I sometimes wonder how long this debate has gone on.
It may seem strange now but Windows users used to celebrate and, dare I say, look forward to new releases of the OS. We still had that glimmering hope that if we had been very good little boys and girls we would maybe get the feature or fix we had been asking for. Around the release of Windows ME is when most of us threw up our hands in disgust and walked away but a few hung in still keeping the faith until they saw the Playmobile colours of XP. That tipping point comes whenever an OS sacrifices usefulness for more users. They have to turn the system into a child's toy so that burnt out soccer moms who 'just want to check Facebook/email/whatever' will shell out money for their product. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people shouldn't use computers for trivial things. I just believe that if you don't need the extra functionality of a full system you should stick to something more specialized like an iPad aka the smartphone for geezers. The thing that irritates me is that companies are trying to market their product to the lowest common denominator by watering it down, swathing it with bubble wrap, grinding off all the sharp corners, etc. This makes it a pain to use if you actually know what you're doing and chews up system resources even with every extraneous feature disabled. So really it's not change that bothers people but wasteful change.
At first glance, I would have imagined myself siding with the rational, thought-provoking argument and not the base attack founded on personal fetish. As it turns out, I did not judge myself incorrectly. The more I hear Coyne speak and the more of his words I read, the clearer it becomes that he has taken up the banner of the literalism that he rails against. After reading some of what Hughes has written, it's easy to recognize him as the more rational person in this debate. Here is part of an excerpt from his book God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens that seems to sum it up nicely:
I must confess that it has been disappointing for me to have witnessed the recent surge of interest in atheism. It’s not that my own livelihood, that of a theologian, is at stake—although the authors in question would fervently wish that it were so. Nor is it that the treatment of religion in these tracts consists mostly of breezy over-generalizations that leave out almost everything that theologians would want to highlight in their own contemporary discussion of God. Rather, the new atheism is simply unchallenging theologically. Its engagement with theology lies at about the same level of reflection on faith that one can find in contemporary creationist and fundamentalist literature.
Clearly the new atheists’ strategy is to suppress in effect any significant theological voices that might wish to join in conversation with them. As a result of this exclusion, the intellectual quality of their atheism is unnecessarily diminished. Their understanding of religious faith remains consistently at the same unscholarly level as the unreflective, superstitious, and literalist religiosity of those they criticize. Even though the new atheists reject the God of creationists, fundamentalists, terrorists, and “intelligent design” (ID) advocates, it is not without interest that they have decided to debate with these extremists rather than with any major theologians.
This choice of antagonists betrays their unconscious privileging of literalist and conservative versions of religious thought over the more traditionally mainstream types. The new atheists are saying in effect that if God exists at all, we should allow this God’s identity to be determined once and for all by the fundamentalists of the Abrahamic religious traditions. I believe they have chosen this strategy not only to make their job of demolition easier, but also because they have a barely disguised admiration for the simplicity of their opponents’ views of reality.
In preparing treatises on a-theism, one would expect that scholars and journalists would have done some research on theism, just to be sure they know exactly what it is they are rejecting. It is hard to be an informed and consistent atheist without knowing something about theology. And yet, aside from several barbed references, there is no sign of any real contact between the new atheists and theology at all, let alone studious investigation. This circumvention is comparable to creationists rejecting evolution without ever having taken a course in biology. They just know there’s something wrong with those crazy Darwinian fantasies. So the new atheists just know there is something sick and delusional about theology. There is no need to look at it up close. Furthermore, conversation with theologians, most of whom are not biblical literalists, would add a dimension of intricacy to the new atheist literature that would detract from the breeziness that sells books. Ignorance of theology simplifies the new atheists’ attacks on their equally uninformed religious adversaries. It allows their critique to match, point for point, the fundamentalism it is trying to eliminate.
I, personally, am not religious but I do not have a problem with someone holding a different viewpoint on the matter. Unfortunately, it seems to be becoming an ever more popular trend to attack others
the biggest fault with religion is that it makes a virtue out of faith and faith is believing something without evidence
I'm in no way a believer in ID but you really have to work on how you phrase these things. I'm also hoping that you do have a good understanding of quantum mechanics so that you aren't just talking through your hat.
Making a personal attack on marcello isn't helping your position either. It really seems that his first language isn't English so I would allow a bit of grammatical leeway.
f(t)=t is a one-celled eternal universe where the state of the cell is known for all values of real number t which we can call the time line of such universe. Being always defined, there can't be a prime cause for it
His terminology is a little woozy and there may be some basic misconceptions here but what he is essentially saying is that given the function f(t)=t where t is any real number it is possible to arrive at a member of this set from a number that does not belong to it such as an imaginary number. I'm not saying that everything he said makes sense, just that there is a point we may not be understanding due to a language barrier.
