My dog doesn't follow this pattern, she runs pretty much everywhere
Because she (and domesticated dogs in general) have very few survival pressures on them these days. In fact, by running around and being cute they probably get more treats.
you point it out yourself ("you can't prove a negative"), then jump right into doing just the thing you claim can't be done ("both those things... could very easily be proved - if they were true")
Completely no! I can't prove there is no teapot on Titan. That is my point. I could prove the positive case, simply by finding evidence of same.
Perhaps my wording was misleading. When I said "Both those things, however, could very easily be proved" I was talking about the positive cases - that bigfoot does exist, and there is a teapot on Titan.
and this isn't yet another example of a confidence man making his fortune by playing on the firmly-held beliefs of a particular group
How's he doing that? He's not asking these people to place a bet. He's got the million bucks, and it's theirs if (subject to an agreed testing protocol) they can do what they claim to do. It doesn't actually matter if they use paranormal abilities - they just have to fool the guy.
OK, but what about the specific claim of, "I can prove these other guys are liars and fakes?" I mean, that's a pretty damn specific claim, but I have yet to see anyone ask Mr. Randi to back it up with empirical data; have you?
And you've figured out how to descend to an ad hominem.
The phrases I've quoted are from the one report you linked to apparently in order to demonstrate how the government is, apparently, only just evil enough to dish out prevaricative hints that smoking might not be good, but apparently not so evil that they can bring themselves to outright lie about it. I've given three quotes from that same report which contradict your argument. That will have to do, because I haven't got time to personally do fifty years of scientific research into the dangers of smoking just now.
but if you actually read the reports, [surgeongeneral.gov] you'll notice a distinct lack of defining words like "definitely causes" or "is a factor;" instead, they use 'weasel words' such as "may cause" and "estimated" or "could be a factor" to create an illusion of fact, when in reality it's all pure speculation.
It would be scientifically incorrect of me to say that jumping from the 10th floor of a building will definitely result in death. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good grasp on how dangerous it would be to try. This is how scientists talk.
Anyway, I only had to go as far as halfway through page 4 of the linked report to find this:
It is harmful and hazardous to the health of the general public and particularly dangerous to children. It increases the risk of serious respiratory problems in children, such as a greater number and severity of asthma attacks and lower respiratory tract infections, and increases the risk for middle ear infections. It is also a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent). Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in nonsmoking adults.
Not a single weasel-word. Shall I continue?
Secondhand smoke is a major case of disease, including lung cancer and coronary heart disease, in healthy nonsmokers.
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes excess deaths in the U.S. population from lung cancer and cardiac related illnesses.
I'm going to quote an AC who replied here, because I don't have mod points and he's made the point succinctly:
3) What scientific, empirical evidence can you present that proves your contention that what you label as the flying spaghetti monster is fraudulent? I.e., have you yourself conducted sufficient experimentation to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no such thing?
That's not how the burden of proof works. You don't have to entertain such claims unless there is proof, he doesn't need to supply the proof the ones making the claims do.
Furthermore, you can't prove a negative. Can you prove that bigfoot doesn't exist? How? Can you prove that there isn't a teapot sitting in the middle of a crater on Titan? Both those things, however, could very easily be proved - if they were true. Until then, it seems wise to assume that they aren't.
Mod parent down. My raspberry does not have a BT interface.
How does that invalidate the AC's opinion? I haven't got a 3D TV but I don't go around telling people that their opinions of them are worthless because I haven't got one.
What the hell? They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood? Why not just ask for a few beads on a string?
It's not a case of asking. They're taking what they are owed because the US is refusing to compensate them.
The only thing I can think of that separates Scientology from any of the "legitimate religions" is that Scientology is so new that there are people outside of the religion old enough to remember seeing it be created by a person.
More importantly, it's young enough that those in charge of it (probably*) know it's all bollocks.
(apologies to the women in the audience for the term )
There aren't any women here. And no-one is to stone anyone - even if they do say Jehovah.
We tend to have a naive feeling that we understand the solar system
On average, perhaps. But I hear all the guys at NASA and ESA are fairly clued up, and any private companies that aren't are going to learn the hard way, probably long before they get out of the atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, spoiler alert, jeez.
If only there was some alternative to blindly copying and pasting a few paragraphs from the article when crafting a Slashdot summary...
My dog doesn't follow this pattern, she runs pretty much everywhere
Because she (and domesticated dogs in general) have very few survival pressures on them these days. In fact, by running around and being cute they probably get more treats.
How did people kill mammoths with their tools?
They chased them over cliffs.
If they killed mammoths, why not elephants?
Mammoth tastes better than elephant.
reaching for their mouse
I've never heard it called that before.
you point it out yourself ("you can't prove a negative"), then jump right into doing just the thing you claim can't be done ("both those things... could very easily be proved - if they were true")
Completely no! I can't prove there is no teapot on Titan. That is my point. I could prove the positive case, simply by finding evidence of same.
