Missiles with homing beacons on them. Hopefully our enemies use them, too.
Re:how about "creationism" crap?
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's plenty more wrong with genesis besides the length of the days. The order of the appearance of life forms is wrong, including where the some plants appear before the sun. Genesis also implies that the Earth is older than the sun.
So...the explanation for our complex universe is an even more complex universe that contains it? How does that help? And how *do* you test for that, by the way?
It seems to me that if you really want to take Intelligent Design seriously as a scientific hypothesis, you must first do away with scripture that is factually incorrect and contradictory even when interpreted abstractly on favourable terms that are hardly justified. You also would do well to study some other religions, Zen Buddhism for example, that have delved even deaper into meaning and spirituality than Christianity has.
For example, you asked rhetorically
Was it purposeless and uncaused, or designed?
There's an interesting psychology experiment (read here on slashdot) where they put you in a room with two strings dangling from the ceiling. You're asked to tie the strings together. Holding one sting, you can't reach the other one. With out cutting or taking down the strings, how do you do it? All you have to work with is a pair of pliars. (BTW, even with extended reach of the pliars, you still can't reach the other string.)
They aren't selling an item, they're selling a service, the transfer of in-game virtual ownership, a service they have the right to perform. Why not lot them get fair value for carrying it out? And if Blizard doesn't want them to get fair value, then why do they let them have the right?
My wife learned English as a second language in grade school. She understands mistakes like split infinitives and dangling participles. She knows what the subjunctive sense is.
I went to way above average public schools, and I've only encountered these in passing.
The first I'd ever heard of the subjunctive sense was in highschool Spanish. The concept was outlandish. The whole class was puzzled. The teacher finally explained to us that English also had a subjunctive sense.
Without God's absolutes the young/old/unborn can be killed due to arbitrary/relative reasoning that only humans create.
So, you're saying there aren't absolutes from God? Just as I've always suspected, cause you know those people certainly can be killed for any arbitrary reason, or no reason at all!
with comparing a terrorist act with a lapse (intentional or otherwise) of safety.
Why not compare?
Osama believes the lives of thousands of innocent Americans are less important than his insane plans for Islam.
The US believes the lives of thousands of innocent Indians are less important than avoiding a precedent of holding corporations and their executives accountable for mass slaughter.
Our position on corporate negligence is no less despicable than Osama's on terrorism, and at least as deadly.
BTW, an accident is only an accident if you shoulder responsiblity for it. If you shirk it, then it becomes something worse.
We once ran a set of experiments where we compared subjective taste tests against the physical properties of apples. At first, the tester were told to jot down any number of single words like "crisp" or "sour", as they ate the apple. We started to see some interesting clustering around some of the words.
Well, some people don't like qualitative data, so they switch the experiment to a score. Now testers were told to give the "sourness" a numerical value.
All of a sudden, we had white noise. Data became highly correllated with previous apples, and the clustering disappeared. Why? No standards. People could only measure one apple relative to another.
Similarly, when you're playing a game, you don't have any basis for thinking "Whoah, dude, this is gameplay 4 out of 5!" Except in relation to some previous 3 out of 5 game, itself arbitrarily scored that just happened to be in your mind when you were fabricating the new scores out of pure nothingness.
Jesus never talked about abortion that we know of. "Pro-Choice", while a bullwark plank of the Democratic party, is not a particularly liberal position. There are hordes of "Pro-life" liberals, and liberals everywhere would agree that reducing abortions is an important goal.
Meanwhile, "Pro-life", though a bullwark of the Republican party, is a position not shared by legions of conservatives.
but Jesus says that even lusting after another woman is adultery in your heart.
Do you have any idea why he says this? Let me ask you a couple of questions: Did Jesus ever lust after a woman in his heart? Have you? Don't you recall that famous bit where he puts a stop to a stoning?
If Jesus were a liberal, would he condone capital punishment? Yes. The Book of Numbers clearly defines when capital punishment is acceptable.
You might have a point, if Jesus didn't directly contradict Numbers by interceding to save people who were being executed under its law, admonishing those who would carry it out! Do you even know this righteous long haired hippy whom you claim to worship?
But I do know that Jesus gave a speech called the Sermon on the Mount that taught people how to live their lives morally and ethically.
To see what sort of political leader Jesus is, you ought to read more Sermon on the Mount. Republicans who are Jesus fans love citing the old testement, but when it comes to the gospels, the actual words of their hero, they don't seem to have much to say.
If we did build millions of these bots, we'd have to ask China (and all of our other creditors) politely to pay for them for us.
On top of that, since we've let them suck away all of our manufacturing over the last 25 years, we'd have to ask them to build them for us, too.
He gets the decline of manufacturing jobs completely wrong. The Rust Belt isn't called the Rust Belt because its filled with shiny new robotic factories.
That's the underreported part of this story. Our shining champion in the spam epidemic is long-time villain in the spyware epidemic. No thanks, I'll pass.
Slashdot Mirror
Missiles with homing beacons on them. Hopefully our enemies use them, too.
So...the explanation for our complex universe is an even more complex universe that contains it? How does that help? And how *do* you test for that, by the way?
