Dark matter and dark energy are both indirectly observable, via gravitation and the time dependency of the FLRW scale factor/red shift of distant objects, respectively. Either indirectly observable things are "still technically observable" or they aren't - you can't have it both ways.
Also, if there are no draconian Islamic theocracies enforcing capital apostasy laws within, say, the next 100 years, then they will have beaten Catholicism in that race by several hundred years.
Even if you could somehow prove that the beginning wasn't a massive but happy accident, you would still have zero proof that the "uncaused cause" had anything to do with a personal god. And anyway, why can your "uncaused cause" not need a cause but everything else does? You can't have a logical argument when you're willing to break your own rules to justify your beliefs.
I think there are few more critical assumptions you didn't mention, which also should be unpacked. First, is the one you allude to, which is that infinities are necessarily illogical and self-contradictory, which is patently false. Second, that the cause of the universe can be regarded automatically as the cause of life on Earth, rather than as merely establishing the conditions for that cause. I don't think that's at all clear given that "causes" apparently require a background such as the universe in which to occur.
That's the whole point. It cannot be turtles all the way down, at some point reality must have some base that is uncaused
That's one hell of an assumption. That any form of infinite regress is necessarily impossible is just an assertion without an argument. Contra the Greeks and other until Cantor, infinities do not entail logical inconsistencies and are in fact realized in the universe.
Just to be pedantic, I think that's "clean" or "zero-emissions," since we probably don't actually want a nearby supernova to refresh our uranium supply.
Not really. Even without any containment measures, an infected person passes the disease to only 1 other person. If there was a disease as deadly as Ebola, where that number was ~20 people (as it is with measles for example), then I would be worried.
The low transmission rate is why the outbreak has fewer than 10,000 people after several months.
I think that "copyright infringement" and "theft/larceny" are essentially legal terms with specific meanings, while "sex crime" is not. Unauthorized access and distribution of these photographs is sexually motivated, which makes it reasonable to describe the crimes in question (i.e. unauthorized use of a computer and copyright infringement) as "sex crimes."
You do not understand the meaning of this phrase. It makes no reference to the existence of technological barriers, of any kind, to the breach of privacy. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for a sealed envelope, even though it is trivial to read the contents of that envelope.
How is talking about "the internet" here even relevant? There is a huge difference in the privacy and security of data transfers made through different web services alone, let alone all extant networking protocols.
Isn't this exactly the fallacy described by TFA? There are both risks and benefits to storing data online, while you're remark suggests there are risks only.
Under current US law, obtaining unauthorized access to privately served files is clearly criminal. Nude photographs are of note solely due to their sexual content.
Can you explain why you think it is incorrect or illogical to describe crimes pertaining to sex or sexual content as "sex crimes?"
At least one result of the study is obvious from first principles - the large number of genes involved in determining height. (Because height varies continuously).
Slashdot Mirror
Dark matter and dark energy are both indirectly observable, via gravitation and the time dependency of the FLRW scale factor/red shift of distant objects, respectively. Either indirectly observable things are "still technically observable" or they aren't - you can't have it both ways.
These same aliens also put all our 'siblings' on this planet
They could still just leave one thing, though. See a nice planet, launch some archaea into the atmosphere, check in in a few billion years...
Or maybe even just some amphiphiles and oligonucleotides, they will probably do fine without any supervision.
simple self replicating single celled organisms
Not even, just oligonucleotides and amphiphiles.
At least not anymore.
Also, if there are no draconian Islamic theocracies enforcing capital apostasy laws within, say, the next 100 years, then they will have beaten Catholicism in that race by several hundred years.
Even if you could somehow prove that the beginning wasn't a massive but happy accident, you would still have zero proof that the "uncaused cause" had anything to do with a personal god. And anyway, why can your "uncaused cause" not need a cause but everything else does? You can't have a logical argument when you're willing to break your own rules to justify your beliefs.
I think there are few more critical assumptions you didn't mention, which also should be unpacked. First, is the one you allude to, which is that infinities are necessarily illogical and self-contradictory, which is patently false. Second, that the cause of the universe can be regarded automatically as the cause of life on Earth, rather than as merely establishing the conditions for that cause. I don't think that's at all clear given that "causes" apparently require a background such as the universe in which to occur.
what other being could make a statement as being an absolute truth, then change their mind and state categorically that the opposite is true?
A man, obviously. Oh, was that supposed to be a rhetorical question?
That's the whole point. It cannot be turtles all the way down, at some point reality must have some base that is uncaused
That's one hell of an assumption. That any form of infinite regress is necessarily impossible is just an assertion without an argument. Contra the Greeks and other until Cantor, infinities do not entail logical inconsistencies and are in fact realized in the universe.
the assumption must be made that our ability to observe the universe is absolute.
It doesn't follow. If there are things which are only observable to us indirectly, the argument fails.
I thought there were options to install pre-compiled versions of the packages. Are they not all available, or am I just mistaken?
(Obviously I'm not a Gentoo user. Mostly Debian).
Even the new Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad still uses DirectX 9. You'll be able to play every current flight sim I think.
So in your eyes, anonymous FTP has equivalent security to two-factor authentication over HTTPS.
Just to be pedantic, I think that's "clean" or "zero-emissions," since we probably don't actually want a nearby supernova to refresh our uranium supply.
we don't win against nature on these things.
Tell it to the Dutch.
if we got serious we could do it in a decade without trouble
I agree - and actually since the economy is demand constrained, shifting energy sources will be expansionary.
Are you proposing restrictions on what military personal can do with their wages?
you should be worried.
Not really. Even without any containment measures, an infected person passes the disease to only 1 other person. If there was a disease as deadly as Ebola, where that number was ~20 people (as it is with measles for example), then I would be worried.
The low transmission rate is why the outbreak has fewer than 10,000 people after several months.
I think that "copyright infringement" and "theft/larceny" are essentially legal terms with specific meanings, while "sex crime" is not. Unauthorized access and distribution of these photographs is sexually motivated, which makes it reasonable to describe the crimes in question (i.e. unauthorized use of a computer and copyright infringement) as "sex crimes."
a reasonable expectation of privacy
You do not understand the meaning of this phrase. It makes no reference to the existence of technological barriers, of any kind, to the breach of privacy. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for a sealed envelope, even though it is trivial to read the contents of that envelope.
what goes onto the Internet
How is talking about "the internet" here even relevant? There is a huge difference in the privacy and security of data transfers made through different web services alone, let alone all extant networking protocols.
Someone ought to warn your date that consent means nothing to you.
Isn't this exactly the fallacy described by TFA? There are both risks and benefits to storing data online, while you're remark suggests there are risks only.
Under current US law, obtaining unauthorized access to privately served files is clearly criminal. Nude photographs are of note solely due to their sexual content.
Can you explain why you think it is incorrect or illogical to describe crimes pertaining to sex or sexual content as "sex crimes?"
-1 Has Never Written a Range Check
Any time a trait has continuous variation, there are going to be a large number of genes involved.
At least one result of the study is obvious from first principles - the large number of genes involved in determining height. (Because height varies continuously).