And formal logic teaches us that with you start with a false statement, you can derive everything and anything
Whether a statement is false or true in formal logic has nothing to do with it being a valid or invalid statement and definitely doesn't allow you to 'derive everything and anything' from it. If you are attempting to say that basing an argument on a logical fallacy results in the argument being invalid, then you would be correct as far as that goes.
What assumptions in particular are you referring to? You haven't made your argument very clear.
The only dangerous thing going on here is the demonization of belief systems. Horrible things have been done by people declaring avout belief in religious and secular powers but it is never the tool that is to blame but the person wielding it. Blindly slandering the other side doesn't make a point other than showing your ignorance of the debate.
The money is always going to wind up in the hands of corporations unless you know of any anarcho-collective construction companies Uncle Sam would be willing to hire (and even they would be a form of corporation). Trying to limit funds going to people and companies outside the government is not the issue. Any government must pay people to do the work that is agreed upon by the elected representatives. The problem money is that coming into politicians' campaigns, companies, funds, etc. This money is the root of earmarks and pork barrel spending which is its reciprocal. The favoritism is the problem because it allows those with the most power and money to maintain their positions by funnelling money into the pockets of their likeminded peers.
The only way to end this cycle of back patting and political peerage is to cut off one head of the beast. You can't cut money from government to business or nothing would ever get done so you must cut off donations to elected officials. Don't allow politicians to use mass media and provide a public alternative that is set up to allow each campaigner equal time to get their message across so that they must run on their merits and not their wallets. No one gets a fair shake when there's money to be made.
The criminal is still a human being who is protected by the same laws as other human beings. If you just go around removing people's humanity based on accusations without a fair trial to determine their innocence or guilt you wind up with death camps and summary executions. We've learnt this lesson a thousand times before throughout history and this is exactly the reason most civilized countries no longer even have the death penalty let alone allow people to be shot in the street.
Haha, I always thought Niven's free parks were a great idea, if only you could be sure the copseyes would be piloted by fair and just people... or AI for that matter.
Space flight is limited by fuel, not energy. Except if we build a space elevator/giant railgun wich may or may not be possible.
I'm pretty sure that what he meant was that it would be easier to bring compact power sources into space and potentially refuel them if they were being used on a planetary body or elsewhere that might have a supply of hydrogen and nickel. Right now the only options we have are solar and nuclear for providing power in space, the former requires a lot of mass for small gain and the latter has become a bit of a hairy political issue. Also, using a railgun is not as far fetched as you think [1][2], the limitations are mainly related to the amount of power that can be supplied.
Food and water can't be produced by energy. Human population can't grow exponentially much longer.
Tell that to a third-world farmer hauling water and planting crops by hand. Before cheap, available internal combustion engines food production was drastically lower than it is today simply because it was so labor intesive. The arrival of motor driven farm equipment and the advances in irrigation and fertilizer production made possible by new energy sources are the reason that the world population has hit 7 billion this quickly. [3] Human reproduction also tends to level out as standard of living increases. [4]
You are assuming we find a way around the second law of thermodynamics.
I don't see anywhere that he implied we would violate conservation of energy. It looks like all he is saying is that 1) the study of particle physics may lead to new ways of producing fission or fusion economically 2) sustainable fusion would be more efficient at releasing energy than current methods e.g. fossil fuels, solar, wind, etc. 3) E=mc^2 does in fact hold the promise that we will someday be able to readily convert mass to usable energy.
Chances are the thing won't have drivers for linux anyway.
Since when do you need to install a driver to monitor raw HTTP data? I can monitor your connection sitting ten feet away from you at the coffee shop regardless of whether you're using Linux or not.
I didn't say it was a good idea, just answering your question about why such an old system keeps appearing at the table. The configuration thing btw is bullshit, more impulse would be provided by a nuclear explosion within the atmosphere than without. The only 'configuration' change you could possibly make would be to use lighter warheads since you wouldn't need as much filler to transmit force to the pusher plate. Thankfully this idea was never used but it still stands as the only superior launch system achievable with current technology which is why it always gets brought up.
