another difference between the ideas of man and the ideas of God. I claim to know that God created all things. I did not use Aristotle's empirical thinking to arrive at this conclusion, but rather Plato's transcendental learning. Plato believed that there is one truth and that we are all born with that truth within ourselves. Life is mearly the function of finding that truth. I find that his ideas on truth are most correct even with the exclusion of religion.
Some people support creationism which is unprovable and therefore not a science.
I must again take issue with this notion that creation is unprovable. Certainly unprovable by conventional science, but by no means irrefutably unprovable.
A Creationist knows the answer already. To him, "science" is the search for data that fits the answer, and the attempt to explain away all evidence that doesn't fit.
You've got some real problems with people who claim God created man don't you? I don't want to pry into personal feelings so I will stave off my desire to hit you with a clue stick. There are a lot of different people who could be defined as creationists. Do all of them claim to define science as you stated? I don't and believe that there is indeed a God who created all there is to see. I also believe in the empirical method created by the first scientist Aristotle. Furthermore, you claim that "Real science presumes that the answer is *not* known, and tries to guess an answer based on what is actually evident in the world." How is that different than a creationist? I don't claim to know exactly how God created the earth, man or anything else. Just that He did. Even science must agree that the world, man and all other observable matter must indeed exist. The only questions is on how it got here.
I don't want to convert anyone to believe in creation, but I wish that the narrowmindedness you so much lament of creationists would stop manifesting itself in "scientists".
Been reading too much Machiavelli? Maybe Hobbes? Not everyone is self seeking. What about the people who hook up their neighbors with free access? I did it for three years with an ISDN line and two friends. If you are worried about bandwidth hogs, get two connections, one for you and one for everyone else. Better yet, just turn off the WAP for a while. After all, it is your to begin with right?
For places like Wal-Mart, Target, and Toys 'r Us, it will probably hurt online commerce because people will just go to the local store. But the store is still getting their money, so they aren't actually hurt.
It will hurt them because the online and physical stores are different subsidiaries of the same corp. What will happen is money flowing into the brick and mortar stores will increase and money going to the.com version will decrease. You will slowly see a folding of online versions of your favorite stores because the big companies only care about one thing: the bottom line.
It's called 'duty'. Its meant to discourage the very mentality posed by the parent poster; namely that shopping outside of your economy is bad for your economy.
So then what the heck is NAFTA all about? I was under the impression that there could be no duties or tarrifs imposed within North America. Am I remiss?
I shop online for selection, convenience, and easy price comparison.
I don't shop online but do all of the above for price comparison. Then I call the brick and mortar (if they don't have online inventory indicators) and drive there. It is the best of both worlds. Speed and convenience of the internet, don't have to wait for shipping and have it now of the brick and mortar store. Adding sales tax only makes it better for me to go to the store.
As an aside, most of my online purchases are PC parts. CompUSA has a decent selection but don't specialize, and the local shops are extremely expensive. This will only hurt online retailers.
All this "surveillance" of the web will accomplish is a useless oversized database with statistics that will take people years to get a grasp on. It'll be a case of "too much information" that won't be easily collated - and hence , pretty useless.
Actually, the ISPs already gather the information. Dubya just wants there to be a tap on all the stored information to a government agency so they can 'monitor' who connects to what and when. Granted that it is still a huge undertaking, but they are getting around the logging and storage issues by using the internet as a distributed info gathering tool. Slick, but scary.
Although I rarely reply to ACs, I will make an exception here.
Gandalf would have had to have asked very nicely to get all the eagles to come help him. Note that, in the final battle, they did. So they are willing to help.
You must be thinking of the Hobbit and the Battle of Five Armies, not the Lord of the Rings and the Last Battle. The eagles only appeared thrice in the Lord of the Rings, and only one eagle (Gwaihir) made the appearance on all three occasions. Once to save Gandalf from Orthnac, once to carry his spirit away from the defeated Balrog and once, as you mentioned to save Frodo and Sam from the lava of Mount Doom.
