I really have to give Melinda Gates credit for influencing Bill to start that foundation because, from what I read, Bill didn't donate anything until after he married her.
I agree, the sense of believing in 'A God' has practically nothing to do with love; it just means that one believes that there is a man upstairs. I'm sure that you'd agree with me that the notion of a superman-like god is mythological and not worth believing or worshipping. However, I believe that the nature of God is totally different from that, based more of love and truth and stuff like that, not in the sense of being a principle, but in exhibiting certain qualities, and I see and feel plenty of evidence for God's existence.
There are MANY highly intelligent, highly educated people who do support ID.
I agree with that; ID seems to attract people with some level of education and intelligence. As with any other hypothesis, even if looks true to some, it cannot take it as fact until it has been tested an scrutinized, especially since most hypothesis end up being proven false. Most scientists will not take Michael Behe's word that ID is true. Strong, repeatable evidence that survives inspection by many eyes is needed to convice doubters. That's the process that basic concepts such as gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. went through, so don't expect ID to be granted any favors.
Why does questioning evolution result in answers like "everyone knows evolution is a fact, that's a stupid question."
Basically, teaching evolution usually starts with saying what its all about. The facts behind it are so exciting that its tempting to present them without going through the tedium of explaining the rationale behind them. Its like with relativity; its fun to tell people about time dilation, but the rational behind it can be very difficult to understand.
Please understand that there is a ton of books that explain evolution, backing it up in minute, scientific detail, addressing reservation that are common among creationists. Don't take my word for it; check the "Science" section of your local bookstore.
The problem of the teaching of evolution is not the process itself, but the dogmatic confinement of "scientific" thought to internal forces and completely rejecting any possible hypotheses of any external input whatsoever.
Unless this "external input" repeats itself, it does not provide for a satisfactory element of an hypothesis. If it does prove repeatable, science can deal with it.
This is a far-future scenario, but consider if, someday, humans colonize planets in distant star systems. Understanding evolution, we know that if they are never able to travel to mate, then thousands or millions or so years later, their genes will change so much that they won't be able to bear children with other humans, and will effectively become a different species.
This is completely arbitrary. A cluster of a dozen or so undifferentiated cells (this is after conception, no?) has no concept of "Self".
I pretty much agree with you there, especially when they can still split and become twins. (I wonder if abortions really occur at that stage.)
The only way one can retroactively extend the concept of "self" all the way to conception is based on what a fetus/cell cluster/embryo becomes later. Not really; after that first two weeks or so, it really is an individual. Even if the brain hasn't yet formed, and the embroyo is not yet conscious, its still an individual, and therefore, a "Self".
I'd also like to add that the concept of "Self" is manifest after conception, not before. For instance, someone can say that "I" nearly got killed if his/her mother got close to having an abortion. On the other hand, I don't see how anyone can say with any sadness that "I" nearly didn't exist if the parents almost decided to use birth control.
I'm sure that he's very aware of the recent wars, and would be glad if the money went to NASA's budget instead. I'm sure that Saddam, Osama, and all of their friends would have preferred that too.
If you want to write $10 games that nobody buys, Torque is just fine.
...
Think how much GTA: San Andreas cost to produce, and how little of that was spend on tweaking the engine that they already had (comparable to starting with Torque).
Sure, the economics don't work out for someone who attempts to close GTA using Torque. However, simpler games cost less to make, and there is a large market for them. Someone who focuses on making simpler games should have no problem using Torque to make them.
And don't tell me about some scientists that are religious, real ones aren't. A scientist uses logic and methods throughout their entire lives.
Religion isn't a one-dimensional thing. Some are irrational about it, to be sure, and some, like me, aim to embrace "logic and methods" in religious thought.
Would a good scientist simply answer religious questions with a "yes" or "no" without a rational investigation, or would s/he embrace rationality in that field too?
because of this, that would bring Al-Qaeda to a screeching halt. The wouldn't be able to plan any attacks. They'd have to go to the libraries, then *bam*, we got'em!
Who cares how many lights the chipsets can emulate when the games themselves still suck?
I do. I consider graphics to be an important quality in games. If a game looks bad but plays well, I probably won't play it. I certainly wouldn't pay money for it. If graphics didn't matter, I'd still be playing games on a Commodore 64.
I understand your point, but I think its important to point out that terrorists choose the easiest high-profile targets they can find. The recent attacks on the concert hall and the school were failures, but recent attacks on large buildings and public trasportation were highly successful. Because of that success, I think that terrorists will continue their focus on buildings and public transportation until we secure them better.
I understand. I visited London this past January; its a very nice place. (The weather was nice too.) I have a suggestion for coping with this and rising above it: wave a British flag.
I really don't think that this attack should be played down, because the stakes are pretty high. This apparantly involves international terrorism, which can seriously erode relationships between countries, leading to other types of crisis, including war.
Façade maintain a group blog about interactive drama, poetry, art, and other such things. Its called Grand Text Auto. They usually post on several new subjects each day, and anyone can post comments there.
Considering that McDonnell-Douglas doesn't exist anymore....yeah, I'm going to totally disregard your comment as someone who has no clue what is going on
Slashdot Mirror
I really have to give Melinda Gates credit for influencing Bill to start that foundation because, from what I read, Bill didn't donate anything until after he married her.
