Theology is not a science. Science involves experiments, and not of the 'thought' variety: empirically testable hypotheses.
Also, while there are indeed non-religious people who believe irrational and arbitrary things, religious people are grouped together on the basis of their irrational and arbitrary beliefs. It's the difference between a sack of 'things that were at one point in time attached to something made of iron' and a sack of magnets; having been attached to iron doesn't really tell you anything else about what kind of thing it is, but being a magnet does.
Is the lesson "let 90% of all life forms die out so the re-filling of ecological niches leads to greater biodiversity, and the possible re-emergence of the dinosaurs"? Because if so, dinosaurs are indeed pretty badass.
No, compared to the wide range of new facebook options, male and female have quite precise definitions. Just because there are a lot of vague predicates (e.g., exactly how many hairs do you need to lose before you're considered bald?) does not mean that there are no degrees of imprecision. 'Goth' is vaguer than 'horse', which is vaguer than 'ice cube', which is vaguer than 'the sun'.
"Precision is not of the utmost concern" is probably not what you want to say for two reasons. First, if precision is not of the utmost concern then the labels 'male' and 'female' would do fine for all human beings and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Second, how can you self-identify as something when that something has no set meaning? Self-identification is a process of relating yourself to other structures out there in the world, so that you can say "yes, that is like me! I do things like those other people!" and make yourself understood, to others or yourself. But if the words you use to determine your identity lack any kind of stable meaning then they are useless for what you're using them for, because they determine nothing.
But this is not more precise language, because none of these terms have rigid definitions, because the people who use them use them inconsistently. More precise language is always to be welcomed, but more terms does not necessarily mean more definitions.
Because the thing that allows language to be a communicative tool is that words have the same meaning for almost everyone. Rather than providing clarification, this glut of undefined terms destroy the ability of language to convey meaning.
The interesting thing is that there are no real losses in the case of bit-torrent, because the projections of losses are based on counterfactuals (if x had not downloaded y then...), i.e. possible worlds that are not the actual one. As long as the ontological status of possible worlds is not settled, the reality of the losses is not settled, and so being prosecuted for torrenting based on the supposed losses you have caused someone is no different from being prosecuted for imagined murder, or imaginary pickpocketing.
If David Lewis were still alive the RIAA/MPAA would be writing him such a massive fucking research grant cheque right now.
I, on the other hand, am ok with taking antihistamines (and the advances of science generally) instead of intestinal parasites to keep my allergies under control.
Chess seems a zero sum game to me. The utility you lose in losing a piece is equal to the utility I gain by you losing that piece. Or in the case of a sacrifice, the utility you gain by losing a piece is equal to the utility I lose by you losing a piece.
It's typical moron drivel trying to drive their point home by attempting to induce guilt rather than by rational argument. It's a last ditch effort at trying to effect some kind of change in the world outside so they don't have to change themselves.
I don't know what kind of system of black mail has given you the power to turn/. into your personal blog, but please stop using it like one. Length does not equal insight, your posts are not more or less important than those of other users, stop shitting up/.
If I hadn't already taken part in this discussion I would upvote you. ""GOTO!" he cries out," is a brilliant line and should really be the opening of 'Waiting for GOTO'
Code itself is simply a set of rules tying words and symbols to operations on a system. Learning those rules won't make you better at anything but learning rules. What will help you develop as a thinker is learning the underlying theory and ideas of a closely related field -- computer science. Thinking up your own solution to the dining philosophers problem, the knapsack problem or even understanding how you can describe the solution to the towers of Hanoi as an iterative process all help you develop problem solving skills and grant deeper insight into solving other problems. Simply learning a new coding language (unless that language is interestingly 'conceptually' (for lack of a better word) different from one you already know, like learning LISP when all you know is BASIC) won't improve much.
Discussing the meta-narrative implied by errant GOTO statements? Considering the motivations of while loops? Debating the thematic development in variable naming schemes?
Learning from anything means analyzing it, knowing what goes where for what reason, and then thinking about if there are other ways to do it, better ways to do it, if it needs to be done at all, etc. When you're reading with the intent to understand and you're doing something that's not appreciably different from simply 'viewing words' you're doing something wrong.
If he could access 70,000 in 4 minutes, does that mean he could access 140,000 in 8 minutes? 140k In 5 minutes, 280k in 6 minutes? Or could he only access 70,000 total, and is the time in which he did it irrelevant to the story? These are the interesting questions to ask, because they would actually tell us something significant, and wouldn't smack of a lame attempt to analogize something in terms of football fields (or going 0 to 100 in x seconds).
Slashdot Mirror
Theology is not a science. Science involves experiments, and not of the 'thought' variety: empirically testable hypotheses.
Also, while there are indeed non-religious people who believe irrational and arbitrary things, religious people are grouped together on the basis of their irrational and arbitrary beliefs. It's the difference between a sack of 'things that were at one point in time attached to something made of iron' and a sack of magnets; having been attached to iron doesn't really tell you anything else about what kind of thing it is, but being a magnet does.
