Apropos eye witness accounts, I have personal knowledge of exactly how reliable they are. Recently, while between contracts, I was driving taxis to get some cash flow. I picked up a passenger who was drunk and surly when she got in, and got progressively surlier as the trip progressed. When she got out of the cab, she threw a can of Diet Coke at my head, which needed 10 stiches to sew up. The point of my story is that, when I reported it to the police a mere 5 hours later, the best description I could come up with is that she was a middle-aged overweight Aboriginal woman, about 5'5" tall, and weighing about 13 stone. I couldn't even remember what she was wearing. If I can't accurately describe an event 4 or 5 hours later, it's highly unlikely that "eye witness" accounts of events that supposedly occurred nearly 2000 years ago have any resemblance to the facts of the matter.
The King James version is certainly worth teaching as literature. More recent translations should be avoided, because they are poorly written. (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.)
However, it should definitely _not_ be offered as an explanation of how the world works. Unfortunately, this is exactly where the fundamentalists insist on putting it.
Douglas Adams had a wonderful rant about this, which goes something like this:
Imagine there's this self-aware puddle (ok, huge leap, but bear with me) in a rut in the road. It thinks, "Hey, this world fits me really well, it must have been designed just for me." (Probably by some puddle-in-the-sky with a white beard and booming voice.) As the warming day dries the puddle up, it's still thinking that, because the world it perceives was clearly designed for it by a creature much like itself, only bigger, more powerful, and kind of steamy, things are going to be just dandy.
If you want to know how this story ends, get hold of a copy of "The Salmon of Doubt". As a spoiler, it doesn't end well for the self-aware puddle.
That's actually not strictly correct. You (or I) can have a satisfying and intellectually rigorous academic discussion about what a bunch of dickheads the creationists are.
Sorry, son. Fundamentalists' views are _never_ valuable. Doesn't matter whether the fundamentalist in question is a christian, muslim, hindu, marxist, neo-liberal,... Pick your lunacy.
God said to Abraham kill me a son Abe says, man, you must be puttin' me on God say no, Abe say what God say you can do what you want Abe But the next time you see me comin' you better run Abe says where do you want this killin' done God says out on Highway 61 (with apologies to R. Zimmermann)
I think this says it all about the fundamentalist fucktards.
Correct! IIRC, this is the name of a "Beasts of Bourbon" recording. But, given your name, I'm sure you already knew this, and were sharing your knowledge with our ignorant American cousins.
Er... no. Irrational numbers are called so for a reason. It's because they cannot _ever_ _in _ _any_ _number_ _system_ be expressed as the ratio of two integers. Shut the fuck up and learn some mathematics.
Anyone judging the randomness of the digits of pi by comparing it to a "random" number generator probably has serious mental problems. As von Meumann said, "Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." (Cribbed from page 1 of Vol 2 of "The Art of Computer Programming".)
If you want a genuinely random string of digits, you probably couldn't do much better than pi.
Stuff must be really cheap in Clarkesville, then. I reckon I could _just_ survive on the $A equivalent of $US38K (~$A45K) in Adelaide, which is one of the cheaper places to live in Australia. (OK, I'll admit I have a fucking huge mortgage, courtesy of a recent divorce.) To live comfortably, I need over $A65K (~$US50K).
Slashdot Mirror
You may respect his views. I don't.
Apropos eye witness accounts, I have personal knowledge of exactly how reliable they are. Recently, while between contracts, I was driving taxis to get some cash flow. I picked up a passenger who was drunk and surly when she got in, and got progressively surlier as the trip progressed. When she got out of the cab, she threw a can of Diet Coke at my head, which needed 10 stiches to sew up. The point of my story is that, when I reported it to the police a mere 5 hours later, the best description I could come up with is that she was a middle-aged overweight Aboriginal woman, about 5'5" tall, and weighing about 13 stone. I couldn't even remember what she was wearing. If I can't accurately describe an event 4 or 5 hours later, it's highly unlikely that "eye witness" accounts of events that supposedly occurred nearly 2000 years ago have any resemblance to the facts of the matter.