As for the rest, it seems like you have a need to post that drivel multiple times to call attention to your 'intelligence'. It is all conjecture and without any Tolkien canon to back it up. Some examples:
Therefore the One Ring could be airdropped from 35,000 feet or more, without ever getting near ground defenses.
Airdropping a ring from 35,000 feet (or even 5,000) may seem easy to you, even when trying to hit a large object like a volcano, but it is not. Even with the sharp eyes of an eagle and the wisdom and insight of Gandalf, it would be a very risky move. Riskier than sending two hobbits in alone to do it.
Therefore only the Nazgul could be summoned to stop an eagle attack.
Just because Sauron didn't do anything else does not mean that he could not. You might get dizzy with all that circular logic.
The Nazgul can't sense the One Ring unless someone's wearing it.
This is absolute crap. The Nagul are 'sniffing' around when they get close to Frodo, not because he is a hobbit, but because he has the ring. Aragorn says, "at all times they [the nazgul] can feel the presence of the ring."
The crows would see the 10k eagles coming, and would summon the Nazgul. The Nazgul might even get there in time, but considering they're scattered all over tarnation looking for the Ring, and they don't even know what the eagles have, and considering the eagles can crush them in under a second, it's irrelevant.
An excellent example of how far out your ideas are. First, the crows were servants of Saruman, not Sauron. Second, they were in a different part of the world at this time, not in Mordor. Finally, even if they were there and working for Sauron, how could they tell the Nazgul? They would have to fly there (at the same or less speed than the eagles). Your arguments just don't hold water.
Nice try though. Sadly, the only logical conclusion is that Gandalf was suicidal.
Sounds like you are a bit too sure of yourself. And for the record, it is a fictional story. One that would be much less entertaining if Gandalf sent a bunch of eagles in to drop the ring from 35,000 feet! I much prefer the version we have.
See, they had over 10,000 giant eagles, and you could have mounted an elven archer on each one.
No they didn't. They are the special agents of Manwe (the cheif Valar) and as such are only used in special circumstances. To say that the fellowship had 10,000 of them at their disposal is ludicrous. There may not have been more than one (Gwaihir) at this time in Middle Earth in the third age.
As for Gandalf's strategy, as others have said, he was playing the only card he had. Outright attack on Mordor would bring the whole of Sauron's wrath on them when he knew they could barely defend assaults from parts of Sauron's forces. While very risky, it was not without thought or care. Gandalf may have well believed that Frodo would be successful, [*SPOILER*] even after he had evidence of his death.
Although I am no Tolkien expert, I would surmise that since the nine became wraiths (neither living nor dead) that the rings they wore went with them into the shadow world and are therefore unremovable from their 'bodies'. So I guess technically they were 'there' but for all practical purposes they play no role in the story other than how the nine became wraiths.
As for the dwarven rings, I remember reading somewhere that when Sauron was a rising power, the orcs drove many of them out of their mountain homes and in the process, some were lost (melted by dragon fire, IIRC). Of those that weren't lost, they were probably dropped into one of the mountain cracks like we see in Moria. Whether I am correct or not, I know that Gandalf seemed to dismiss the idea that they were of any use during the events of LOTR.
On an interesting and somewhat connected sidenote, the three were originally possessed by Galadriel, Elrond and the shipwright (Cirdain?). We learn from Tolkien that the shipwright gave the fire ring (Narnya?) to Gandalf to aid him in his fight against Sauron. Frodo perceived Galadriel's ring when the fellowship was in Lothlorien (because he possessed the one ring). Why did he not perceive Elrond's when in Rivendell or Gandalf's during the march south? Clearly I need to revisit the Encyclopedia of Arda again!
Downloading old games is as illegal as downloading newer ones. Even if no one is selling them. Even if the company is long gone and all programmers died.
Not necessarily. You can still download all the Zork games here. As far as I can tell, this is perfectly legal, though I don't know if Infocom waived it's copyright. I agree that copyright lengths are not what they should be, but there are obviously ways around it.
The Rings were forged by Sauron - neither Elf nor Man.