"Kids believe Santa Claus is a man. Are you saying there is no such thing as men, that all men are a figment of man's imagination?"
Substituting "love" with "a man" doesn't make sense, except for those who love a man.
I agree, the sense of believing in 'A God' has practically nothing to do with love; it just means that one believes that there is a man upstairs. I'm sure that you'd agree with me that the notion of a superman-like god is mythological and not worth believing or worshipping. However, I believe that the nature of God is totally different from that, based more of love and truth and stuff like that, not in the sense of being a principle, but in exhibiting certain qualities, and I see and feel plenty of evidence for God's existence.
Christian believe that God is love. Are you saying that there is no love, that its a figment of man's imagination?
I agree with that; ID seems to attract people with some level of education and intelligence. As with any other hypothesis, even if looks true to some, it cannot take it as fact until it has been tested an scrutinized, especially since most hypothesis end up being proven false. Most scientists will not take Michael Behe's word that ID is true. Strong, repeatable evidence that survives inspection by many eyes is needed to convice doubters. That's the process that basic concepts such as gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. went through, so don't expect ID to be granted any favors.
I wouldn't even call it that; I'd call it Ytinaitsirhc because its so backwards.
Why does questioning evolution result in answers like "everyone knows evolution is a fact, that's a stupid question."
Basically, teaching evolution usually starts with saying what its all about. The facts behind it are so exciting that its tempting to present them without going through the tedium of explaining the rationale behind them. Its like with relativity; its fun to tell people about time dilation, but the rational behind it can be very difficult to understand.
Please understand that there is a ton of books that explain evolution, backing it up in minute, scientific detail, addressing reservation that are common among creationists. Don't take my word for it; check the "Science" section of your local bookstore.
Unless this "external input" repeats itself, it does not provide for a satisfactory element of an hypothesis. If it does prove repeatable, science can deal with it.
This is a far-future scenario, but consider if, someday, humans colonize planets in distant star systems. Understanding evolution, we know that if they are never able to travel to mate, then thousands or millions or so years later, their genes will change so much that they won't be able to bear children with other humans, and will effectively become a different species.
Lord British wouldn't be able to use his name on WOW either.
This is completely arbitrary. A cluster of a dozen or so undifferentiated cells (this is after conception, no?) has no concept of "Self".
I pretty much agree with you there, especially when they can still split and become twins. (I wonder if abortions really occur at that stage.)
The only way one can retroactively extend the concept of "self" all the way to conception is based on what a fetus/cell cluster/embryo becomes later.
Not really; after that first two weeks or so, it really is an individual. Even if the brain hasn't yet formed, and the embroyo is not yet conscious, its still an individual, and therefore, a "Self".
I'd also like to add that the concept of "Self" is manifest after conception, not before. For instance, someone can say that "I" nearly got killed if his/her mother got close to having an abortion. On the other hand, I don't see how anyone can say with any sadness that "I" nearly didn't exist if the parents almost decided to use birth control.
That sounds like a "slippery slope" argument to me. Personally, I'm for birth control, but against abortion.
I'm sure that he's very aware of the recent wars, and would be glad if the money went to NASA's budget instead. I'm sure that Saddam, Osama, and all of their friends would have preferred that too.
Indie games that I purchased:
Space Taxi 2 $15
Thinktanks(X-Box) $10
3d-Mahjongg $15?
Bejeweled $15
Lovechess $15
X-Plane 7 $50 (Mail order)
X-Plane 8 $40 (At a store)
...
Think how much GTA: San Andreas cost to produce, and how little of that was spend on tweaking the engine that they already had (comparable to starting with Torque).
Sure, the economics don't work out for someone who attempts to close GTA using Torque. However, simpler games cost less to make, and there is a large market for them. Someone who focuses on making simpler games should have no problem using Torque to make them.Religion isn't a one-dimensional thing. Some are irrational about it, to be sure, and some, like me, aim to embrace "logic and methods" in religious thought.
Would a good scientist simply answer religious questions with a "yes" or "no" without a rational investigation, or would s/he embrace rationality in that field too?
because of this, that would bring Al-Qaeda to a screeching halt. The wouldn't be able to plan any attacks. They'd have to go to the libraries, then *bam*, we got'em!
I do. I consider graphics to be an important quality in games. If a game looks bad but plays well, I probably won't play it. I certainly wouldn't pay money for it. If graphics didn't matter, I'd still be playing games on a Commodore 64.
I understand your point, but I think its important to point out that terrorists choose the easiest high-profile targets they can find. The recent attacks on the concert hall and the school were failures, but recent attacks on large buildings and public trasportation were highly successful. Because of that success, I think that terrorists will continue their focus on buildings and public transportation until we secure them better.
I understand. I visited London this past January; its a very nice place. (The weather was nice too.) I have a suggestion for coping with this and rising above it: wave a British flag.
I really don't think that this attack should be played down, because the stakes are pretty high. This apparantly involves international terrorism, which can seriously erode relationships between countries, leading to other types of crisis, including war.
So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?
Façade maintain a group blog about interactive drama, poetry, art, and other such things. Its called Grand Text Auto. They usually post on several new subjects each day, and anyone can post comments there.
Agreed. I can't believe no one modded this up.