Nope. The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that there are no tree fairies, sky pixies, or moon monkeys. He put them into his celestial marinara sauce on the Day of Parmesan, 6000 years ago.
So let it be written, so let it be done. Ra-men. Hal-linguini.
I was speaking specifically about Newton's Three Laws of Motion, which I'm pretty sure were written by Newton.
Call me crazy.
The Catholic Church is not identical with Christianity. As a matter of fact, there's a good argument to be made that it's antithetical to Christianity, but that's a different discussion entirely.
Well, I think it's particularly amusing that you bring up Aristotle. Didn't he say that all things would fall at rates proportional to their sizes, and then decided not to do experiments because in his brain it was obvious that it was so? Didn't his beliefs persist for 1000 years? Wasn't it Newton (hey...what religion was he again?) who started putting nails in that coffin?
Your history of scientific rationalism is painting with a pretty broad brush. It's not always Christians Vs. Everybody.
So why aren't you in favor of searching people who walk into shopping malls? Or restaurants?
Bottom line is, airline security is more about the illusion of security than actual security, and I think that's a poor trade for being treated like a criminal when I want to board an aircraft.
"point-and-shoots have a lens that's set up to focus at infinity, giving a huge depth-of-focus and a "far-away" looking shot."
Uh, except for those new-fangledy "auto-focusing" 35mm cameras. Ever heard of those?
"the only difference between a low-end digital and a nice SLR is really the lens and the resolution"
Right. Apart from lens quality and CCD resolution, what are the things one shops for in a camera?
Even at modest resolutions, the output from DSLRs is superior to that available from modestly priced digital cameras. I'd have never guessed that there's a big difference, but there is.
Where can I read the terms of this social contract?
What's that you say? It exists only in the fevered brains of marketing pukes trying to justify their own existence? Right then...guess I don't have to worry about it very much...
You're telling me "Well, you look pre-disposed to Moofie's Syndrome. Never really liked people with Moofie's Syndrome...guess you're out of luck!"
I understand that the doctor needs to know the family history to make sound diagnoses. I do not understand why a doctor could, in good conscience, refuse to treat somebody because they have a genetic pre-disposition. In your example, you're using family history to narrow the scope of the problem, which is a) entirely appropriate and b) absolutely necessary. I'm talking about capriciously refusing to treat somebody because you don't like the look of their genes, which is exactly what the insurance companies are falling all over themselves to get to do.
"Genetic health screening is already done to an extent when doctors ask you about illnesses in the family, what age did your relatives die, have you got any chronic health problems."
Doctors don't make decisions based on whether to treat you or not based on that history. That history informs the doctor, and makes them aware of things they need to be on the lookout for.
I want my doctor to have as much information about my health as possible. I want anybody who's not my doctor to have as little as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
" If you were speaking of Newton you should have mentioned the Three Laws"
I was speaking of Newton, and assumed that a person of scientific bent would immediately infer the Three Laws. My bad.
"I can't see a bit of difference between Catholicism and any other Christian sect"
Then you don't know very much about the subject, do you?
"The broader point, that they both hold an extreme antipathy towards science and the scientific method, I'll stand by."
So, although you profess ignorance of the make up of modern (and historical) Christianity, you'll go ahead and assume an "extreme antipathy".
Yeah, you're really good at science. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter!
Nope. The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that there are no tree fairies, sky pixies, or moon monkeys. He put them into his celestial marinara sauce on the Day of Parmesan, 6000 years ago.
So let it be written, so let it be done. Ra-men. Hal-linguini.
I was speaking specifically about Newton's Three Laws of Motion, which I'm pretty sure were written by Newton.
Call me crazy.
The Catholic Church is not identical with Christianity. As a matter of fact, there's a good argument to be made that it's antithetical to Christianity, but that's a different discussion entirely.
What's the difference between believing somebody who tells you the Truth, and believing somebody who tells you a lie?