Actually, the three elven rings were never touched by Sauron, but he knew how they were made because he deceitfully gained the favor of the elf who made them. This is how he was able to gain power over them with the one ring, not because he made them. This was also why the elves never succumbed to Sauron when he possesed the one ring. They perceived him when he put it on, formed the last alliance and Isuldur cut it from his hand. The nine men were forever poisened, the dwarves lost most of them or they were destroyed by dragon fire. Only the three and the one remained to the third age for the events of the Lord of the Rings.
I agree that Mr. Brin is an unqualified git; wholly unsuited to review Tolkien's mythology.
My opinion: if you have the money, get a library (I use an Adic Scalar 100).
Back in the day (1999), I designed and built a backup system for a hospital that used the Scalar 1000. It had 8 (12 max) DLT 40/80 drives. We had an Ultra Sparc II with two 64bit PCI differential controllers (two drives per channel) and a 64 bit fiber gigabit card. The server was hooked into a gbic on the back of a 3Com switch stack with 100 servers hooked into it. We did about 1.5TB per night on that sucker. Bandwith going through the GBIC with all drives running was ~780Mb/s peak.
Yeah, if you are even a bit serious about your backups, a library with DLT or comparable tapes is the way to go. Drives are cheaper, break easier, last half as long and are much more fragile. Besides, tapes like offsite better than anything with lube in it.
No, the Bill of Rights enumerated *personal* rights that the gov't could not infringe.
Bingo. Read the Federalist papers. Madison was extremely opposed to the Bill of Rights because it was contrary to the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution expilcitly states what rights the government has. By very nature, all other rights therefore belong to the people (including the rights outlined in the bill of rights). Madison was afraid that the Bill of Rights would create a precident that would mean all rights must be expressly mentioned or they do not exist. This I fear, is what we are seeing now with the increase in government size and the number of laws passed.
Is your neighbourhood really that dangerous? How many times have you felt obligated to brandish your weapon to protect your family? What are you so afraid of?
Here where I live, there have been several recent home invasion robberies and frequent car jackings. I am from L.A. originally and know what it's like to be in a gang zone. So yeah, my neighborhood is that dangerous and I have felt the need to be armed, 'just in case'.
Or do you love your property so much that you would be willing to kill for it, rather than file an insurance claim?
Good point, glad you brought it up. No I don't love my property that much and would gladly give it over to someone in exchange for my life. However, that isn't the issue. Do you buy insurance? If so, what is the difference between that and having a gun? Protection, deterrance, insurance. Whatever you want to call it, I pack heat because criminals do it and are in a position to attack my family. Random violence is not a myth.
what is the greater probability: that at some point in the future you will successfully save the lives of your loved ones with your gun, or that someone you love will be killed with it while they're goofing around?
Well, assuming I am responsible and teach my kids about guns, how to use them and when not to use them, I can honestly say that the former is more likely. Education is the key to safety. Whether it be driving a car, plugging in an electrical device or handling a gun. It is not that difficult.
If I buy a spot on Comedy Central and it doesn't sell anything for me, its not likely I'm going to buy more time there.
Perhaps, but my perspective is strictly from rate setting. I can charge $X based on X viewers from the previous sweeps period; this is 'air value'. Air value is determined primarily from ratings because there is no tangible way for advertisers to connect returns to specific marketing strategies. Returns are secondary to ratings at best, pie in the sky 'what ifs' at worst. Furthermore, returns are less likely to be noticed by large nationwide chains (which have larger wallets) than by mom and pop shops, therefore further decreasing their value.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you and I are on different ideological grounds, but that does not preclude us from agreeing.
There must be some limit for parents' rights to fsck the lives of their children!! Children are people; it is illegal to rape them, too.Granted it is illegal to rape them. Why is it illegal to rape them? If we use your arguments, the idea of society and social norms (like rape, murder, etc.) comes from induced mental programming by parents, teachers, peers, etc. What if the opposite norms were induced? (Rape and murder are acceptable...) As a person living in that kind of society would you have the same views? This kind of relativistic (and circular) thinking is flawed. You can't tell me that there must be a limit on how parents teach their children by pointing out that society (a product of parental teaching) mandates this.
