1. people will still drive 2. cruise control will advance to auto-following 3. diesel hybrids will take over, achieving awesome, high double digit mileages
The most annoying thing about dealing with NTP for me was that nowhere in the documentation or on the 'net was there a clear, simple, one-command way to sync a machine's time to a given time server.
I agree. A book and a movie based on it are like a polynomial, with the difference that the movie is a little underspecified. Therefore, I find that reading the book first helps with the movie, since the extra data points let make sense of it better. Case in point: LOTR; I would've been totally fucking lost if I hadn't read the paper version first.
Butchering the analogy further, if the polynomials turn out unequal, the degree of inequality shows how far the adaptation strayed from the book.
On Massachusetts highways, I find that if I drive less than 75mph, I don't keep up with the flow of traffic. Somehow the traffic flow finds its own safe speed, which is definitely not 55 (or 65).
It helps that the police don't enforce the limit too strictly; I drove 80mph past troopers chilling in speed traps many times, and they just didn't care. I hope they are waiting for the assholes that tailgate and weave at 110mph.
Bah! Why is nobody amazed when I experiment with gas/air mixture, change oil, change the water pump, and put in new shock absorbers??? My car can now position itself too!
You're right; being ignorant of a detailed definition of ID, I was confusing it with some sort of radical Creationism. I suppose both ID and evolution will have a tough time with self-awareness, and hence this mess.
Actually, no. I only had one class where we even gave it discussion time..."Philosophy and Religion".
Exactly. There is no such argument yet. So far there are only failed attempts, which are still worth teaching.
If you agreed with my original post, which you seem to be saying, then why would you attribute such an utterly false point of view to me?
You said "I ask that this be taught in Philosophy classes...new students always need clear examples of bad arguments." and "But as for being taught seriously in Philosophy? You must be joking." I suppose these two sentences conflict each other; one says teach it; the other says don't. If you meant the former: I agree it should be taught, because it's an important part of history of philosophy. I disagree that AFD is a bad argument; I'd call it failed. If you meant the latter: I disagree, obviously, since I already said it should be taught. What do you mean "seriously?" As opposed to telling it in jokes?
In my GP I said argument by design should be taught in Philosophy. It is, after all, one of the past failed attempts. I guess you didn't have time to agree or disagree with this. (You did have time to call me a retard and a pothead, though; good going for someone extolling logic and philosophical methods).
Why does it belong in a philosophy classroom? It's pseudoscience, not philosophy.
Because it is argument from design, and is an important historical approach to proving God's existence that is already taught in introductory Philosophy.
You are the one joking here. I suppose you will cite a logical, true, provable argument for the existence of God that you learned in your philosophy classes, yes?
I don't see why argument from design shouldn't be taught in Philosophy. It's part of its history, just like Kant's, Spinoza's, Kierkegaard's, etc. etc. arguments.
I'm European, so excuse my ignorance, but I really don't see why it should, from what I can tell it doesn't have any philosophical bearing. Or what is the philosophy that should be discussed in class?
It surprises me that, despite being European, you apparently don't know about argument from design. This stuff is basic, and was taught even in our barbaric Eastern European high school philosophy class.
Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.
Right, but what does "provable" mean? You probably meant provable within the modern scientific framework; unfortunately, the axioms of this framework are based on faith, so why should they be given precedence over any other faith-based frameworks?
I think a more practical criterion works better, such as whether a framework lets us accomplish useful work as perceived by humans. Modern science let us do marvelous things; can your intelligent designer heal as many sick or build electrical infrastructure?
Ultimately, though, there is no conclusive argument pro or con. They can always argue that the Devil is deceiving our perception, etc. The only way out is appealing to common sense, or war.
US czar: What do you do about treatment? China czar: The pirates... they treat themselves. They exceed the bandwidth limit and there is one less to worry about!
Slashdot Mirror
Given how regular MRI's work, I would think it would be dangerous to have particles of highly magnetic mineral in your bloodstream while near one :)
1. people will still drive
2. cruise control will advance to auto-following
3. diesel hybrids will take over, achieving awesome, high double digit mileages
I call dibs on watching Jenna Jameson's tombstone!
Sorry, this was way before google, and it left me permanently traumatized :)
The most annoying thing about dealing with NTP for me was that nowhere in the documentation or on the 'net was there a clear, simple, one-command way to sync a machine's time to a given time server.
