If you think any religion can make a logical or illogical proposition when the subject is transcendental, you are not logical.
Let me get this straight: you're saying that a religion cannot make a logical or illogical proposition? Seems like you're saying that religion can make no proposition, which is pretty much my standpoint as well.
Therefore our logic is not necessarily valid outside our universe.
Until you can prove that there's an outside to our universe that has different physics and logics, then it's all just mental masturbation; "imagine if a great noodly thing created everything, but mostly pirates." Thanks, but I'll stick with the thought process that leads to predictable results.
The relation between your sig and your beliefs is not my concern.
Oh really? From your initial response:
Science explains religion under the hypothesis that a god doesn't exist
Next:
And "assuming you are atheist" is not "discussing an atheist position", which I see in your sig.
There is nothing atheist about my sig. Science explains things accurately; religion does not (although sometimes it's within the ballpark, just as Newton's gravity was within the ballpark of Einstein's relativity, but was completely wrong). There exists a Protector, and science may one day allow us to make experiments with It.
(Note that I'm not angry; you're just not understanding (or, mis-understanding) my position, and perhaps I need to add some additional information to my signature, to clarify.)
Yeah, and my take on it is, why a "music-only" service? I remember FTP sites from 20 years ago. The most useful form would be a device that could connect to your FTP site, so you could host whatever content you choose. But then there wouldn't be a revenue stream in that (other than the $5/month or so to host your FTP site, and FTP sites aren't shiny like Britney Bieber ad nauseum, so you can't charge a premium for them), so Amazon would never spend the resources to develop it.
I said I know of several real humans who have at least 10^1 accounts. I suspect I've encountered people in the games who have 10^100 or more.
Are you sure about that second number? A googol is a very large number for a single person to have that many accounts of. (It has been a while since I've used the original spelling!)
Radiation will interfere with the up/down link to the robot, making it impossible to control.
Even with a directly-connected optical cable? Or I suppose for lower-bandwidth it could be a cable that performs physical exchange, I'm thinking bursts of air, or perhaps just a cable filled with vacuum that either side can modify the pressure of, and the other side can detect that, as a way of exchanging data. So even if the assertion is true that radiation will interfere, I think there are designs that can mitigate that. (Why they don't have them already in place is a question best reserved for the accountants/TEPCO upper management...)
We *can* filter the coal exhaust to remove the things that cause the more direct deaths. CO2 is perhaps a bigger issue but something that mitigation may be able to handle.
I wonder; might we pump the smoke into "freezers" of some sort, to re-solidify as much of the carbon as possible before releasing the rest to the atmosphere? (I'm sure that's part of what the scrubbers do, I just thought adding the freezer idea would make it more likely to end up like Mosquito Coast.:)
But what I do know is that GP didn't allege any facts which would lead someone to conclude that TEPCO acted unreasonably, but still expected the reader to imply that this proved TEPCO acted unreasonably.
I wonder. Could it be said that they acted irresponsibly, a long time ago?
I mean, they could have made the "Tsunami Wall" the size of the building. With a roof, and of course structured best to deflect the power of a wave taller than it. Somewhat cylindrical, with a point towards the shoreline I would imagine but would want to do simulations.
I don't think the sun would notice if we threw the entire planet in to it
Ah, but if we threw 10% of the planet into it, we might end up cutting billions of years off Earth's life expectancy through a more-rapidly decaying orbit... Perhaps throwing it onto the moon would make more sense? The combined "body" would still have the same mass, and we'd have the nearby-availability of the waste for when we develop sufficient technology that can use that "waste" as an input.
Interesting; looks at-a-glance like the beginning of a Warren Zevon song from Transverse City, he chants a chemical structure at the beginning (second song I think). (It was the numbers and hyphens, I believe, that made me think of that.)
Not necessarily; at the bar my friend stepped in front of the oaf who was tripping over himself. The oaf didn't necessarily mean to harm me, he was just careless; still, I thanked my friend for defending me. You're right about Google and Facebook. And, you didn't point out a flaw; you started from the assumption that I disavow the existence of a Protector. I do not.
YOUR FEELING on the validity of the explanation matters, not the capability for explanations.
Wrong, my feelings have no bearing on whether a proposition is logical. I don't feel 2+2=4. Religion makes no predictions that can be confirmed. Science does.
Thanks for the defense. I'm thinking of it more in terms of the bicameral brain, and that many people have heard voices or music that's not there. "Praying" is really "talking to yourself", asking yourself to do the things you want/need, instead of partying the whole time. I really like learning about how the brain works (I read "The Brain That Changes Itself" recently, fascinating book) -- a field that is expanding and always has something new to teach me. Religion generally doesn't provide anything new; it's mostly about control. Spirituality, on the other hand, I've learned a lot from in the past few years. Jin Shin Jyutsu and EFT are pretty cool.
Put simply: science can explain the changes that happen in one's brain when one experiences religion. Religion cannot explain this. Religion is like the emotions in our brain: a shortcut to logic; answers to why there are loud noises in the dark. And sometimes, that shortcut fails.