More risk but for higher potential gain if a habitable planet is reached in the end. The chances of which seem to be increasing every day with the discovery of more exoplanets nearer to Earth size. Trying to maintain the status quo and shying away from the risks involved with innovation is exactly the type of thinking that would land us in such an untennable situation in the first place. At least an interstellar ship is accomplishing something while housing a city's worth of people rather than just cowering under a dome on a dying planet. Not to mention the old addage about putting all your eggs in one basket.
About half the weight actually [1] but that still leaves you with 4,000,000 tonnes to launch conventionally. Even if you used something with better lifting capacity like a Saturn V it would still take 30,769 launches just for that half. We're nowhere close to building rail-guns with orbital launch capability and even if we could it would still take a comparable number of launches to get the plate into orbit. Overall, it's just not feasible to build an Orion-type spacecraft in orbit if it's going to be used for interstellar travel. Only the interplanetary designs are light enough to consider contruction in orbit.
Whether you would prefer to live in a domed city or on an interstellar starship seems most likely to be a matter of personal preference and since we're being purely hypothetical in this case I don't see why both developments wouldn't occur.
Medusa doesn't solve the problem of launching from Earth though, only from orbit. The major advantage of the Orion design was that it had greatly superior payload capacity. Compared to a Saturn V (which you would need 3 of to get Medusa into orbit) with a ratio of 1 ton of cargo for every 25 tons of spacecraft, the Orion design would allow anywhere from a 1:3 to 1:1.6 ratio which is vastly superior to any other ground launch vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
It may seem strange now but Windows users used to celebrate and, dare I say, look forward to new releases of the OS. We still had that glimmering hope that if we had been very good little boys and girls we would maybe get the feature or fix we had been asking for. Around the release of Windows ME is when most of us threw up our hands in disgust and walked away but a few hung in still keeping the faith until they saw the Playmobile colours of XP. That tipping point comes whenever an OS sacrifices usefulness for more users. They have to turn the system into a child's toy so that burnt out soccer moms who 'just want to check Facebook/email/whatever' will shell out money for their product. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people shouldn't use computers for trivial things. I just believe that if you don't need the extra functionality of a full system you should stick to something more specialized like an iPad aka the smartphone for geezers. The thing that irritates me is that companies are trying to market their product to the lowest common denominator by watering it down, swathing it with bubble wrap, grinding off all the sharp corners, etc. This makes it a pain to use if you actually know what you're doing and chews up system resources even with every extraneous feature disabled. So really it's not change that bothers people but wasteful change.
Because apart from WWI and WWII the United States has never been involved in another war
Nobody reads that stuff, we all just click 'I Agree' and promptly get scheduled for experimental surgery.
I, personally, am not religious but I do not have a problem with someone holding a different viewpoint on the matter. Unfortunately, it seems to be becoming an ever more popular trend to attack others
That quote by Einstein in the context of this discussion is oddly appropriate given his personal beliefs about God.
I'm in no way a believer in ID but you really have to work on how you phrase these things. I'm also hoping that you do have a good understanding of quantum mechanics so that you aren't just talking through your hat.
Making a personal attack on marcello isn't helping your position either. It really seems that his first language isn't English so I would allow a bit of grammatical leeway.
His terminology is a little woozy and there may be some basic misconceptions here but what he is essentially saying is that given the function f(t)=t where t is any real number it is possible to arrive at a member of this set from a number that does not belong to it such as an imaginary number. I'm not saying that everything he said makes sense, just that there is a point we may not be understanding due to a language barrier.
Whether a statement is false or true in formal logic has nothing to do with it being a valid or invalid statement and definitely doesn't allow you to 'derive everything and anything' from it. If you are attempting to say that basing an argument on a logical fallacy results in the argument being invalid, then you would be correct as far as that goes.
What assumptions in particular are you referring to? You haven't made your argument very clear.
Hard to believe really. It's like some people don't even have the ability to distinguish personal belief from scientific hypothesis.
The only dangerous thing going on here is the demonization of belief systems. Horrible things have been done by people declaring avout belief in religious and secular powers but it is never the tool that is to blame but the person wielding it. Blindly slandering the other side doesn't make a point other than showing your ignorance of the debate.
I'm not sure, haha. Talking at cross purposes I guess.
The money is always going to wind up in the hands of corporations unless you know of any anarcho-collective construction companies Uncle Sam would be willing to hire (and even they would be a form of corporation). Trying to limit funds going to people and companies outside the government is not the issue. Any government must pay people to do the work that is agreed upon by the elected representatives. The problem money is that coming into politicians' campaigns, companies, funds, etc. This money is the root of earmarks and pork barrel spending which is its reciprocal. The favoritism is the problem because it allows those with the most power and money to maintain their positions by funnelling money into the pockets of their likeminded peers.