Cure what!?!? The point of my example was that it is hard to decide what should be cured.Lots of things. Down's syndrome, heart disease, palsey, alsheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. Genetic screening and genetic manipulation are whay is being discussed in the article and can cure the above diseases/conditions.
I consider religion to be insane ideas that you can inflict on children if you indoctrinate them early enough.To each his own, but you cannot enforce your views on other people, just like I cannot make you believe in God.
Something some religious people would do.How do you know what all religious people would do? Sweeping generalizations like that are at the root of most hate in the world. I don't pretend to believe that all religious people are great, but that does not make the reverse true.
Some common combinations of genes might give a high chance of some mental disease. But also a high chance of artistic talent. Would it be worth losing those artists to save some people from mental disease?
Good point. Another one would be concentrated leadership skills tied with megolomania. It is too easy for people in general to want their kids to "have it all" and they would want to take this to extremes. I am someone who dislikes governmental control in any form, so to embrace this technology with the caveat of regulation is a very scary proposition. I would rather see the technology only used to cure existing people as in the linked story, rather than to design people. But then again, I am a card carrying religous freak so I am not to be trusted...
Yeah, features like being able to dig ditches and operate heavy machinery. If we were all smart, there would be no room for eveyone in the smart jobs. Unless of course we use our smarts and create robots to do the dumb jobs a la animatrix.
Disclaimer: This is not my view, but is one that is alive and well.
That is just my point. Empirical thinking is but one of the options to find truth. Transcendentalists find truth in a different way. Your method of reasoning is astoundingly empirical and cannot be used to determine the truthfulness or validity of another thinking method. It would be circular in nature and would not lead you anywhere meaningful. Of course, if you really wanted to understand transcendental thinking, then you would have to try it, not apply scientific reasoning to a non scientific idea or method.
Must be one of the few religions without omnipotent or omniscient gods.Actually, my God is omnipotent, but He is subject to the laws and order of the universe. I know you are thinking that He cannot be omnipotent if he has limitations. Think of it this way: God *can* break the rules, but if He did, He would cease to be God. One of the requirements of being a God is that you have to be perfect. "With great power comes great responsibility". Change that to perfect power and perfect responsibility and you are getting somewhere.
I would claim that the truth you speak about is neither sought by nor included in any religion.You can certainly claim that, but it is a well held facet of my religion.
And we see how well religion treated Galileo in return. At least he didn't end up like Giordano Bruno.Irrelevant.
Kepler may have been motivated by his love of astrology, but his belief in non-existant order in the cosmos led him astray. I seen no reason the we should be hobbled by the same superstitions that they were.You are certainly free to build yourself in whatever fashion you see fit. These men, although scientists viewed religion as something worthy to pursue. All I am saying is that there are still scientists out there who feel this way and to them it is an asset.
We're beginning to (scientifically) understand what brain structures are responsible for this. There are reasonable hypotheses for why animals would evolve to have a religious instinct. None of this suggests validity of regligion. I choose not to be limited by my instincts.Two things. First, trying to understand the way humans think will likely never be accomplished using empirical means. I say this because I believe the brain is that part of the body where it interfaces with spirit (I know, no evidence to support a spirit). As both a spiritual and physical organ, it cannot be fully understood with empirical thinking.
Second, I am not trying to propose evidence to support religion, because it cannot be understood with scientific reasoning. Therefore, evidence would be irrelevant even if I could provide it for you. Finally, there is a large distinction between religion and instincts. It is instinctive to build a fire to stay warm, it is not to build a cathedral and have mass every Sunday. Perhaps the propensity to be religios is instinctive, but that is a different matter. Besides, I think you will agree that instincts are both good and bad. You would likely not choose to live without your instinct to eat or reproduce. So being "limited" by your instincts is a relative state of mind.
Science is learning through empirical thinking. Religion is learning through transcendental thinking. Do you know the difference? Plato and Socrates taught transcendental thinking before most of the mainstream religions were conceptualized. Just because it is different than empirical thinking does not mean it is any less valid.
