This ship is no more Mars capable than my Dad's Buick. It it too much to ask that Reuters get the story straight? I guess newspapers are in so much financial trouble that they have to lie in their headlines to sell copy.
Wait, wouldn't that same logic tell me that all humans are bad? Or more precisely that all groups of humans are bad?
People do a lot of horrible things, but by saying that all religions are bad, you're only telling half (or maybe less than half) of the story. A lot of good comes from religion, too. The end of slavery in the West, for example.
I forgot to add, religion is defamation of logic and reason. Which is why it would also have to be outlawed.
Demonstrably false. Christianity for example draws heavily on the thinking of Aristotle and others who greatly prize reason.
What you claim might be true of a non-Hellenized religion, I can't really speak to that. But many western religions, such as Catholicism, will reject certain theological notions simply because they are logically absurd.
I'm afraid I have to call horsefeathers on you. No legislature anywhere is calling upon high school teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of relativity. What's going on here is an obvious attempt to give the creationists a wedge to jam their ideas into the public classroom. To suggest otherwise is insulting.
Of course, they only need to resort to tactics like this because the creationist ideas are untenable.
How is this quotation begging the question? It's perfectly logical. He's a Christian who believes the Bible. The Bible says that "God created the heavens and the earth." So he believes that.
That's not any more circular than saying "I am a mathematician, therefore I can do integrals."
Why are we still arguing about something that was settled definitively nearly 800 years ago? Though he did not use the terms "science" and "religion", Albert the Great used the terms "natural philosophy" and "theology". Summarizing what he wrote in the modern terms, he observed that...
Science and religion can not conflict because they are both avenues to the truth. If they ever appear to conflict, then it can only be because you are doing bad science or doing bad religion.
Applying this to the current discussion: When creationists deny evolution, they are doing bad theology. They're missing the point of the creation story, which is not that the world is 6000 years old, but that creation is good and on purpose.
Of course, scientists can also be guilty of doing bad science. Just because it's useful to model the universe as indifferent, it doesn't logically follow that our lives are without meaning.
I can offer a trial solution to why some religious leaders perceive evolution as a threat. Part of the answer to your question is that some religions just can't get into the habit of letting their adherents ask questions and use reason. If they did, these leaders know they'd lose.
For example, Suppose it's okay to use reason and therefore accept that evolution is true. Then it would also be okay to use reason and reject the notion that God affords salvation only to those of a certain religion. It's logically absurd that He would doom the vast majority of all the humans created.
You'll tend to find that the folks who cling to creationism are the same ones who believe that anybody who doesn't subscribe to their own religion can't be saved. Both notions can be rejected as absurd.
The profound irony about this is that the stalwart defender of the literal interpretation of the Bible probably knows nothing -- zero -- about who wrote the Bible and how it came into his hands. It's simply amazing how people can be very comfortable with basing their lives on something, but never spending any energy learning about the archaeology, history, language, or context that would make that something (the scriptures) understandable.
Respectfully disagree. The damage done by an incoming asteroid is primarily from all that potential energy arriving at the Earth. Even if you could attach a parachute to "lose more energy to the upper atmosphere" our planet still loses.
This is the same reason why nuking the asteroid into dust won't help, if all those tiny particles still hit us.
... on whether Pons & Fleischmann were outright charlatans or they just accidentally deceived themselves. I mean, do we know whether they were deliberately snake oil salesmen, or did they just let their enthusiasm get the better of them?
Three almost identical languages after toiling away for computer science degree? It sounds more like a computer programming degree.
Go with Java and learn the JVM and the standard libraries the best you can. Then you'll be better poised to learn some Scala, Clojure, and Groovy, whose principles you'll really need to round out your education.
I also suspect some managers hire the inept out of fear of being replaced.
I recall one very promising candidate who actually wrote a book on the technology we needed. Having interviewed him, I can think of no other reason than fear why the manager nixed the hire.
Yes, you do have to do what your boss tells you to do, except in those cases where you don't. If someone's life is at stake, your conscience should compel you to disobey orders. This doesn't seem to rise to that level, though.