It seems to me that if you really want to take Intelligent Design seriously as a scientific hypothesis, you must first do away with scripture that is factually incorrect and contradictory even when interpreted abstractly on favourable terms that are hardly justified. You also would do well to study some other religions, Zen Buddhism for example, that have delved even deaper into meaning and spirituality than Christianity has.
For example, you asked rhetorically Was it purposeless and uncaused, or designed?
There's an interesting psychology experiment (read here on slashdot) where they put you in a room with two strings dangling from the ceiling. You're asked to tie the strings together. Holding one sting, you can't reach the other one. With out cutting or taking down the strings, how do you do it? All you have to work with is a pair of pliars. (BTW, even with extended reach of the pliars, you still can't reach the other string.)
Yes. Where would they be without the Big Bang?
Why don't we spend more time trying to get hardware manufacturers to support open-standards?
Let people see.
Find ways to support and promote OSS school labs.
Find ways to take the lead and increase profile in growing markets around the world.
How is that cheating? Your argument applies to anyone who is gifted any item. Are you saying that game mechanic ought to be removed?
They aren't selling an item, they're selling a service, the transfer of in-game virtual ownership, a service they have the right to perform. Why not lot them get fair value for carrying it out? And if Blizard doesn't want them to get fair value, then why do they let them have the right?
In Japan, talking PCs are for schoolgirls.
I went to way above average public schools, and I've only encountered these in passing.
The first I'd ever heard of the subjunctive sense was in highschool Spanish. The concept was outlandish. The whole class was puzzled. The teacher finally explained to us that English also had a subjunctive sense.
The only conlusion is that they've cheated us.
I can't see anything in the picture that could be making such a shadow, BTW.
Aren't man-in-the-middle attacks illegal? Howcome these guys aren't in jail?
Act I
Scene I
silence...and so on.
In this version, the fancy twirling swordsman shoots first.
They don't keep the nukes in the Taj Mahal, would they?....On second thought, the Pakistanis would never dare blow it up, so maybe they do just that.
So, you're saying there aren't absolutes from God? Just as I've always suspected, cause you know those people certainly can be killed for any arbitrary reason, or no reason at all!
Even if they ammend the consitution, there's no way Harrison Ford will let an ex-Nazi win the Whitehouse.
The entire world celebrated for like a month. I *still* can't hardly believe we beat that mofo.
On your number four, you need to check for x=0, which isn't a power of two.
Why not compare?
Osama believes the lives of thousands of innocent Americans are less important than his insane plans for Islam.
The US believes the lives of thousands of innocent Indians are less important than avoiding a precedent of holding corporations and their executives accountable for mass slaughter.
Our position on corporate negligence is no less despicable than Osama's on terrorism, and at least as deadly.
BTW, an accident is only an accident if you shoulder responsiblity for it. If you shirk it, then it becomes something worse.
We once ran a set of experiments where we compared subjective taste tests against the physical properties of apples. At first, the tester were told to jot down any number of single words like "crisp" or "sour", as they ate the apple. We started to see some interesting clustering around some of the words.
Well, some people don't like qualitative data, so they switch the experiment to a score. Now testers were told to give the "sourness" a numerical value.
All of a sudden, we had white noise. Data became highly correllated with previous apples, and the clustering disappeared. Why? No standards. People could only measure one apple relative to another.
Similarly, when you're playing a game, you don't have any basis for thinking "Whoah, dude, this is gameplay 4 out of 5!" Except in relation to some previous 3 out of 5 game, itself arbitrarily scored that just happened to be in your mind when you were fabricating the new scores out of pure nothingness.
Jesus never talked about abortion that we know of. "Pro-Choice", while a bullwark plank of the Democratic party, is not a particularly liberal position. There are hordes of "Pro-life" liberals, and liberals everywhere would agree that reducing abortions is an important goal.
Meanwhile, "Pro-life", though a bullwark of the Republican party, is a position not shared by legions of conservatives.
but Jesus says that even lusting after another woman is adultery in your heart.
Do you have any idea why he says this? Let me ask you a couple of questions: Did Jesus ever lust after a woman in his heart? Have you? Don't you recall that famous bit where he puts a stop to a stoning?
If Jesus were a liberal, would he condone capital punishment? Yes. The Book of Numbers clearly defines when capital punishment is acceptable.
You might have a point, if Jesus didn't directly contradict Numbers by interceding to save people who were being executed under its law, admonishing those who would carry it out! Do you even know this righteous long haired hippy whom you claim to worship?
But I do know that Jesus gave a speech called the Sermon on the Mount that taught people how to live their lives morally and ethically.
To see what sort of political leader Jesus is, you ought to read more Sermon on the Mount. Republicans who are Jesus fans love citing the old testement, but when it comes to the gospels, the actual words of their hero, they don't seem to have much to say.
If we did build millions of these bots, we'd have to ask China (and all of our other creditors) politely to pay for them for us. On top of that, since we've let them suck away all of our manufacturing over the last 25 years, we'd have to ask them to build them for us, too.
Sex is like choosing a sig. If you're gonna get it from anybody, it might as well be Mae West.
That fits too, because of the bubbles in the beer.
He gets the decline of manufacturing jobs completely wrong. The Rust Belt isn't called the Rust Belt because its filled with shiny new robotic factories.
That's the underreported part of this story. Our shining champion in the spam epidemic is long-time villain in the spyware epidemic. No thanks, I'll pass.