They can't co-exist because they are contradictory. Religion is the statement that the physical laws that govern the universe are arbitrary and subject to change at any time.That is not the definition of religion that I know. Religion does not place restraints on the universe. On the contrary, religion has the capacity to explain everything in the universe all at once, science does not. Science works on the precept of relative truth. If I produce a fusion reaction, science demands that someone else duplicate the experiment. My fusion reaction is relatively true to me. It gains relevance the more it is duplicated and the relative truth extends to other people. Religion claims absolute truth, i.e. there is one truth for all people and the entire universe. Like science, there is a process to obtain truth, religon claims the entire truth exists within each person. Religion just uses different means to get there. Different means do not connotate invalid results.
Science is the statement that there exist a set of immutable rules that govern all physical processes.You are correct and religion (at least the one I adhere to) claims the same thing. But keep in mind that as knowledge increases, the ideas that science has given us change and new ones present themselves. The truth has always been there, we just lacked the ability to see it.
Of course, but then again the definition of a "religious question" would be "one without a valid answer."Why so closed minded? I must point out that religous questions have spurred much innovation in science and vice-versa. Gallileo, Kepler and Newton all looked at the world with empirical minds, but were motivated by deep spiritual feelings.
At some point we, as a species, have to realize that the universe isn't a story about us. I don't think we'll survive for long without coming to that realization.At some point we have to realize, as a species, that religion and spirituality are part of our nature. I don't think we can survive for long without coming to that realization.
You have obviously got the sarcasm down...
Sure, as long as you don't try to provide religious answers to scientific questions. Something like, "what was the mechanism for biological adaptation?"--well, god is not a scientific answer, no matter how you slice it. And that's what most creationists, as they call themselves and are generally known to the world, would have you believe.First of all, we have to understand each other. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, nor are they opposite ends of a spectrum. Science is a tool used to gain knowledge. I submit that religion is similarly a tool used to gain knowledge, albeit in a different way.
We're talking the difference between pseudo-science and science here, remember.Okay, I think I understand something here. Tell me if I get this right: you believe that religion is a pseudo-science. Meaning that it tries to be scientific, but really isn't. If that is true, then we are talking about two different definitions of religion. I don't claim religion is a replacement or substitute for science. Religion is a tool, science is a tool with simliar purposes but different mechanisms. Arguing that science is 'better' than religion is like arguing that a screwdriver is 'better' than a hammer. They are both tools and they both do their jobs well. I wouldn't ask you to drive a nail with a screwdriver (although I have done it), similarly, I would not ask you to understand religion with science. Make sense?
As for creationism, it means only one thing to me: the belief in the creation of the universe by a supreme being. That definition never changes for me, regardless of context. I am sorry that it changes for you, but I cannot and do not want to forcefully change your view.
When I said tackle philosophy, I meant something like: "solve" philosophy. Can't do it? Didn't think so.Looks like you are very good with the sarcasm. Sorry to have doubted you. I don't quite know what it means to "solve" philosophy but it is probably irrelevant.
There's the beginnings of the problems of introducing god(s) into science; people can't agree upon basic terms well enough to even solve the problems of whether or not god(s) exist.Agree completely. Science and religion serve different purposes even if they attempt to answer the same questions. I don't propose that we integrate them together for the very reasons you mention. People have a hard enough time understanding one another, let alone trying to reconcile their religions!
This also goes back to answer your question about why science and god are a bad mix, if you didn't figure that out already.I don't recall asking why they would be a bad mix, but I did wonder why they can't co-exist. It would be bad to introduce religious ideology into science. I also feel that trying to answer religous questions with science is a farce.
Problems between religion and science arise as any other conflict does. Misunderstanding and greed. People who claim superior knowledge are always going to piss off the other camp(s). Just because you have the answer for you questions doesn't mean that you will for mine. I simply want to dispell the feelings that many people like yourself seem to have that I can't reconcile my religous feelings with scientific ones. It is just a matter of perspective and understanding.