Nor do we believe in Santa Claus.
Although we think it's cute if our younger children do (relying on their older siblings to alert them to the truth).
Yep. god wants you to be rich.
The King James version is certainly worth teaching as literature. More recent translations should be avoided, because they are poorly written. (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.)
However, it should definitely _not_ be offered as an explanation of how the world works. Unfortunately, this is exactly where the fundamentalists insist on putting it.
Douglas Adams had a wonderful rant about this, which goes something like this:
Imagine there's this self-aware puddle (ok, huge leap, but bear with me) in a rut in the road. It thinks, "Hey, this world fits me really well, it must have been designed just for me." (Probably by some puddle-in-the-sky with a white beard and booming voice.) As the warming day dries the puddle up, it's still thinking that, because the world it perceives was clearly designed for it by a creature much like itself, only bigger, more powerful, and kind of steamy, things are going to be just dandy.
If you want to know how this story ends, get hold of a copy of "The Salmon of Doubt". As a spoiler, it doesn't end well for the self-aware puddle.
As someone has earlier pointed out - if you find a pre-cambrian fossil of a rabbit, the theory of evolution is fucked.
Generalise this as far as necessary.
The beauty of something so simple, is that it appeals to simple people ...
> Are there other explanations for why the light bends as it passes a massive object?
... maybe some phlogiston too.
Maybe a massive object has a higher concentration of aether around it, or something
For fucks sake.
You predict something that you haven't yet found in the fossil record. Then you find it.
What is the matter with you people?
> We as a species have been unable to cause evolution to happen.
I have one word for you - poodles.
I don't think that poofter dogs with funny haircuts occur in nature, pal.
Although I suppose a poodle isn't exactly evolved - devolved, perhaps.
That's actually not strictly correct. You (or I) can have a satisfying and intellectually rigorous academic discussion about what a bunch of dickheads the creationists are.
No. It's about "scientists with testable theories" versus "religious nuts who won't or can't submit their loony theories to any test at all".
I have no biases. (Well, maybe one, I'm a socialist.)
Sorry, son. Fundamentalists' views are _never_ valuable. Doesn't matter whether the fundamentalist in question is a christian, muslim, hindu, marxist, neo-liberal, ... Pick your lunacy.
It's turtles all the way down ...
God said to Abraham kill me a son
Abe says, man, you must be puttin' me on
God say no, Abe say what
God say you can do what you want Abe
But the next time you see me comin' you better run
Abe says where do you want this killin' done
God says out on Highway 61
(with apologies to R. Zimmermann)
I think this says it all about the fundamentalist fucktards.
I'll bet quids the brackets and dash weren't where you checked, though. See if you can find the ascii encoding of your 'phone number.
Correct! IIRC, this is the name of a "Beasts of Bourbon" recording. But, given your name, I'm sure you already knew this, and were sharing your knowledge with our ignorant American cousins.
I would suggest that the lack of pattern is _precisely_ what makes it random.
Outstanding! I wish I had mod points, even though you'd only get "Funny".
Er ... no. Irrational numbers are called so for a reason. It's because they cannot _ever_ _in _ _any_ _number_ _system_ be expressed as the ratio of two integers. Shut the fuck up and learn some mathematics.
Bugger. N and M really are too close to each other, especially when you're drunk.
Anyone judging the randomness of the digits of pi by comparing it to a "random" number generator probably has serious mental problems. As von Meumann said, "Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." (Cribbed from page 1 of Vol 2 of "The Art of Computer Programming".)
If you want a genuinely random string of digits, you probably couldn't do much better than pi.
XP Millenium Edition? So ... Longhorn will be Windows 3000.
Stuff must be really cheap in Clarkesville, then. I reckon I could _just_ survive on the $A equivalent of $US38K (~$A45K) in Adelaide, which is one of the cheaper places to live in Australia. (OK, I'll admit I have a fucking huge mortgage, courtesy of a recent divorce.) To live comfortably, I need over $A65K (~$US50K).
Plus, if times get _really_ tough, you can eat the cat.