If mimicking humans is evil all mimes will burn in hell.
Because they have no free will nor do they suffer from original sin.
Alternate response: robots don't dim or sever our connection to god because we have no connection to god because god doesn't exist.
So are ice cubes, term papers and elephants. What's your point?
I have to admit I'm not up on my vegan dogma, but don't insects qualify as animals?
Is the lesson "let 90% of all life forms die out so the re-filling of ecological niches leads to greater biodiversity, and the possible re-emergence of the dinosaurs"? Because if so, dinosaurs are indeed pretty badass.
I'm not a cyborg.
No, compared to the wide range of new facebook options, male and female have quite precise definitions. Just because there are a lot of vague predicates (e.g., exactly how many hairs do you need to lose before you're considered bald?) does not mean that there are no degrees of imprecision. 'Goth' is vaguer than 'horse', which is vaguer than 'ice cube', which is vaguer than 'the sun'.
"Precision is not of the utmost concern" is probably not what you want to say for two reasons. First, if precision is not of the utmost concern then the labels 'male' and 'female' would do fine for all human beings and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Second, how can you self-identify as something when that something has no set meaning? Self-identification is a process of relating yourself to other structures out there in the world, so that you can say "yes, that is like me! I do things like those other people!" and make yourself understood, to others or yourself. But if the words you use to determine your identity lack any kind of stable meaning then they are useless for what you're using them for, because they determine nothing.
But this is not more precise language, because none of these terms have rigid definitions, because the people who use them use them inconsistently. More precise language is always to be welcomed, but more terms does not necessarily mean more definitions.
Because the thing that allows language to be a communicative tool is that words have the same meaning for almost everyone. Rather than providing clarification, this glut of undefined terms destroy the ability of language to convey meaning.
Not as good as the one about self-destructing chips, still pretty good
It's terrible. I haven't seen such horrors since I had a fever dream about At the Mountains of Madness.
What Britain really needs is a real Sherlock Holmes. He can only invade your privacy if you're within his sight.
The interesting thing is that there are no real losses in the case of bit-torrent, because the projections of losses are based on counterfactuals (if x had not downloaded y then...), i.e. possible worlds that are not the actual one. As long as the ontological status of possible worlds is not settled, the reality of the losses is not settled, and so being prosecuted for torrenting based on the supposed losses you have caused someone is no different from being prosecuted for imagined murder, or imaginary pickpocketing.
If David Lewis were still alive the RIAA/MPAA would be writing him such a massive fucking research grant cheque right now.
No, the ambiguity lies in the summary (and possibly TFA). I posted to point out the absurdity.
And for people like you there's the Road Kill Grill http://johnmullsmeats.com/road...
I, on the other hand, am ok with taking antihistamines (and the advances of science generally) instead of intestinal parasites to keep my allergies under control.
makes breasts a curious adaptation.
Chess seems a zero sum game to me. The utility you lose in losing a piece is equal to the utility I gain by you losing that piece. Or in the case of a sacrifice, the utility you gain by losing a piece is equal to the utility I lose by you losing a piece.
If you plan for the future, you don't have to get angry at the present.
It's typical moron drivel trying to drive their point home by attempting to induce guilt rather than by rational argument. It's a last ditch effort at trying to effect some kind of change in the world outside so they don't have to change themselves.
I don't know what kind of system of black mail has given you the power to turn /. into your personal blog, but please stop using it like one. Length does not equal insight, your posts are not more or less important than those of other users, stop shitting up /.
If I hadn't already taken part in this discussion I would upvote you. ""GOTO!" he cries out," is a brilliant line and should really be the opening of 'Waiting for GOTO'
Code itself is simply a set of rules tying words and symbols to operations on a system. Learning those rules won't make you better at anything but learning rules. What will help you develop as a thinker is learning the underlying theory and ideas of a closely related field -- computer science. Thinking up your own solution to the dining philosophers problem, the knapsack problem or even understanding how you can describe the solution to the towers of Hanoi as an iterative process all help you develop problem solving skills and grant deeper insight into solving other problems. Simply learning a new coding language (unless that language is interestingly 'conceptually' (for lack of a better word) different from one you already know, like learning LISP when all you know is BASIC) won't improve much.
Discussing the meta-narrative implied by errant GOTO statements? Considering the motivations of while loops? Debating the thematic development in variable naming schemes?
Learning from anything means analyzing it, knowing what goes where for what reason, and then thinking about if there are other ways to do it, better ways to do it, if it needs to be done at all, etc. When you're reading with the intent to understand and you're doing something that's not appreciably different from simply 'viewing words' you're doing something wrong.
If he could access 70,000 in 4 minutes, does that mean he could access 140,000 in 8 minutes? 140k In 5 minutes, 280k in 6 minutes? Or could he only access 70,000 total, and is the time in which he did it irrelevant to the story? These are the interesting questions to ask, because they would actually tell us something significant, and wouldn't smack of a lame attempt to analogize something in terms of football fields (or going 0 to 100 in x seconds).