The only way to end this cycle of back patting and political peerage is to cut off one head of the beast. You can't cut money from government to business or nothing would ever get done so you must cut off donations to elected officials. Don't allow politicians to use mass media and provide a public alternative that is set up to allow each campaigner equal time to get their message across so that they must run on their merits and not their wallets. No one gets a fair shake when there's money to be made.
Oink, oink, oink. Happy now?
Fact is, it buys votes so everyone does it.
The criminal is still a human being who is protected by the same laws as other human beings. If you just go around removing people's humanity based on accusations without a fair trial to determine their innocence or guilt you wind up with death camps and summary executions. We've learnt this lesson a thousand times before throughout history and this is exactly the reason most civilized countries no longer even have the death penalty let alone allow people to be shot in the street.
Haha, I always thought Niven's free parks were a great idea, if only you could be sure the copseyes would be piloted by fair and just people... or AI for that matter.
Here ya go: Pig Book
I'm pretty sure that what he meant was that it would be easier to bring compact power sources into space and potentially refuel them if they were being used on a planetary body or elsewhere that might have a supply of hydrogen and nickel. Right now the only options we have are solar and nuclear for providing power in space, the former requires a lot of mass for small gain and the latter has become a bit of a hairy political issue. Also, using a railgun is not as far fetched as you think [1] [2], the limitations are mainly related to the amount of power that can be supplied.
Tell that to a third-world farmer hauling water and planting crops by hand. Before cheap, available internal combustion engines food production was drastically lower than it is today simply because it was so labor intesive. The arrival of motor driven farm equipment and the advances in irrigation and fertilizer production made possible by new energy sources are the reason that the world population has hit 7 billion this quickly. [3] Human reproduction also tends to level out as standard of living increases. [4]
I don't see anywhere that he implied we would violate conservation of energy. It looks like all he is saying is that 1) the study of particle physics may lead to new ways of producing fission or fusion economically 2) sustainable fusion would be more efficient at releasing energy than current methods e.g. fossil fuels, solar, wind, etc. 3) E=mc^2 does in fact hold the promise that we will someday be able to readily convert mass to usable energy.
$42.60 actually.
Hub, mouse, keyboard, monitor(may or may not require a small amount of hacking to get connected).
More likely it would just forward the data to a server for analysis.
Since when do you need to install a driver to monitor raw HTTP data? I can monitor your connection sitting ten feet away from you at the coffee shop regardless of whether you're using Linux or not.
You can't just change one of the propositions of an argument just because you think it'll help you win.
I didn't say it was a good idea, just answering your question about why such an old system keeps appearing at the table. The configuration thing btw is bullshit, more impulse would be provided by a nuclear explosion within the atmosphere than without. The only 'configuration' change you could possibly make would be to use lighter warheads since you wouldn't need as much filler to transmit force to the pusher plate. Thankfully this idea was never used but it still stands as the only superior launch system achievable with current technology which is why it always gets brought up.
More risk but for higher potential gain if a habitable planet is reached in the end. The chances of which seem to be increasing every day with the discovery of more exoplanets nearer to Earth size. Trying to maintain the status quo and shying away from the risks involved with innovation is exactly the type of thinking that would land us in such an untennable situation in the first place. At least an interstellar ship is accomplishing something while housing a city's worth of people rather than just cowering under a dome on a dying planet. Not to mention the old addage about putting all your eggs in one basket.
About half the weight actually [1] but that still leaves you with 4,000,000 tonnes to launch conventionally. Even if you used something with better lifting capacity like a Saturn V it would still take 30,769 launches just for that half. We're nowhere close to building rail-guns with orbital launch capability and even if we could it would still take a comparable number of launches to get the plate into orbit. Overall, it's just not feasible to build an Orion-type spacecraft in orbit if it's going to be used for interstellar travel. Only the interplanetary designs are light enough to consider contruction in orbit.
Whether you would prefer to live in a domed city or on an interstellar starship seems most likely to be a matter of personal preference and since we're being purely hypothetical in this case I don't see why both developments wouldn't occur.
Medusa doesn't solve the problem of launching from Earth though, only from orbit. The major advantage of the Orion design was that it had greatly superior payload capacity. Compared to a Saturn V (which you would need 3 of to get Medusa into orbit) with a ratio of 1 ton of cargo for every 25 tons of spacecraft, the Orion design would allow anywhere from a 1:3 to 1:1.6 ratio which is vastly superior to any other ground launch vehicle.