Who says natural selection should have the final word? Or perhaps the concept of "fitness for survival" should be expanded to include "cool enough that some other advanced species will want to resurrect it." Mammoths, saber-tooth cats, & T-Rex all fit this bill; the Prehistoric Instant Death Mosquito doesn't.
But "God does not throw dice", indeed. God (the universe) follows certain rules that allows us to assign probabilities to all possible outcomes of an event before it happens. But the outcome that actually happens is caused by God (the universe), which is infinitely complex. As we cannot account for all factors that influence the outcome at each given event, we resort to statistics.
Well, this assumes that "beneath" the observed phenomenon that follow probabilistic behavior there is an underlying deterministic nature. But is that a safe assumption? What if the universe really is probabilistic in nature?
However, even though Einstein is right, you can also prove him wrong: If God is the universe and we are part of the universe, we are part of God. As we can create and throw dice, it logically follows that God [i]does[/i] throw dice, in fact, as we are part of it. It's an obvious fact that comes from him being omnipotent.
Well, as a religious person, I believe we have an honest-to-goodness free will that gives us agency apart from either deterministic or probabilistic nature. Ironically, it's because of this belief that it's incorrect to assign responsibility for the actions of free agents to God. In other words, that's not what we mean by "doing" things.
Personally, I think there is a more deterministic explanation for the behavior of the universe. It seems to me there *must* be something that makes more sense to explain particles, waves, forces, QT, etc.; but this is a belief borne of my own desire for order, lack of understanding of QT, and in general leaning toward determinism; so I make no assumptions about what is or isn't, nor what will be discovered in the future.
As a fan of Sci-fi, I hope they discover some new physics that sheds light on why things are the way they are and enables FTL travel, but that's purely wishful thinking on my part.
You hate IMDB so much you don't just link to that as the first attempt, but to a pay site that self censors for most of the planet?
I forgot about IMDB - good call. Why didn't you link to it?
I linked to Netflix because that's where I saw it, and before posting I checked to verify that it's still available for streaming, so others could view it as well. I do not know how pages on Netflix, IMDB, or other websites appear from other countries, nor do I research website availability across the slashdot demographics before posting links. Besides, someone could just do a Google search based on what was in the post to find more information.
I believe in Angels. They play baseball in Los Angeles.
Since 2005, they've billed themselves as the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"
Which is stupid because "Los Angeles" literally means "The Angels"; therefore "The Los Angeles Angels" literally means "The The Angels Angels". They aren't even in LA county. I think they should have kept "Anaheim" or even "Orange County" in their name - changing it the way they've done is sort of a dis on their actual locale. But then, this was a decision of the Disney marketing machine, and money is everything.
.... many networks will stream a good portion of the shows that they air, usually only a day or so after initial broadcast... and typically leave them available for about a week. There's commercials, of course, but it's really not that bad a way to watch television. I'm not sure what need Aero was really trying to fill.
Probably the needs of those for whom those qualifiers are problematic.
Could have been an authentication cookie set by the router's web server when you first logged in. If the router accepted that cookie as valid after the reboot, you wouldn't need to log in. I'd think a well-designed router would invalidate authentication cookies on a reboot.
Any time a cop has to rely on "other court-friendly means to build their case" that's a pretty clear indicator that the original means were believed to be illegal by the officers in question.
Well, the legal out is the implied 4a) identify the perpetrator, then drop the case. The assumption here is that the evidence of the location of the cell phone (acquired with the Stingray) was valid, legally obtained evidence that would be admissible in court, yet the physical cellphone in the apartment was evidence obtained by illegal search & seizure. The need to rely on "other court-friendly means" in this case would be due to their reluctance to reveal as evidence their court-friendly but secret weapon. I'm really stretching to give the cops as much credit as possible here, but there's no justification for their actions.
Question: There's evidence legally gathered by police, and evidence illegally gathered by police; and evidence admissible in court, and evidence inadmissible in court. Are these a 1:1 correspondence? I.e., is there such a thing as evidence legally gathered by police yet inadmissible in court?