There is no confusion. Science and religion can coincide perfectly with one another. This is not a zero sum equation. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why I can't believe in a Divinly created earth and think empirically?
So you are saying that creationism means different things depending on the context? Is this the same for evolution?
but if you want your god to be involved with science...well, first tackle philosophy and then we'll talk. Otherwise leave your god out of it.Got the philosophy part down. Where would you like to start? Modern thinking with Hobbes, Locke and Thoreau or more classical stuff like Plato and Aristotle? As for God being involved in science, what's the big deal? I don't understand the stark contrast. If God is who I think He is, then science fits nicely into the plan. If I am wrong, then who cares? I am not trying to convince you of the creation...
Also, lay off the violence buddy! How Christian (or whatever your variation) is that?Are you referring to the clue stick comment? If not I am afraid you have me at a loss. Otherwise, check a handy dictionary for the words 'sarcasm' and 'symbolism'.
Okay, but whose? I would argue that Jews, Christians and Muslims (who all profess a belief in the creation) look at it in starkly different ways.
The second tenet is "the Bible is inerrant".I strongly disagree. The Bible is very errant, even within its own pages. After all, it was written (and translated) by men who have demonstrated time after time their ability to err.
Evolution doesn't deal with creation of the universe nor with the creation of life. Evolution deals with a very specific problem: the origin of species.Bang on the dot. I quite agree, but you must consider that evolutionists also concede the point that the formation of the Earth greatly affected evolution. Logically, the formation of the solar system affected the formation of the earth and therefore the formation of the galaxy affected the formation of the solar system, etc... Origin of species is different but very much related to origin of the universe.
Where the "first species" came from is pure conjecture.This is but another difference between the ideas of man and the ideas of God. I claim to know that God created all things. I did not use Aristotle's empirical thinking to arrive at this conclusion, but rather Plato's transcendental learning. Plato believed that there is one truth and that we are all born with that truth within ourselves. Life is mearly the function of finding that truth. I find that his ideas on truth are most correct even with the exclusion of religion.
Some people support creationism which is unprovable and therefore not a science.I must again take issue with this notion that creation is unprovable. Certainly unprovable by conventional science, but by no means irrefutably unprovable.
You've got some real problems with people who claim God created man don't you? I don't want to pry into personal feelings so I will stave off my desire to hit you with a clue stick. There are a lot of different people who could be defined as creationists. Do all of them claim to define science as you stated? I don't and believe that there is indeed a God who created all there is to see. I also believe in the empirical method created by the first scientist Aristotle. Furthermore, you claim that "Real science presumes that the answer is *not* known, and tries to guess an answer based on what is actually evident in the world." How is that different than a creationist? I don't claim to know exactly how God created the earth, man or anything else. Just that He did. Even science must agree that the world, man and all other observable matter must indeed exist. The only questions is on how it got here.
I don't want to convert anyone to believe in creation, but I wish that the narrowmindedness you so much lament of creationists would stop manifesting itself in "scientists".
Been reading too much Machiavelli? Maybe Hobbes? Not everyone is self seeking. What about the people who hook up their neighbors with free access? I did it for three years with an ISDN line and two friends. If you are worried about bandwidth hogs, get two connections, one for you and one for everyone else. Better yet, just turn off the WAP for a while. After all, it is your to begin with right?
It will hurt them because the online and physical stores are different subsidiaries of the same corp. What will happen is money flowing into the brick and mortar stores will increase and money going to the .com version will decrease. You will slowly see a folding of online versions of your favorite stores because the big companies only care about one thing: the bottom line.
So then what the heck is NAFTA all about? I was under the impression that there could be no duties or tarrifs imposed within North America. Am I remiss?
I don't shop online but do all of the above for price comparison. Then I call the brick and mortar (if they don't have online inventory indicators) and drive there. It is the best of both worlds. Speed and convenience of the internet, don't have to wait for shipping and have it now of the brick and mortar store. Adding sales tax only makes it better for me to go to the store.
As an aside, most of my online purchases are PC parts. CompUSA has a decent selection but don't specialize, and the local shops are extremely expensive. This will only hurt online retailers.