Better hope that the only nanotubes in there are in that roll!
I agree. A book and a movie based on it are like a polynomial, with the difference that the movie is a little underspecified. Therefore, I find that reading the book first helps with the movie, since the extra data points let make sense of it better. Case in point: LOTR; I would've been totally fucking lost if I hadn't read the paper version first.
Butchering the analogy further, if the polynomials turn out unequal, the degree of inequality shows how far the adaptation strayed from the book.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
It's cheap compared to the $1800 a year for one car I used to pay in NY... granted it was a younger license but still.
I was intrigued by saving money on my car insurance, so I gave them a call. That's when I found out they don't operate in Massachusetts.
Oh well, insurance here is cheap enough already. ($600 a year for two cars).
On Massachusetts highways, I find that if I drive less than 75mph, I don't keep up with the flow of traffic. Somehow the traffic flow finds its own safe speed, which is definitely not 55 (or 65).
It helps that the police don't enforce the limit too strictly; I drove 80mph past troopers chilling in speed traps many times, and they just didn't care. I hope they are waiting for the assholes that tailgate and weave at 110mph.
I thought they said they would never make their own distribution. It's finally happening!
Bah! Why is nobody amazed when I experiment with gas/air mixture, change oil, change the water pump, and put in new shock absorbers??? My car can now position itself too!
You're right; being ignorant of a detailed definition of ID, I was confusing it with some sort of radical Creationism. I suppose both ID and evolution will have a tough time with self-awareness, and hence this mess.
Actually, no. I only had one class where we even gave it discussion time..."Philosophy and Religion".
Exactly. There is no such argument yet. So far there are only failed attempts, which are still worth teaching.
If you agreed with my original post, which you seem to be saying, then why would you attribute such an utterly false point of view to me?
You said "I ask that this be taught in Philosophy classes...new students always need clear examples of bad arguments." and "But as for being taught seriously in Philosophy? You must be joking." I suppose these two sentences conflict each other; one says teach it; the other says don't. If you meant the former: I agree it should be taught, because it's an important part of history of philosophy. I disagree that AFD is a bad argument; I'd call it failed. If you meant the latter: I disagree, obviously, since I already said it should be taught. What do you mean "seriously?" As opposed to telling it in jokes?
In my GP I said argument by design should be taught in Philosophy. It is, after all, one of the past failed attempts. I guess you didn't have time to agree or disagree with this. (You did have time to call me a retard and a pothead, though; good going for someone extolling logic and philosophical methods).
Why does it belong in a philosophy classroom? It's pseudoscience, not philosophy.
Because it is argument from design, and is an important historical approach to proving God's existence that is already taught in introductory Philosophy.
You are the one joking here. I suppose you will cite a logical, true, provable argument for the existence of God that you learned in your philosophy classes, yes?
I don't see why argument from design shouldn't be taught in Philosophy. It's part of its history, just like Kant's, Spinoza's, Kierkegaard's, etc. etc. arguments.
I'm European, so excuse my ignorance, but I really don't see why it should, from what I can tell it doesn't have any philosophical bearing. Or what is the philosophy that should be discussed in class?
It surprises me that, despite being European, you apparently don't know about argument from design. This stuff is basic, and was taught even in our barbaric Eastern European high school philosophy class.
Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.
Right, but what does "provable" mean? You probably meant provable within the modern scientific framework; unfortunately, the axioms of this framework are based on faith, so why should they be given precedence over any other faith-based frameworks?
I think a more practical criterion works better, such as whether a framework lets us accomplish useful work as perceived by humans. Modern science let us do marvelous things; can your intelligent designer heal as many sick or build electrical infrastructure?
Ultimately, though, there is no conclusive argument pro or con. They can always argue that the Devil is deceiving our perception, etc. The only way out is appealing to common sense, or war.
Send off death-row inmates or other criminals. Next thing you know, there'll be a whole colony with weird maps and funky accents.
The 300-mile record will break the highest altitude Wi-Fi as well ;)
If you use PayPal, make sure to use a credit card, so you can contest the charge later on!
US czar: What do you do about treatment?
China czar: The pirates... they treat themselves. They exceed the bandwidth limit and there is one less to worry about!
Worse than that, what's going to happen to all us Linux guys with /dev/random? "Random, eh? Nice try now hand over the keys!"