So, fun fact. I've recently come to terms with an ugly fact : I have a legitimate physical addiction to caffeine. If I go a full day without, I get headaches by the end of the day.
Hardly the worst withdrawal symptoms ever, and defeated by some motrin and water... but still, a bit upsetting. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to indulge my habit
For this reason, I included caffeine tablets in my 72-hour earthquake survival kit. I don't want to be fighting caffeine withdrawl at the same time I'm searching for shelter. I don't trust Starbucks to have emergency power and water plus enough beans in-stock to feed my addition in case of disaster.
That's smart. I'm addicted to caffeine (taken in coffee form) as well, but it's not that hard to break. I've done it a couple times, once voluntarily; more recently when I had the flu and lost all taste for coffee (only took a couple days to get back).
The abuse of this particular substance doesn't amount to much, and there are benefits, so I'm not particularly worried. I might be a little crabby for the first couple days of the apocalypse.
Re the Keurig - they're just looking for revenue streams post-K-cup-patent-expiration. I predict this approach will fail, when competing manufacturers continue to make cheap coffee makers compatible with the massive selection of currently-available cheap K-cups. I love our Keurig, but it's already made coffee stupidly simple; there's just no need for anything better.
There's another out: (4) Use the device to identify the suspect, then use other court-friendly means to build your case.
From what I've read here, it sounds like the biggest mistake they made was entering the apartment without a warrant. Assuming use of the device was legal (and that's a big if), they're free to figure out where the cell phone is, and thus their prime suspect. If they don't want to admit to court that they use the device, at that point they need to use other means to prove their case against a significantly-narrowed list of suspects.
In this particular case, however, there may not have been any way to build their case without searching the premises. The 4th amendment allows for "reasonable" search & seizure without a warrant, but they won't be able to make a convincing case to a court without explaining what their reason was for searching that property. At this points the cops can't take this case any further without violating the Constitution or their NDA. They opted for the Constitution.
That's nearly identical to my list for Windows PCs. I also add Paint.NET, SumatraPDF, and DropBox. I didn't know about frhed, but will try it out - I've been lamenting my lack of a good "giant file" hex editor.
Also, Ninite is great (as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread).
Two different types of pride. There's nothing wrong with deriving appropriate satisfaction from things you've done, being proud of your kids, etc.
The second type you describe is what's considered sinful: lacking humility, thinking yourself better than others, elevated (beyond reality) sense of self-importance, etc., hubris.
It's true that it can be confusing that the same word can have two different senses, but both are not bad. See wikipedia for a better explanation.
My wife and I spent a week in Quebec last summer, and I looked everywhere for a souvenir shot glass that said "Je ne me souviens pas" ("I don't remember") but I never found one.
This whole thread has been illustrative of the confusion over terminology. I even provided a definition so people wouldn't make the mistake of conflating "a science" with "the physical sciences." Here's one of the definitions of science: "knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study." This is clearly the meaning to which I was referring.
Most troubling (and what I was trying to address) is the adamant assertion that there is "no reason" to believe in a god and religion is thus irrational. The reason (for Christians) is Jesus Christ, who was here on earth, performed miracles (not least of which rising from the dead), and founded a church. You may not believe the accounts of his life and works, but for those who do (and like me incorporate other supporting evidence into their acceptance of them), the facts of his life and the principles he taught are the axioms from which we derive our beliefs. One can contest the axioms, one can try to give evidence against their validity, but claims that there is "no reason" are just ignorant.
I think Aquinas' Summa Theologica is just one example of applying rational thought to the axioms of belief. I think those who equate religion with superstition (spaghetti monster, faeries) or consider fundamentalist creationists the norm for religion would do well to study the history of science and philosophy in religion.
I wasn't trolling; I was however complaining about what seems to be a shortcoming in the wisdom of the slashdot commentariat, who are by and large intelligent people as far as I can tell. If anything, it would be flamebait, but I didn't mean it as that either. I knew it would be unpopular (the appropriate mod for that is -1 overrated, with no other mods;)
On the contrary, widespread public acceptance of humanoid robots could matter a great deal, and reasons for potential opposition is worth studying. I'm a nerd and it matters to me.