Well, quantum mechanics is weird. It defies the common sense our brains have acquired living in a macroscopic world. So please pardon me if what I write seems weird, or even more metaphysical than scientific.
You write that "the uncertainty principle was all about measurements, and altering things whenever you try to look at it." Well, almost but not quite. The measurement isn't altering the thing being looked at. The measurement is actually bringing the object's properties into existence.
I've often heard it explained that the uncertainty principle follows from the fact that to look at an object, you have to bounce a photon off of it, which alters it. So you can't measure it accurately. That's a classical analogy that doesn't really capture what we think is going on at the quantum level. To repeat, this analogy is bad. I know it's weird, but...
It's not that the object has an unmeasurable position and momentum that gets perturbed by the photon. It's more accurate to say that the object's position and momentum don't really exist until an attempt is made to measure them.
In other words, it not merely that you the observer can't know what the vacuum's position and momentum are, the vacuum itself can't. A constant zero for both momentum and position would allow nature to violate the uncertainty principle. So a true vacuum can't exist.
Respectfully, AC has confused two unrelated uses of the term "Von Neumann." In this context, the poster is referring to a particular computer architecture, which executes instructions sequentially rather than in parallel. The "Von Neumann self-replicating machine" idea to which you are referring is more of a science fiction notion, which is not really applicable here.
Such a beautiful machine! I loved working on the MasPar back in the 90's. I remember the eureka moment when my brain clicked, and I stopped thinking Von Neumannly. To this day, those experiences shape how I approach Clojure and Scala.
I realize this was funny, but in my experience, HR lays themselves off first, and then work as contractors to downsize others. There's a certain nobility in that.
Slashdot Mirror
This ship is no more Mars capable than my Dad's Buick. It it too much to ask that Reuters get the story straight? I guess newspapers are in so much financial trouble that they have to lie in their headlines to sell copy.
DynaSoar, you neglected to mention whether you are married with kids.
If yours is a true and good religion, it can withstand criticism... right?
Amen!
Wait, wouldn't that same logic tell me that all humans are bad? Or more precisely that all groups of humans are bad?
People do a lot of horrible things, but by saying that all religions are bad, you're only telling half (or maybe less than half) of the story. A lot of good comes from religion, too. The end of slavery in the West, for example.
It is a non-binding resolution, which is another way to say, "We think this is an idea." That's all, now move along.
Yeah, 'cause, ideas aren't powerful.
It's like butter mixed with broken glass.
That's the most delicious simile I've read in a long time.
I forgot to add, religion is defamation of logic and reason. Which is why it would also have to be outlawed.
Demonstrably false. Christianity for example draws heavily on the thinking of Aristotle and others who greatly prize reason.
What you claim might be true of a non-Hellenized religion, I can't really speak to that. But many western religions, such as Catholicism, will reject certain theological notions simply because they are logically absurd.
Art is the intersection, or perhaps collision, of theory & praxis.
Artistic has become a pejorative term in the AC's mind because so many people who are not artists claim to be.
I'm afraid I have to call horsefeathers on you. No legislature anywhere is calling upon high school teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of relativity. What's going on here is an obvious attempt to give the creationists a wedge to jam their ideas into the public classroom. To suggest otherwise is insulting.
Of course, they only need to resort to tactics like this because the creationist ideas are untenable.
How is this quotation begging the question? It's perfectly logical. He's a Christian who believes the Bible. The Bible says that "God created the heavens and the earth." So he believes that.
That's not any more circular than saying "I am a mathematician, therefore I can do integrals."
Why are we still arguing about something that was settled definitively nearly 800 years ago? Though he did not use the terms "science" and "religion", Albert the Great used the terms "natural philosophy" and "theology". Summarizing what he wrote in the modern terms, he observed that...
Science and religion can not conflict because they are both avenues to the truth. If they ever appear to conflict, then it can only be because you are doing bad science or doing bad religion.
Applying this to the current discussion: When creationists deny evolution, they are doing bad theology. They're missing the point of the creation story, which is not that the world is 6000 years old, but that creation is good and on purpose.
