If you call this a gambit you seem to agree that stuff like wonders and virgin birth are only a small part of religions. Because a gambit is small sacrifice to get to a advantageous position.
No, that's gambit in reference to chess. In normal, colloquial English "gambit" means strategy (perhaps risky strategy) or, in this case "attempt to change or manipulate the topic of conversation."
So if you still believe this argument needs debate then you must think that science can prove moral values wrong or how rituals should be done.
That's a strawman. We're talking about religion, not moral values. Why should we think religion and moral values are equivalent?
To give you a bit more of a favorable reading I'd say you personally define religion as something more akin to what most people would call "spiritualism" or something like that. Acknowledging forces greater than yourself, attempting to do good etc. etc. Most people think of "religion" as organized religion, with detailed doctrines etc. The first may or may not be incompatible with science, the second is almost always in conflict with science.
We'll see how the healthcare reform works out. "there were so many other things they could have fix speaks volumes." Volumes about what? Healthcare is one of the US's biggest problems. People have been trying to reform healthcare for decades. Why is this a bad target (results aside)?
The US's appearance abroad is important for international relations. How much easier do you think it would be for the US to function in the middle east if we were to win over the people of Pakistan? Their government understands that we've got to work together but the people (including the people in the government) hate the US. If we could change that, it would make dealing with them enormously easier and would be a huge economic and defensive advantage to the US. We've taken a lot of steps in the right direction (maybe not in Pakistan specifically but that's just an example).
And what I mean about rhetoric is that it guides the public discussion at least. Bush was "I think with my gut" and Obama says science and innovation are important. Yes just saying these things has an effect. It causes people to consider things differently and hopeful do different things. No it's not as important as actually doing things but it's not discountable.
There are huge difference between Obama and Bush. I'll agree that Obama is much more similar to Bush than the Democrats would like to admit. He did however push through healthcare reform (watered down though it may be). He also hugely improved the US's appearance abroad. And differing rhetoric in and of itself is sometimes important. It's at least slowing down the war on science (even if he's not doing much proactive in that regard).
So, I'll agree that he's not it any way living up to his "change" slogan but he's certainly not the same as Bush. Maybe economically the same.
Well, considering you want this system to work in the whole country and to be able to be triggered by the government in Washington, how else would you set the system up? Would you really set up a system that couldn't be triggered all at once? Would that be in any way easier or preferable?
Sure, the number of things that would actually effect the whole country are pretty limited...nuclear fallout...invasion...other extremely unlikely things but you still want the system to work everywhere, why wouldn't you test it like this?
A) It would seem that you would need a non-zero radius to spin BUT (1) pre-big bang wasn't necessarily 0 radius (2) angular momentum might just be a value, whether or not there's anything "spinning" like quantum spin or strangeness.
If you are non-skeptical enough to continue surviving then you can sufficiently prove all those claims. If you're more skeptical than that you have no reason to be posting here. Or eating.
I don't know what you mean by that second question. Rebooting is something a computer does...are you suggesting the universe is a computer? Also, if you can "perceive things as happening" then...what's the difference between that and them "actually happening"... It's difficult to give an answer without knowing what you think is going on in the background.
And this is a philosophy question. It has nothing to do with science let alone astronomy in particular.
Your principles there are true (more or less) but they don't really relate to the question.
You're assuming that a universe such as ours can exist and (perhaps) many universes with different features do exist. The question was "Why is that the case?" Since we're here, obviously the universe does exist, but why? Or more specifically, why is there "stuff" in the universe. If you threw space-time into the mix the question would reduce to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which is a good question...
Though, it's not a science question.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
They were walking around in front of it. Leads me to believe it's not particularly dangerous. Maybe extended exposure is bad though.
What do you do when he turns out to be as crazy as you and criminal? As in, when he gets out of prison (assuming he even goes to prison for stealing a laptop) and then finds you and sends you to the hospital, or kills you?
What would I do with the extra time? Same things I do now. Work, travel...you know, live.
I wonder if it would extend fertility. Maybe you could have a family and raise children to adulthood then separate, find a new partner and do it again.
film is very high res. your comment shows your ignorance.