And dismissing the whole study of theology because of your own suppositions is pretty closed-minded. Properly done, theology is a science (an ordered body of knowledge obtained from the application of logic to axioms), and I'm tired of this bigoted "religion = irrational" nonsense I see so often. Yes, sometimes religious people say "irrational, stupid, and arbitrary" things, but I've heard plenty of the same from anti-religion people as well.
Well, if someone suffers from a mental condition that makes them predisposed to molest children, then I would say they as a self-determining individual are less culpable. Note that this does NOT mean that they are any less of a danger to children (the kid's still fucked), so the question becomes what's the appropriate punishment/response. From the perspective of the victims, it doesn't make a difference what form of incarceration is imposed; but to the perpetrator it's a big difference.
I think many people have difficulty feeling any compassion for child molesters, but they're still human beings with rights, and possibly mental problems that aren't their fault. In our effort to "solve" child abuse, we need to consider the best interests of the abusers as well. Although I'm glad that this form of sexual disorder is still seen as such by general society, I'm worried that people lean to heavily on ostracism as the only solution.
An interesting thing about bitcoin is that mining is required to validate transactions, and as mining becomes less (and eventually un-) profitable, the only financial incentive for miners to run their 1TH space heaters is transaction fees.
In other words, a little off the top of every transaction to the guy who helps you move your money.
It's worth noting, however, that these are less likely to be "millionaire money pimps" and more likely large pools of many individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they're cool (literally ;).
Who says natural selection should have the final word? Or perhaps the concept of "fitness for survival" should be expanded to include "cool enough that some other advanced species will want to resurrect it." Mammoths, saber-tooth cats, & T-Rex all fit this bill; the Prehistoric Instant Death Mosquito doesn't.
We do it now. What is NaN/NaN? NaN.
Here's a helpful pronunciation guide.
But "God does not throw dice", indeed. God (the universe) follows certain rules that allows us to assign probabilities to all possible outcomes of an event before it happens. But the outcome that actually happens is caused by God (the universe), which is infinitely complex. As we cannot account for all factors that influence the outcome at each given event, we resort to statistics.
Well, this assumes that "beneath" the observed phenomenon that follow probabilistic behavior there is an underlying deterministic nature. But is that a safe assumption? What if the universe really is probabilistic in nature?
However, even though Einstein is right, you can also prove him wrong: If God is the universe and we are part of the universe, we are part of God. As we can create and throw dice, it logically follows that God [i]does[/i] throw dice, in fact, as we are part of it. It's an obvious fact that comes from him being omnipotent.
Well, as a religious person, I believe we have an honest-to-goodness free will that gives us agency apart from either deterministic or probabilistic nature. Ironically, it's because of this belief that it's incorrect to assign responsibility for the actions of free agents to God. In other words, that's not what we mean by "doing" things.
Personally, I think there is a more deterministic explanation for the behavior of the universe. It seems to me there *must* be something that makes more sense to explain particles, waves, forces, QT, etc.; but this is a belief borne of my own desire for order, lack of understanding of QT, and in general leaning toward determinism; so I make no assumptions about what is or isn't, nor what will be discovered in the future.
As a fan of Sci-fi, I hope they discover some new physics that sheds light on why things are the way they are and enables FTL travel, but that's purely wishful thinking on my part.
You hate IMDB so much you don't just link to that as the first attempt, but to a pay site that self censors for most of the planet?
I forgot about IMDB - good call. Why didn't you link to it?
I linked to Netflix because that's where I saw it, and before posting I checked to verify that it's still available for streaming, so others could view it as well. I do not know how pages on Netflix, IMDB, or other websites appear from other countries, nor do I research website availability across the slashdot demographics before posting links. Besides, someone could just do a Google search based on what was in the post to find more information.