Of course, scientists can also be guilty of doing bad science. Just because it's useful to model the universe as indifferent, it doesn't logically follow that our lives are without meaning.
I can offer a trial solution to why some religious leaders perceive evolution as a threat. Part of the answer to your question is that some religions just can't get into the habit of letting their adherents ask questions and use reason. If they did, these leaders know they'd lose.
For example, Suppose it's okay to use reason and therefore accept that evolution is true. Then it would also be okay to use reason and reject the notion that God affords salvation only to those of a certain religion. It's logically absurd that He would doom the vast majority of all the humans created.
You'll tend to find that the folks who cling to creationism are the same ones who believe that anybody who doesn't subscribe to their own religion can't be saved. Both notions can be rejected as absurd.
The profound irony about this is that the stalwart defender of the literal interpretation of the Bible probably knows nothing -- zero -- about who wrote the Bible and how it came into his hands. It's simply amazing how people can be very comfortable with basing their lives on something, but never spending any energy learning about the archaeology, history, language, or context that would make that something (the scriptures) understandable.
Better yet wait for the next virus hits and then blame it on windows
There. Fixed that for you.
Respectfully disagree. The damage done by an incoming asteroid is primarily from all that potential energy arriving at the Earth. Even if you could attach a parachute to "lose more energy to the upper atmosphere" our planet still loses.
This is the same reason why nuking the asteroid into dust won't help, if all those tiny particles still hit us.
... on whether Pons & Fleischmann were outright charlatans or they just accidentally deceived themselves. I mean, do we know whether they were deliberately snake oil salesmen, or did they just let their enthusiasm get the better of them?
Three almost identical languages after toiling away for computer science degree? It sounds more like a computer programming degree.
Go with Java and learn the JVM and the standard libraries the best you can. Then you'll be better poised to learn some Scala, Clojure, and Groovy, whose principles you'll really need to round out your education.
For us non-Europeans, could someone offer a little explanation of what A-levels are?
I also suspect some managers hire the inept out of fear of being replaced.
I recall one very promising candidate who actually wrote a book on the technology we needed. Having interviewed him, I can think of no other reason than fear why the manager nixed the hire.
Yes, you do have to do what your boss tells you to do, except in those cases where you don't. If someone's life is at stake, your conscience should compel you to disobey orders. This doesn't seem to rise to that level, though.
Well, quantum mechanics is weird. It defies the common sense our brains have acquired living in a macroscopic world. So please pardon me if what I write seems weird, or even more metaphysical than scientific.
You write that "the uncertainty principle was all about measurements, and altering things whenever you try to look at it." Well, almost but not quite. The measurement isn't altering the thing being looked at. The measurement is actually bringing the object's properties into existence.
I've often heard it explained that the uncertainty principle follows from the fact that to look at an object, you have to bounce a photon off of it, which alters it. So you can't measure it accurately. That's a classical analogy that doesn't really capture what we think is going on at the quantum level. To repeat, this analogy is bad. I know it's weird, but...
It's not that the object has an unmeasurable position and momentum that gets perturbed by the photon. It's more accurate to say that the object's position and momentum don't really exist until an attempt is made to measure them.
In other words, it not merely that you the observer can't know what the vacuum's position and momentum are, the vacuum itself can't. A constant zero for both momentum and position would allow nature to violate the uncertainty principle. So a true vacuum can't exist.
Can anyone shore up the claim that Feynman said this? A bit of googling turned up nothing.
Respectfully, AC has confused two unrelated uses of the term "Von Neumann." In this context, the poster is referring to a particular computer architecture, which executes instructions sequentially rather than in parallel. The "Von Neumann self-replicating machine" idea to which you are referring is more of a science fiction notion, which is not really applicable here.
Such a beautiful machine! I loved working on the MasPar back in the 90's. I remember the eureka moment when my brain clicked, and I stopped thinking Von Neumannly. To this day, those experiences shape how I approach Clojure and Scala.
I realize this was funny, but in my experience, HR lays themselves off first, and then work as contractors to downsize others. There's a certain nobility in that.
Oh, wait, I guess nice guys DO finish last.