Well, well Sir Labelsalot, where exactly did anyone say "film is low res"?
film has its place and pretty much always will.
Apparently not. Since no one makes the cameras anymore.
I'm not saying they're going to disappear next year or anything like that. But digital will beat film out in most respects sooner or later and then it will just be nostalgic. When CDs came out some people complained that the low bitrate cut out a portion of the music but everyone used them anyway. How many people have vinyl? How many people even noticed and cared? Not that many. And now the quality is better anyway.
So...yeah, film is here now and has some time left but I'd be pretty surprised if it has more than a marginal place in the market 50 years from now (aside from digitizing old films at least). Much like vinyl.
You don't need causality to explain *anything* at the quantum level. Probabilities do just fine.
probabilities of what? If it's "probability that X occurs in situation Y" then there's absolutely no difference between that and Newtonian physics. Except that instead of Y => X you have Y => {probability set} I don't see any differences in terms of causality. There's a sense in which neither assume it (i.e. neither says "cause") and a sense in which both rely on it (as in, without belief in causality the assumption that these are predictive are unjustified). What's the difference?
Everyone has their own opinion - but the people with worthless opinions are those who are compromised, their identities stolen, their credit cards and/or debit cards compromised, and their bank accounts cleaned out.
My computer is compromised. Probably severely compromised. I take bare minimum precautions (as in no IE and knowing what sites are fishy). I've gotten 2 viruses that I've noticed. One removed safemade and did other fun things. Got rid of it in about 30m. The other I'm not sure what it's doing, I think it's a key-logger. I'm pretty sure I have some sort of bot that likes using my internet when I'm idle too. Probably a host of other bs that's not noticeable as well.
I also pretty sure my opinion is worthwhile. You see, I just don't do anything involving money on this machine. Setting up a machine to be secure enough to trust banking and credit cards is time consuming, annoying, and all around makes using the internet a trying experience.
So I just have a cheap old desktop to buy things and do banking on (or, actually not do banking on since I don't need to, but if I did...). It does nothing on the internet but update software and buy things from trusted sites.
The only significant risk I'm taking is email. Someone might compromise my account. I accept that risk for the ability to use the internet without having to deal with all the trouble of securing my machine.
That's a good point. I suppose Italy is the only country with Italian as it's primary language (excluding city-states) but how many people outside of Italy speak Italian?
Also, how many people in Italy use the English Wikipedia where they won't even notice this?
Seems like it would make a lot more sense to block all of Wikipedia from Italy. Maybe Wikipedia wanted more worldwide attention but they could have gotten that with a banner or splash page for everywhere.
On the other hand just taking down the Italian site was probably a lot easier than any of the alternatives.
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.
I am offended by your mocking of our laws, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a whole will be such a nicer happier place. With rainbows and ice cream for everyone.
Nope. I must not know what I'm talking about. What a perceptive reader you are.
The energy you put in is in lifting your foot and transferring your weight to it.
Yes, and expending energy in "transferring your weight" to a higher position on the plate is not at all like pushing through resistance. Or, since gravity provides a resistive force against you moving up and the plate depresses through resistance to produce electricity, is analogous to it in not just one but two ways.
I bow down to your superior analytical skills. I'll burn my physics degree later when I get the chance.
You have to push through that resistance. That uses more energy. As to other posts about heat/vibration/sound energy, some of that will be gathered I'm sure but that's a minuscule amount of energy.
The extra energy may not be noticeable and may result in a more comfortable floor though, like you said. Walking on a thick carpet would probably make you use more energy than these plates and people pay extra for them.
Clarity is achieved by using the most appropriate words but the most appropriate words are determined by context. If your audience doesn't understand you, you've failed to be clear. If you would have been understood had you used simpler terms, the failure is your fault.
First, you responded as if I support Social Security which implies that you didn't bother to read my post in detail and/or didn't understand it.
(1) That's an answer. Ok. I didn't even bother to look at your reasoning because I agree.