Perhaps my wording was misleading. When I said "Both those things, however, could very easily be proved" I was talking about the positive cases - that bigfoot does exist, and there is a teapot on Titan.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
and this isn't yet another example of a confidence man making his fortune by playing on the firmly-held beliefs of a particular group
How's he doing that? He's not asking these people to place a bet. He's got the million bucks, and it's theirs if (subject to an agreed testing protocol) they can do what they claim to do. It doesn't actually matter if they use paranormal abilities - they just have to fool the guy.
OK, but what about the specific claim of, "I can prove these other guys are liars and fakes?" I mean, that's a pretty damn specific claim, but I have yet to see anyone ask Mr. Randi to back it up with empirical data; have you?
I've yet to see Randi make that claim.
And you've figured out how to descend to an ad hominem.
The phrases I've quoted are from the one report you linked to apparently in order to demonstrate how the government is, apparently, only just evil enough to dish out prevaricative hints that smoking might not be good, but apparently not so evil that they can bring themselves to outright lie about it. I've given three quotes from that same report which contradict your argument. That will have to do, because I haven't got time to personally do fifty years of scientific research into the dangers of smoking just now.
I have (up to) a billion pounds in my back account.
but if you actually read the reports, [surgeongeneral.gov] you'll notice a distinct lack of defining words like "definitely causes" or "is a factor;" instead, they use 'weasel words' such as "may cause" and "estimated" or "could be a factor" to create an illusion of fact, when in reality it's all pure speculation.
It would be scientifically incorrect of me to say that jumping from the 10th floor of a building will definitely result in death. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good grasp on how dangerous it would be to try. This is how scientists talk. Anyway, I only had to go as far as halfway through page 4 of the linked report to find this:
It is harmful and hazardous to the health of the general public and particularly dangerous to children. It increases the risk of serious respiratory problems in children, such as a greater number and severity of asthma attacks and lower respiratory tract infections, and increases the risk for middle ear infections. It is also a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent). Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in nonsmoking adults.
Not a single weasel-word. Shall I continue?
Secondhand smoke is a major case of disease, including lung cancer and coronary heart disease, in healthy nonsmokers.
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes excess deaths in the U.S. population from lung cancer and cardiac related illnesses.
3) What scientific, empirical evidence can you present that proves your contention that what you label as the flying spaghetti monster is fraudulent? I.e., have you yourself conducted sufficient experimentation to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no such thing?
That's not how the burden of proof works. You don't have to entertain such claims unless there is proof, he doesn't need to supply the proof the ones making the claims do.
Furthermore, you can't prove a negative. Can you prove that bigfoot doesn't exist? How? Can you prove that there isn't a teapot sitting in the middle of a crater on Titan? Both those things, however, could very easily be proved - if they were true. Until then, it seems wise to assume that they aren't.
I should hope so. Personally I prefer Programmer's Notepad, but life's a rainbow.
Samsung notebooks can be turned into a brick if booted just one time
Why do people say "one time" when there's been a shorter word for it for hundreds of years? Damn Fugees...
Storage is so fricking cheap these days
But less is still cheaper than more.
Use Notepad
There is no excuse for uttering that kind of filth here.
With or without a safety net?
Okay, that invalidates the AC's opinion.
Mod parent down. My raspberry does not have a BT interface.
How does that invalidate the AC's opinion? I haven't got a 3D TV but I don't go around telling people that their opinions of them are worthless because I haven't got one.
literally debugging software 500 feet in the air, in front of a million people,' says Davis.
Wow, when you put it like that it sounds really fucking boring.
plenty of raspberry ' s in my time, they gave me caning ' s.
I'm assuming it was mainly English teachers.
Ill stick with microsoft products since they work the best and provide the best security, because I know what I am doing.
Well that's the wrong attitude for a start. A company should provide the best security because they know what they're doing, not you.
What the hell? They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood? Why not just ask for a few beads on a string?
It's not a case of asking. They're taking what they are owed because the US is refusing to compensate them.
The only thing I can think of that separates Scientology from any of the "legitimate religions" is that Scientology is so new that there are people outside of the religion old enough to remember seeing it be created by a person.
More importantly, it's young enough that those in charge of it (probably*) know it's all bollocks.
(apologies to the women in the audience for the term )
There aren't any women here. And no-one is to stone anyone - even if they do say Jehovah.
*definitely. They definitely know it's bollocks.
Iran said it launched an Explorer rocket into space carrying a moose
A space møøse once bit my sister...
We tend to have a naive feeling that we understand the solar system
On average, perhaps. But I hear all the guys at NASA and ESA are fairly clued up, and any private companies that aren't are going to learn the hard way, probably long before they get out of the atmosphere.