(I'm also amazed that they used water from the Charles river in Boston and that it still worked. I remember a time when an accidental dunking in the none-too-clean river meant a quick trip to the doctor's office for shots!)
"Love that dirty water; Boston you're my home." (Thanks for the memory.:)
Yeah, my take is there's so much solar energy being wasted escaping into space, we really need to put a cap on it. A Matrioshka Brain, in other words. Yes, it's a large engineering feat but the politicians are too busy cozying up with the bankers for us to get off the planet...
I dunno, I kinda like "cinacma vacritac", it sounds like something enjoyed by those Martians who Attacked. Agree with the eating, though, and if it's televised (haha so last century) then perhaps they can sell some ads...
Much more truth than humor in your post: people often mistake my smile for winking. I've had several coworkers in the past who had punctuated their speech with winks, who didn't when I met them, and who feel somewhat self-conscious when I tell them that I am not intentionally winking. Of course, lately I've just stopped telling them; why not make a defect into a character attribute?:)
If you'd like to argue that drunk driving is your right, or is part of a slippery slope into a police state, give us an argument for that like an adult, rather than throwing out catch phrases of a rebellious youth.
Okay, here's my argument: I have one eye. I never see double. If I get really drunk, I see blurry, but I rarely drink that much any more. The best advice I can give to Slashdot on this article: if you must drive after drinking, close one eye to avoid seeing two things. If the remaining things are blurry, avoid their edges.
This is sincere advice, I'm trying to help save lives -- not encourage drunk drivers. I know this through an accident of birth, and I hope that I can help. I'm not arguing that it's a "right", just that with this technique one will swerve less -- resulting in two benefits: one, less likely to swerve and injure others; two, less likely to swerve and attract the attention of a police officer.
'Course, if you are stopped at a checkpoint and they force you to roll down your window and slur in their direction, this technique will not assist. (In fact, winking at them may anger them even more...)
Slashdot Mirror
If you think any religion can make a logical or illogical proposition when the subject is transcendental, you are not logical.
Let me get this straight: you're saying that a religion cannot make a logical or illogical proposition? Seems like you're saying that religion can make no proposition, which is pretty much my standpoint as well.
Therefore our logic is not necessarily valid outside our universe.
Until you can prove that there's an outside to our universe that has different physics and logics, then it's all just mental masturbation; "imagine if a great noodly thing created everything, but mostly pirates." Thanks, but I'll stick with the thought process that leads to predictable results.
The relation between your sig and your beliefs is not my concern.
Oh really? From your initial response:
Science explains religion under the hypothesis that a god doesn't exist
Next:
And "assuming you are atheist" is not "discussing an atheist position", which I see in your sig.
There is nothing atheist about my sig. Science explains things accurately; religion does not (although sometimes it's within the ballpark, just as Newton's gravity was within the ballpark of Einstein's relativity, but was completely wrong). There exists a Protector, and science may one day allow us to make experiments with It.
(Note that I'm not angry; you're just not understanding (or, mis-understanding) my position, and perhaps I need to add some additional information to my signature, to clarify.)
Yeah, I loved his eyes. Especially with the speculums.
Doesn't replacing a working car waste more energy than just keeping it?
I agree that Nobel Peace Prize winners have no business being so inefficient as to waste taxpayer dollars destroying perfectly good vehicles.
Yeah, and my take on it is, why a "music-only" service? I remember FTP sites from 20 years ago. The most useful form would be a device that could connect to your FTP site, so you could host whatever content you choose. But then there wouldn't be a revenue stream in that (other than the $5/month or so to host your FTP site, and FTP sites aren't shiny like Britney Bieber ad nauseum, so you can't charge a premium for them), so Amazon would never spend the resources to develop it.
I said I know of several real humans who have at least 10^1 accounts. I suspect I've encountered people in the games who have 10^100 or more.
Are you sure about that second number? A googol is a very large number for a single person to have that many accounts of. (It has been a while since I've used the original spelling!)
Occasionally localized to 'catsup'.
And used as a punchline to a corny (tomato-y?) joke in a pilot that Mia Wallace was in.
Radiation will interfere with the up/down link to the robot, making it impossible to control.
Even with a directly-connected optical cable? Or I suppose for lower-bandwidth it could be a cable that performs physical exchange, I'm thinking bursts of air, or perhaps just a cable filled with vacuum that either side can modify the pressure of, and the other side can detect that, as a way of exchanging data. So even if the assertion is true that radiation will interfere, I think there are designs that can mitigate that. (Why they don't have them already in place is a question best reserved for the accountants/TEPCO upper management...)
We *can* filter the coal exhaust to remove the things that cause the more direct deaths. CO2 is perhaps a bigger issue but something that mitigation may be able to handle.