(2) This is not an answer. You've decided to answer a completely unrelated question to the one I posed. The question was: How will these problems be solved if not by Social security? "People must not be robbed...Free people should take care of themselves" are not answers to these. The point is that "taking care of yourself" is not a good situation. You can be ruined by disaster in or out of your control. Which leads to question three, Do you want to live in a society who tosses the unlucky aside to die on the side of the road? Even taking a stronger survival of the fittest (animal) approach there are situations where these problems are completely unrelated to the individual, their choices and preparation. Just concentrating on that situation, do you want to live in a society which leaves the unlucky to die?
(3) This is also an answer. Here's a follow up question: Why do you live in a mixed market country that provides social services? Move to a country that doesn't enforce regulation or collective programs... like... like... like where? I know of no "opt in" governments where you can pick and choose what laws/programs to abide by. I also don't see how such a system would be different from anarchy. If you want anarchy you could go to an uninhabited island somewhere. Or Somalia maybe.
If your chief concern is freedom. Live out in the woods. Farm. You can do anything you want. Complete freedom.
Obviously this isn't what you want. My point is that you can't just yell about freedom without reason. If you want all the benefits of society you have to have a government and that government's power can't be based on your personal agreement to it's programs.
Also I'd like to know what your opinion would be if your house burned down, you were laid off, all your investments vanished and you were diagnosed with cancer all in one week. Sure, it's ridiculously unlikely. But vaguely possible. Certainly one of those things could happen any day now. Would you still be so averse to all these programs that would help you?
You can go ahead and say you'd still rather be in such a country and that you would starve on the street and be happy to live in a free country. But I don't think you really would. I think you'd be angry at a society that abandoned you despite you doing your best.
Slashdot Mirror
If you call this a gambit you seem to agree that stuff like wonders and virgin birth are only a small part of religions. Because a gambit is small sacrifice to get to a advantageous position.
No, that's gambit in reference to chess. In normal, colloquial English "gambit" means strategy (perhaps risky strategy) or, in this case "attempt to change or manipulate the topic of conversation."
So if you still believe this argument needs debate then you must think that science can prove moral values wrong or how rituals should be done.
That's a strawman. We're talking about religion, not moral values. Why should we think religion and moral values are equivalent?
To give you a bit more of a favorable reading I'd say you personally define religion as something more akin to what most people would call "spiritualism" or something like that. Acknowledging forces greater than yourself, attempting to do good etc. etc. Most people think of "religion" as organized religion, with detailed doctrines etc. The first may or may not be incompatible with science, the second is almost always in conflict with science.
Yes, right, if the president doesn't tackle things in your own 1-2-3 order it's completely unreasonable.
The economy is Obama's fault.
We should shut down all overseas military bases.
Pakistan will be friendly if we stop dealing with them.
Got it. All very reasonable.
We'll see how the healthcare reform works out. "there were so many other things they could have fix speaks volumes." Volumes about what? Healthcare is one of the US's biggest problems. People have been trying to reform healthcare for decades. Why is this a bad target (results aside)?
The US's appearance abroad is important for international relations. How much easier do you think it would be for the US to function in the middle east if we were to win over the people of Pakistan? Their government understands that we've got to work together but the people (including the people in the government) hate the US. If we could change that, it would make dealing with them enormously easier and would be a huge economic and defensive advantage to the US. We've taken a lot of steps in the right direction (maybe not in Pakistan specifically but that's just an example).
And what I mean about rhetoric is that it guides the public discussion at least. Bush was "I think with my gut" and Obama says science and innovation are important. Yes just saying these things has an effect. It causes people to consider things differently and hopeful do different things. No it's not as important as actually doing things but it's not discountable.
That's crap.
There are huge difference between Obama and Bush. I'll agree that Obama is much more similar to Bush than the Democrats would like to admit. He did however push through healthcare reform (watered down though it may be). He also hugely improved the US's appearance abroad. And differing rhetoric in and of itself is sometimes important. It's at least slowing down the war on science (even if he's not doing much proactive in that regard).
So, I'll agree that he's not it any way living up to his "change" slogan but he's certainly not the same as Bush. Maybe economically the same.