Actually, the ISPs already gather the information. Dubya just wants there to be a tap on all the stored information to a government agency so they can 'monitor' who connects to what and when. Granted that it is still a huge undertaking, but they are getting around the logging and storage issues by using the internet as a distributed info gathering tool. Slick, but scary.
That was 60 years prior to the events on Mount Doom when the original poster surmised an army of 10,000 could overwhelm its forces.
Although I rarely reply to ACs, I will make an exception here.
Gandalf would have had to have asked very nicely to get all the eagles to come help him. Note that, in the final battle, they did. So they are willing to help.You must be thinking of the Hobbit and the Battle of Five Armies, not the Lord of the Rings and the Last Battle. The eagles only appeared thrice in the Lord of the Rings, and only one eagle (Gwaihir) made the appearance on all three occasions. Once to save Gandalf from Orthnac, once to carry his spirit away from the defeated Balrog and once, as you mentioned to save Frodo and Sam from the lava of Mount Doom.
As for the rest, it seems like you have a need to post that drivel multiple times to call attention to your 'intelligence'. It is all conjecture and without any Tolkien canon to back it up. Some examples:
Therefore the One Ring could be airdropped from 35,000 feet or more, without ever getting near ground defenses.Airdropping a ring from 35,000 feet (or even 5,000) may seem easy to you, even when trying to hit a large object like a volcano, but it is not. Even with the sharp eyes of an eagle and the wisdom and insight of Gandalf, it would be a very risky move. Riskier than sending two hobbits in alone to do it.
Therefore only the Nazgul could be summoned to stop an eagle attack.Just because Sauron didn't do anything else does not mean that he could not. You might get dizzy with all that circular logic.
The Nazgul can't sense the One Ring unless someone's wearing it.This is absolute crap. The Nagul are 'sniffing' around when they get close to Frodo, not because he is a hobbit, but because he has the ring. Aragorn says, "at all times they [the nazgul] can feel the presence of the ring."
The crows would see the 10k eagles coming, and would summon the Nazgul. The Nazgul might even get there in time, but considering they're scattered all over tarnation looking for the Ring, and they don't even know what the eagles have, and considering the eagles can crush them in under a second, it's irrelevant.An excellent example of how far out your ideas are. First, the crows were servants of Saruman, not Sauron. Second, they were in a different part of the world at this time, not in Mordor. Finally, even if they were there and working for Sauron, how could they tell the Nazgul? They would have to fly there (at the same or less speed than the eagles). Your arguments just don't hold water.
Nice try though. Sadly, the only logical conclusion is that Gandalf was suicidal.Sounds like you are a bit too sure of yourself. And for the record, it is a fictional story. One that would be much less entertaining if Gandalf sent a bunch of eagles in to drop the ring from 35,000 feet! I much prefer the version we have.
No they didn't. They are the special agents of Manwe (the cheif Valar) and as such are only used in special circumstances. To say that the fellowship had 10,000 of them at their disposal is ludicrous. There may not have been more than one (Gwaihir) at this time in Middle Earth in the third age.
As for Gandalf's strategy, as others have said, he was playing the only card he had. Outright attack on Mordor would bring the whole of Sauron's wrath on them when he knew they could barely defend assaults from parts of Sauron's forces. While very risky, it was not without thought or care. Gandalf may have well believed that Frodo would be successful, [*SPOILER*] even after he had evidence of his death.
Although I am no Tolkien expert, I would surmise that since the nine became wraiths (neither living nor dead) that the rings they wore went with them into the shadow world and are therefore unremovable from their 'bodies'. So I guess technically they were 'there' but for all practical purposes they play no role in the story other than how the nine became wraiths.
As for the dwarven rings, I remember reading somewhere that when Sauron was a rising power, the orcs drove many of them out of their mountain homes and in the process, some were lost (melted by dragon fire, IIRC). Of those that weren't lost, they were probably dropped into one of the mountain cracks like we see in Moria. Whether I am correct or not, I know that Gandalf seemed to dismiss the idea that they were of any use during the events of LOTR.