Ok, everyone outside the Land of Freedrm (tm, all rights reserved) can see details here and here.
In all seriousness, it's a good movie - check it out if you can get it.
I saw that documentary! Very well made.
Since 2005, they've billed themselves as the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"
Which is stupid because "Los Angeles" literally means "The Angels"; therefore "The Los Angeles Angels" literally means "The The Angels Angels". They aren't even in LA county. I think they should have kept "Anaheim" or even "Orange County" in their name - changing it the way they've done is sort of a dis on their actual locale. But then, this was a decision of the Disney marketing machine, and money is everything.
.... many networks will stream a good portion of the shows that they air, usually only a day or so after initial broadcast... and typically leave them available for about a week. There's commercials, of course, but it's really not that bad a way to watch television. I'm not sure what need Aero was really trying to fill.
Probably the needs of those for whom those qualifiers are problematic.
Not one Soviet Russia joke in this entire thread? Slashdot, I... I don't know you anymore!
Check your router's and your PC's DNS settings.
Could have been an authentication cookie set by the router's web server when you first logged in. If the router accepted that cookie as valid after the reboot, you wouldn't need to log in. I'd think a well-designed router would invalidate authentication cookies on a reboot.
Vodka-infused gummy vitamins - they're good for you!
Also, if my HR department decides to gamify performance reviews I'm going to lose it.
Just wait until they award you a badge instead of a raise.
"I see you've lead the department in sales this month. Here's a hat."
Yeah, get back in the basement and compute me some pi!
Another out, yes. But not another *legal* out.
Any time a cop has to rely on "other court-friendly means to build their case" that's a pretty clear indicator that the original means were believed to be illegal by the officers in question.
Well, the legal out is the implied 4a) identify the perpetrator, then drop the case. The assumption here is that the evidence of the location of the cell phone (acquired with the Stingray) was valid, legally obtained evidence that would be admissible in court, yet the physical cellphone in the apartment was evidence obtained by illegal search & seizure. The need to rely on "other court-friendly means" in this case would be due to their reluctance to reveal as evidence their court-friendly but secret weapon. I'm really stretching to give the cops as much credit as possible here, but there's no justification for their actions.
Question: There's evidence legally gathered by police, and evidence illegally gathered by police; and evidence admissible in court, and evidence inadmissible in court. Are these a 1:1 correspondence? I.e., is there such a thing as evidence legally gathered by police yet inadmissible in court?
So, fun fact. I've recently come to terms with an ugly fact : I have a legitimate physical addiction to caffeine. If I go a full day without, I get headaches by the end of the day.
Hardly the worst withdrawal symptoms ever, and defeated by some motrin and water ... but still, a bit upsetting. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to indulge my habit
For this reason, I included caffeine tablets in my 72-hour earthquake survival kit. I don't want to be fighting caffeine withdrawl at the same time I'm searching for shelter. I don't trust Starbucks to have emergency power and water plus enough beans in-stock to feed my addition in case of disaster.
That's smart. I'm addicted to caffeine (taken in coffee form) as well, but it's not that hard to break. I've done it a couple times, once voluntarily; more recently when I had the flu and lost all taste for coffee (only took a couple days to get back).
The abuse of this particular substance doesn't amount to much, and there are benefits, so I'm not particularly worried. I might be a little crabby for the first couple days of the apocalypse.
Re the Keurig - they're just looking for revenue streams post-K-cup-patent-expiration. I predict this approach will fail, when competing manufacturers continue to make cheap coffee makers compatible with the massive selection of currently-available cheap K-cups. I love our Keurig, but it's already made coffee stupidly simple; there's just no need for anything better.
There's another out:
(4) Use the device to identify the suspect, then use other court-friendly means to build your case.
From what I've read here, it sounds like the biggest mistake they made was entering the apartment without a warrant. Assuming use of the device was legal (and that's a big if), they're free to figure out where the cell phone is, and thus their prime suspect. If they don't want to admit to court that they use the device, at that point they need to use other means to prove their case against a significantly-narrowed list of suspects.