I wonder; might we pump the smoke into "freezers" of some sort, to re-solidify as much of the carbon as possible before releasing the rest to the atmosphere? (I'm sure that's part of what the scrubbers do, I just thought adding the freezer idea would make it more likely to end up like Mosquito Coast. :)
But what I do know is that GP didn't allege any facts which would lead someone to conclude that TEPCO acted unreasonably, but still expected the reader to imply that this proved TEPCO acted unreasonably.
I wonder. Could it be said that they acted irresponsibly, a long time ago?
I mean, they could have made the "Tsunami Wall" the size of the building. With a roof, and of course structured best to deflect the power of a wave taller than it. Somewhat cylindrical, with a point towards the shoreline I would imagine but would want to do simulations.
I don't think the sun would notice if we threw the entire planet in to it
Ah, but if we threw 10% of the planet into it, we might end up cutting billions of years off Earth's life expectancy through a more-rapidly decaying orbit... Perhaps throwing it onto the moon would make more sense? The combined "body" would still have the same mass, and we'd have the nearby-availability of the waste for when we develop sufficient technology that can use that "waste" as an input.
Interesting; looks at-a-glance like the beginning of a Warren Zevon song from Transverse City, he chants a chemical structure at the beginning (second song I think). (It was the numbers and hyphens, I believe, that made me think of that.)
Too late. Everybody that's read "A Canticle for Leibowitz" is probably in the nursing home by now. (Wanders off in search of a shuffleboard partner)
Hahaha. Before clicking on the story, I did tag it with "orshoppinglist".
Pointing out a flaw is an attack, then?
Not necessarily; at the bar my friend stepped in front of the oaf who was tripping over himself. The oaf didn't necessarily mean to harm me, he was just careless; still, I thanked my friend for defending me. You're right about Google and Facebook. And, you didn't point out a flaw; you started from the assumption that I disavow the existence of a Protector. I do not.
YOUR FEELING on the validity of the explanation matters, not the capability for explanations.
Wrong, my feelings have no bearing on whether a proposition is logical. I don't feel 2+2=4. Religion makes no predictions that can be confirmed. Science does.
Solar energy escaping into space from the sun, that is -- not after bouncing off the Earth. See here: Matrioshka Brain.
Thanks for the defense. I'm thinking of it more in terms of the bicameral brain, and that many people have heard voices or music that's not there. "Praying" is really "talking to yourself", asking yourself to do the things you want/need, instead of partying the whole time. I really like learning about how the brain works (I read "The Brain That Changes Itself" recently, fascinating book) -- a field that is expanding and always has something new to teach me. Religion generally doesn't provide anything new; it's mostly about control. Spirituality, on the other hand, I've learned a lot from in the past few years. Jin Shin Jyutsu and EFT are pretty cool.
Put simply: science can explain the changes that happen in one's brain when one experiences religion. Religion cannot explain this. Religion is like the emotions in our brain: a shortcut to logic; answers to why there are loud noises in the dark. And sometimes, that shortcut fails.
(I'm also amazed that they used water from the Charles river in Boston and that it still worked. I remember a time when an accidental dunking in the none-too-clean river meant a quick trip to the doctor's office for shots!)
"Love that dirty water; Boston you're my home." (Thanks for the memory. :)
Yeah, my take is there's so much solar energy being wasted escaping into space, we really need to put a cap on it. A Matrioshka Brain, in other words. Yes, it's a large engineering feat but the politicians are too busy cozying up with the bankers for us to get off the planet...
I dunno, I kinda like "cinacma vacritac", it sounds like something enjoyed by those Martians who Attacked. Agree with the eating, though, and if it's televised (haha so last century) then perhaps they can sell some ads...
Much more truth than humor in your post: people often mistake my smile for winking. I've had several coworkers in the past who had punctuated their speech with winks, who didn't when I met them, and who feel somewhat self-conscious when I tell them that I am not intentionally winking. Of course, lately I've just stopped telling them; why not make a defect into a character attribute? :)
That's great, but how are you supposed to hear your boss coming?
Eliminate the need and you're free. (Read Slashdot on your own time, in other words. :)
Yeah, and with "Three Felonies a Day" (read the book), they've got all the broken windows to fuel their economy...
If you'd like to argue that drunk driving is your right, or is part of a slippery slope into a police state, give us an argument for that like an adult, rather than throwing out catch phrases of a rebellious youth.
Okay, here's my argument: I have one eye. I never see double. If I get really drunk, I see blurry, but I rarely drink that much any more. The best advice I can give to Slashdot on this article: if you must drive after drinking, close one eye to avoid seeing two things. If the remaining things are blurry, avoid their edges.
This is sincere advice, I'm trying to help save lives -- not encourage drunk drivers. I know this through an accident of birth, and I hope that I can help. I'm not arguing that it's a "right", just that with this technique one will swerve less -- resulting in two benefits: one, less likely to swerve and injure others; two, less likely to swerve and attract the attention of a police officer.
'Course, if you are stopped at a checkpoint and they force you to roll down your window and slur in their direction, this technique will not assist. (In fact, winking at them may anger them even more...)