On an interesting and somewhat connected sidenote, the three were originally possessed by Galadriel, Elrond and the shipwright (Cirdain?). We learn from Tolkien that the shipwright gave the fire ring (Narnya?) to Gandalf to aid him in his fight against Sauron. Frodo perceived Galadriel's ring when the fellowship was in Lothlorien (because he possessed the one ring). Why did he not perceive Elrond's when in Rivendell or Gandalf's during the march south? Clearly I need to revisit the Encyclopedia of Arda again!
Not necessarily. You can still download all the Zork games here. As far as I can tell, this is perfectly legal, though I don't know if Infocom waived it's copyright. I agree that copyright lengths are not what they should be, but there are obviously ways around it.
Actually, the three elven rings were never touched by Sauron, but he knew how they were made because he deceitfully gained the favor of the elf who made them. This is how he was able to gain power over them with the one ring, not because he made them. This was also why the elves never succumbed to Sauron when he possesed the one ring. They perceived him when he put it on, formed the last alliance and Isuldur cut it from his hand. The nine men were forever poisened, the dwarves lost most of them or they were destroyed by dragon fire. Only the three and the one remained to the third age for the events of the Lord of the Rings.
I agree that Mr. Brin is an unqualified git; wholly unsuited to review Tolkien's mythology.
Back in the day (1999), I designed and built a backup system for a hospital that used the Scalar 1000. It had 8 (12 max) DLT 40/80 drives. We had an Ultra Sparc II with two 64bit PCI differential controllers (two drives per channel) and a 64 bit fiber gigabit card. The server was hooked into a gbic on the back of a 3Com switch stack with 100 servers hooked into it. We did about 1.5TB per night on that sucker. Bandwith going through the GBIC with all drives running was ~780Mb/s peak.
Yeah, if you are even a bit serious about your backups, a library with DLT or comparable tapes is the way to go. Drives are cheaper, break easier, last half as long and are much more fragile. Besides, tapes like offsite better than anything with lube in it.
Here is his new homepage and link to the latest version of Cathy.
Enjoy.
Bingo. Read the Federalist papers. Madison was extremely opposed to the Bill of Rights because it was contrary to the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution expilcitly states what rights the government has. By very nature, all other rights therefore belong to the people (including the rights outlined in the bill of rights). Madison was afraid that the Bill of Rights would create a precident that would mean all rights must be expressly mentioned or they do not exist. This I fear, is what we are seeing now with the increase in government size and the number of laws passed.
Here where I live, there have been several recent home invasion robberies and frequent car jackings. I am from L.A. originally and know what it's like to be in a gang zone. So yeah, my neighborhood is that dangerous and I have felt the need to be armed, 'just in case'.
Or do you love your property so much that you would be willing to kill for it, rather than file an insurance claim?Good point, glad you brought it up. No I don't love my property that much and would gladly give it over to someone in exchange for my life. However, that isn't the issue. Do you buy insurance? If so, what is the difference between that and having a gun? Protection, deterrance, insurance. Whatever you want to call it, I pack heat because criminals do it and are in a position to attack my family. Random violence is not a myth.
what is the greater probability: that at some point in the future you will successfully save the lives of your loved ones with your gun, or that someone you love will be killed with it while they're goofing around?Well, assuming I am responsible and teach my kids about guns, how to use them and when not to use them, I can honestly say that the former is more likely. Education is the key to safety. Whether it be driving a car, plugging in an electrical device or handling a gun. It is not that difficult.
Perhaps, but my perspective is strictly from rate setting. I can charge $X based on X viewers from the previous sweeps period; this is 'air value'. Air value is determined primarily from ratings because there is no tangible way for advertisers to connect returns to specific marketing strategies. Returns are secondary to ratings at best, pie in the sky 'what ifs' at worst. Furthermore, returns are less likely to be noticed by large nationwide chains (which have larger wallets) than by mom and pop shops, therefore further decreasing their value.
Why doesn't anyone see this?Perhaps because it is wrong?