If you're not equipped to find truth on your own, choosing who to be a slave to is the least of your problems.
Well, I think it's particularly amusing that you bring up Aristotle. Didn't he say that all things would fall at rates proportional to their sizes, and then decided not to do experiments because in his brain it was obvious that it was so? Didn't his beliefs persist for 1000 years? Wasn't it Newton (hey...what religion was he again?) who started putting nails in that coffin?
Your history of scientific rationalism is painting with a pretty broad brush. It's not always Christians Vs. Everybody.
Not fake ones, though...
"Will they be offering these downloads without commercials?"
Yup.
Er, the vast majority of people in the world don't have reliable sanitation. What's your point?
Oh, so because YOU don't see the value, everybody else should, what? Throw their iPods into the ocean?
Portable music is not a fad. The iPod is the current market leader in the portable music market.
Yeah, like that...only not fugly.
But if that's your cup of tea, looks like Woot's selling them for $50 today.
http://www.woot.com/
No affiliation blah blah.
So why aren't you in favor of searching people who walk into shopping malls? Or restaurants?
Bottom line is, airline security is more about the illusion of security than actual security, and I think that's a poor trade for being treated like a criminal when I want to board an aircraft.
So the other five courteous, on-point replies in this thread don't count, somehow? Mmmmmkay.
Please identify for me a population that has ready access to video games, that has an overpopulation problem.
Hint: there aren't any.
How do you figure that?
Just because there are a couple rich oil sheiks doesn't mean that the population doesn't live in abject poverty...
I like it! That way, news.com.com's URL will be news.com.com.us, making it even stupider! FABU!
I am totally unhappy about the searches before boarding an aircraft. Am I no one?
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a recipe for a police state, not a civil society.
"point-and-shoots have a lens that's set up to focus at infinity, giving a huge depth-of-focus and a "far-away" looking shot."
Uh, except for those new-fangledy "auto-focusing" 35mm cameras. Ever heard of those?
"the only difference between a low-end digital and a nice SLR is really the lens and the resolution"
Right. Apart from lens quality and CCD resolution, what are the things one shops for in a camera?
Even at modest resolutions, the output from DSLRs is superior to that available from modestly priced digital cameras. I'd have never guessed that there's a big difference, but there is.
I'd love to see you comment on this post in 20 years.
I agree that that's what's happened since Abe Lincoln, but that's not the way it was designed. Have you read the 10th Amendment lately?
Where can I read the terms of this social contract?
What's that you say? It exists only in the fevered brains of marketing pukes trying to justify their own existence? Right then...guess I don't have to worry about it very much...
When thoughts of their brand are followed by "I'll eat glass before I buy anything from those pricks", that's not good from their perspective.
Recommending against treatment, in good conscience, is not even remotely similar to refusing any treatment whatsoever.
Hold on.
You're telling me "Well, you look pre-disposed to Moofie's Syndrome. Never really liked people with Moofie's Syndrome...guess you're out of luck!"
I understand that the doctor needs to know the family history to make sound diagnoses. I do not understand why a doctor could, in good conscience, refuse to treat somebody because they have a genetic pre-disposition. In your example, you're using family history to narrow the scope of the problem, which is a) entirely appropriate and b) absolutely necessary. I'm talking about capriciously refusing to treat somebody because you don't like the look of their genes, which is exactly what the insurance companies are falling all over themselves to get to do.
"Genetic health screening is already done to an extent when doctors ask you about illnesses in the family, what age did your relatives die, have you got any chronic health problems."
Doctors don't make decisions based on whether to treat you or not based on that history. That history informs the doctor, and makes them aware of things they need to be on the lookout for.
I want my doctor to have as much information about my health as possible. I want anybody who's not my doctor to have as little as possible.
"If it is one thing scientific progress has shown us is that it does not make us nicer, less grasping, or more content."
It does, however, make us die less, which is more than can be said for many forms of human endeavor.