In this particular case, however, there may not have been any way to build their case without searching the premises. The 4th amendment allows for "reasonable" search & seizure without a warrant, but they won't be able to make a convincing case to a court without explaining what their reason was for searching that property. At this points the cops can't take this case any further without violating the Constitution or their NDA. They opted for the Constitution.
...says you!
That's nearly identical to my list for Windows PCs. I also add Paint.NET, SumatraPDF, and DropBox. I didn't know about frhed, but will try it out - I've been lamenting my lack of a good "giant file" hex editor.
Also, Ninite is great (as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread).
Two different types of pride. There's nothing wrong with deriving appropriate satisfaction from things you've done, being proud of your kids, etc.
The second type you describe is what's considered sinful: lacking humility, thinking yourself better than others, elevated (beyond reality) sense of self-importance, etc., hubris.
It's true that it can be confusing that the same word can have two different senses, but both are not bad. See wikipedia for a better explanation.
Ha!
My wife and I spent a week in Quebec last summer, and I looked everywhere for a souvenir shot glass that said "Je ne me souviens pas" ("I don't remember") but I never found one.
Very well put.
This whole thread has been illustrative of the confusion over terminology. I even provided a definition so people wouldn't make the mistake of conflating "a science" with "the physical sciences." Here's one of the definitions of science: "knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study." This is clearly the meaning to which I was referring.
Most troubling (and what I was trying to address) is the adamant assertion that there is "no reason" to believe in a god and religion is thus irrational. The reason (for Christians) is Jesus Christ, who was here on earth, performed miracles (not least of which rising from the dead), and founded a church. You may not believe the accounts of his life and works, but for those who do (and like me incorporate other supporting evidence into their acceptance of them), the facts of his life and the principles he taught are the axioms from which we derive our beliefs. One can contest the axioms, one can try to give evidence against their validity, but claims that there is "no reason" are just ignorant.
I think Aquinas' Summa Theologica is just one example of applying rational thought to the axioms of belief. I think those who equate religion with superstition (spaghetti monster, faeries) or consider fundamentalist creationists the norm for religion would do well to study the history of science and philosophy in religion.
I wasn't trolling; I was however complaining about what seems to be a shortcoming in the wisdom of the slashdot commentariat, who are by and large intelligent people as far as I can tell. If anything, it would be flamebait, but I didn't mean it as that either. I knew it would be unpopular (the appropriate mod for that is -1 overrated, with no other mods ;)
On the contrary, widespread public acceptance of humanoid robots could matter a great deal, and reasons for potential opposition is worth studying. I'm a nerd and it matters to me.
And dismissing the whole study of theology because of your own suppositions is pretty closed-minded. Properly done, theology is a science (an ordered body of knowledge obtained from the application of logic to axioms), and I'm tired of this bigoted "religion = irrational" nonsense I see so often. Yes, sometimes religious people say "irrational, stupid, and arbitrary" things, but I've heard plenty of the same from anti-religion people as well.
Well, if someone suffers from a mental condition that makes them predisposed to molest children, then I would say they as a self-determining individual are less culpable. Note that this does NOT mean that they are any less of a danger to children (the kid's still fucked), so the question becomes what's the appropriate punishment/response. From the perspective of the victims, it doesn't make a difference what form of incarceration is imposed; but to the perpetrator it's a big difference.
I think many people have difficulty feeling any compassion for child molesters, but they're still human beings with rights, and possibly mental problems that aren't their fault. In our effort to "solve" child abuse, we need to consider the best interests of the abusers as well. Although I'm glad that this form of sexual disorder is still seen as such by general society, I'm worried that people lean to heavily on ostracism as the only solution.
An interesting thing about bitcoin is that mining is required to validate transactions, and as mining becomes less (and eventually un-) profitable, the only financial incentive for miners to run their 1TH space heaters is transaction fees.
In other words, a little off the top of every transaction to the guy who helps you move your money.
It's worth noting, however, that these are less likely to be "millionaire money pimps" and more likely large pools of many individuals.