Taxes! (on slaves)
Well, considering you want this system to work in the whole country and to be able to be triggered by the government in Washington, how else would you set the system up? Would you really set up a system that couldn't be triggered all at once? Would that be in any way easier or preferable?
Sure, the number of things that would actually effect the whole country are pretty limited...nuclear fallout...invasion...other extremely unlikely things but you still want the system to work everywhere, why wouldn't you test it like this?
A) It would seem that you would need a non-zero radius to spin BUT (1) pre-big bang wasn't necessarily 0 radius (2) angular momentum might just be a value, whether or not there's anything "spinning" like quantum spin or strangeness.
B) I don't follow your question.
Global Warming?
Living things other than humans?
No. Yes.
What?
No. Yes.
If you are non-skeptical enough to continue surviving then you can sufficiently prove all those claims. If you're more skeptical than that you have no reason to be posting here. Or eating.
I don't know what you mean by that second question. Rebooting is something a computer does...are you suggesting the universe is a computer? Also, if you can "perceive things as happening" then...what's the difference between that and them "actually happening"... It's difficult to give an answer without knowing what you think is going on in the background.
And this is a philosophy question. It has nothing to do with science let alone astronomy in particular.
Your principles there are true (more or less) but they don't really relate to the question.
You're assuming that a universe such as ours can exist and (perhaps) many universes with different features do exist. The question was "Why is that the case?" Since we're here, obviously the universe does exist, but why? Or more specifically, why is there "stuff" in the universe. If you threw space-time into the mix the question would reduce to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which is a good question...
Though, it's not a science question.
They were walking around in front of it. Leads me to believe it's not particularly dangerous. Maybe extended exposure is bad though.
the key there was "raise to adulthood"
What do you do when he turns out to be as crazy as you and criminal? As in, when he gets out of prison (assuming he even goes to prison for stealing a laptop) and then finds you and sends you to the hospital, or kills you?
Would I want to live 150 years? Yes.
What would I do with the extra time? Same things I do now. Work, travel...you know, live.
I wonder if it would extend fertility. Maybe you could have a family and raise children to adulthood then separate, find a new partner and do it again.
film is very high res. your comment shows your ignorance.
Well, well Sir Labelsalot, where exactly did anyone say "film is low res"?
film has its place and pretty much always will.
Apparently not. Since no one makes the cameras anymore.
I'm not saying they're going to disappear next year or anything like that. But digital will beat film out in most respects sooner or later and then it will just be nostalgic. When CDs came out some people complained that the low bitrate cut out a portion of the music but everyone used them anyway. How many people have vinyl? How many people even noticed and cared? Not that many. And now the quality is better anyway.
So...yeah, film is here now and has some time left but I'd be pretty surprised if it has more than a marginal place in the market 50 years from now (aside from digitizing old films at least). Much like vinyl.
Welcome to Hume's nervous breakdown.
You don't need causality to explain *anything* at the quantum level. Probabilities do just fine.
probabilities of what? If it's "probability that X occurs in situation Y" then there's absolutely no difference between that and Newtonian physics. Except that instead of Y => X you have Y => {probability set}
I don't see any differences in terms of causality. There's a sense in which neither assume it (i.e. neither says "cause") and a sense in which both rely on it (as in, without belief in causality the assumption that these are predictive are unjustified). What's the difference?
Everyone has their own opinion - but the people with worthless opinions are those who are compromised, their identities stolen, their credit cards and/or debit cards compromised, and their bank accounts cleaned out.
My computer is compromised. Probably severely compromised. I take bare minimum precautions (as in no IE and knowing what sites are fishy). I've gotten 2 viruses that I've noticed. One removed safemade and did other fun things. Got rid of it in about 30m. The other I'm not sure what it's doing, I think it's a key-logger. I'm pretty sure I have some sort of bot that likes using my internet when I'm idle too. Probably a host of other bs that's not noticeable as well.
I also pretty sure my opinion is worthwhile. You see, I just don't do anything involving money on this machine. Setting up a machine to be secure enough to trust banking and credit cards is time consuming, annoying, and all around makes using the internet a trying experience.
So I just have a cheap old desktop to buy things and do banking on (or, actually not do banking on since I don't need to, but if I did...). It does nothing on the internet but update software and buy things from trusted sites.
The only significant risk I'm taking is email. Someone might compromise my account. I accept that risk for the ability to use the internet without having to deal with all the trouble of securing my machine.
Is there a "+1 answers rhetorical question" option?
That's a good point. I suppose Italy is the only country with Italian as it's primary language (excluding city-states) but how many people outside of Italy speak Italian?
Also, how many people in Italy use the English Wikipedia where they won't even notice this?
Seems like it would make a lot more sense to block all of Wikipedia from Italy. Maybe Wikipedia wanted more worldwide attention but they could have gotten that with a banner or splash page for everywhere.
On the other hand just taking down the Italian site was probably a lot easier than any of the alternatives.
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made without comment, then surely anyone else can be offended by the correction and have it reverted - without comment.
I am offended by your mocking of our laws, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a whole will be such a nicer happier place. With rainbows and ice cream for everyone.
Sincerely, The Italian Parliament
Have you ever even tried walking?
Nope. I must not know what I'm talking about. What a perceptive reader you are.
The energy you put in is in lifting your foot and transferring your weight to it.
Yes, and expending energy in "transferring your weight" to a higher position on the plate is not at all like pushing through resistance. Or, since gravity provides a resistive force against you moving up and the plate depresses through resistance to produce electricity, is analogous to it in not just one but two ways.
I bow down to your superior analytical skills. I'll burn my physics degree later when I get the chance.
You have to push through that resistance. That uses more energy. As to other posts about heat/vibration/sound energy, some of that will be gathered I'm sure but that's a minuscule amount of energy.
The extra energy may not be noticeable and may result in a more comfortable floor though, like you said. Walking on a thick carpet would probably make you use more energy than these plates and people pay extra for them.
Clarity is achieved by using the most appropriate words but the most appropriate words are determined by context. If your audience doesn't understand you, you've failed to be clear. If you would have been understood had you used simpler terms, the failure is your fault.
Second paragraph: disagree.
Third paragraph: agree.
First, you responded as if I support Social Security which implies that you didn't bother to read my post in detail and/or didn't understand it.
(1) That's an answer. Ok. I didn't even bother to look at your reasoning because I agree.
(2) This is not an answer. You've decided to answer a completely unrelated question to the one I posed. The question was: How will these problems be solved if not by Social security? "People must not be robbed...Free people should take care of themselves" are not answers to these. The point is that "taking care of yourself" is not a good situation. You can be ruined by disaster in or out of your control. Which leads to question three, Do you want to live in a society who tosses the unlucky aside to die on the side of the road? Even taking a stronger survival of the fittest (animal) approach there are situations where these problems are completely unrelated to the individual, their choices and preparation. Just concentrating on that situation, do you want to live in a society which leaves the unlucky to die?
(3) This is also an answer. Here's a follow up question: Why do you live in a mixed market country that provides social services? Move to a country that doesn't enforce regulation or collective programs... like... like... like where? I know of no "opt in" governments where you can pick and choose what laws/programs to abide by. I also don't see how such a system would be different from anarchy. If you want anarchy you could go to an uninhabited island somewhere. Or Somalia maybe.
If your chief concern is freedom. Live out in the woods. Farm. You can do anything you want. Complete freedom.
Obviously this isn't what you want. My point is that you can't just yell about freedom without reason. If you want all the benefits of society you have to have a government and that government's power can't be based on your personal agreement to it's programs.
Also I'd like to know what your opinion would be if your house burned down, you were laid off, all your investments vanished and you were diagnosed with cancer all in one week. Sure, it's ridiculously unlikely. But vaguely possible. Certainly one of those things could happen any day now. Would you still be so averse to all these programs that would help you?
You can go ahead and say you'd still rather be in such a country and that you would starve on the street and be happy to live in a free country. But I don't think you really would. I think you'd be angry at a society that abandoned you despite you doing your best.