I'm pretty sure he was liberal. Besides the fact that he was ostensibly well educated and working in the sciences - there have been lots of violations of the hatch act in the Bush Administration (example) - and as far as I know - no firings. If he were Republican - this would be the first.
I know a lot of people who have faith in a creator. Many people have claimed to have had revelations by many creators. Which one do I believe? How many of those "prophets" hear things from their creator for human reasons (eg epilepsy, psychological issues, wealth/power/fraud, social indoctrination/brainwashing)? Many people had complete faith in a creator and then lost it, due to whatever reason. Shouldn't those be just as likely to have had something revealed to them?
Many people have died for their faith- from many different faiths. Which one is right? The one with the largest number of martyrs?
Faith is incompatible with science. That is, faith defined as belief without evidence. Anyone can have faith in the truth. Trouble is, truth is subjective. Science only cares about objective truth. Science supports the theories best backed by evidence. Blind faith loses to evidence every time.
The creation pointing to the creator is circular logic. Assuming the universe is a creation leads to the belief in a creator, which "shows" that the universe is a creation. A creation implies a creator, as long as you're sure about the "creation" part. Also, assuming the universe was created still does not reveal any characteristics of the creator (eg the Christian God, Allah, Visnu, Yaldabaoth).
If faith is "the evidence of things not seen", then there is infinite evidence of things not seen. I can have faith that my toaster oven flies around at night and sprinkles toast-crumbs all over my TV. I can have faith that my toes are recepticles of divine power. I can have faith that I am God, or that slashcode is God. I can have faith in Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, or that Pat Buchanan is Gandhi reincarnated. I can have faith in absolutely anything, but that doesn't make that anything one iota closer to being true.
I don't see a major contradiction in the Heb. definition and the dictionary definition - ie belief without evidence. The Heb. definition is romantisizing the same concept.
People have done much stranger things in the name of religion than feed themselves to lions - are they all correct? You assume the existence of a creator - through faith (see above). All science is concerned with is "finding the truth"- odd how science will always be opposed to faith. A lot of people have "looked", and "found" nothing. Others have looked, and found, then realized it was all BS. Others like you, found, or were found - and stayed there their entire lives. I hope you realize that religion is NOT compatible with science. It always comes down to an issue of faith - and as I hope I've shown above - belief by faith alone is unreasonable. Probably the real reason that you stay religious though is because your close friends and family are religious. That is the world you are used to, and that worldview is reinforced every day. If it makes you happy though, enjoy yourself.//END DIATRIBE
I am a senior at Univeristy of California - San Diego. I was forced to use the turnitin.com system on several occasions. Having served my time in the university system, I have seen many students get away with cheating. As a student with something of a (imho) high moral code, this drives me crazy. I think cheating on a test or plagiarizing a paper is reprehensible. As an electrical engineer, I find it important that all other engineering majors believe in the same ethical code (such as the ieee code of ethics) - because cheating in the real world can lead to disastrous consequences.
Turnitin.com serves two important functions: to prevent plagarism, and to catch plagarism. In my writing classes, a few students (knowing that we use turnitin.com) plagiarized anyways. These idiots rightly deserved to be punished. On the downside, a friend of mine (writing a paper at 5am) forgot to use an endquote (") when citing something. She was marked for plagiarism, received an "F" in the class, and has that label on her permanent record. However, in that incident I find the administration to blame, not turnitin.com.
The honor system is a great ideal, but (at least at UCSD) it is not followed. Turnitin.com is not invasive, it simply ensures that people do their own work (and therefore the grading curve reflects students' actual achievments). They profit slightly by adding your paper to their database, but at least that way nobody can plagiarize your work- doing a service to you. BTW, no grading what-so-ever is done by turnitin.com - the web-service returns information on sources of text- not style of writing or anything else. TAs or Professors still do the grading - they will just know that they are grading an original work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure he was liberal. Besides the fact that he was ostensibly well educated and working in the sciences - there have been lots of violations of the hatch act in the Bush Administration (example) - and as far as I know - no firings. If he were Republican - this would be the first.
Maybe letting the Hubble burn up in a fiery inferno is Bush's way of bringing democracy to it.
If you ask why a space telescope would need democracy, you are acting very un-american.
We just need to change Hubble's name from Hubble Space Telescope to Freedom Space Telescope.
I know a lot of people who have faith in a creator. Many people have claimed to have had revelations by many creators. Which one do I believe? How many of those "prophets" hear things from their creator for human reasons (eg epilepsy, psychological issues, wealth/power/fraud, social indoctrination/brainwashing)? Many people had complete faith in a creator and then lost it, due to whatever reason. Shouldn't those be just as likely to have had something revealed to them?
Many people have died for their faith- from many different faiths. Which one is right? The one with the largest number of martyrs?
Faith is incompatible with science. That is, faith defined as belief without evidence. Anyone can have faith in the truth. Trouble is, truth is subjective. Science only cares about objective truth. Science supports the theories best backed by evidence. Blind faith loses to evidence every time.
The creation pointing to the creator is circular logic. Assuming the universe is a creation leads to the belief in a creator, which "shows" that the universe is a creation. A creation implies a creator, as long as you're sure about the "creation" part. Also, assuming the universe was created still does not reveal any characteristics of the creator (eg the Christian God, Allah, Visnu, Yaldabaoth).
If faith is "the evidence of things not seen", then there is infinite evidence of things not seen. I can have faith that my toaster oven flies around at night and sprinkles toast-crumbs all over my TV. I can have faith that my toes are recepticles of divine power. I can have faith that I am God, or that slashcode is God. I can have faith in Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, or that Pat Buchanan is Gandhi reincarnated. I can have faith in absolutely anything, but that doesn't make that anything one iota closer to being true.
//END DIATRIBE
I don't see a major contradiction in the Heb. definition and the dictionary definition - ie belief without evidence. The Heb. definition is romantisizing the same concept.
People have done much stranger things in the name of religion than feed themselves to lions - are they all correct? You assume the existence of a creator - through faith (see above). All science is concerned with is "finding the truth"- odd how science will always be opposed to faith. A lot of people have "looked", and "found" nothing. Others have looked, and found, then realized it was all BS. Others like you, found, or were found - and stayed there their entire lives. I hope you realize that religion is NOT compatible with science. It always comes down to an issue of faith - and as I hope I've shown above - belief by faith alone is unreasonable. Probably the real reason that you stay religious though is because your close friends and family are religious. That is the world you are used to, and that worldview is reinforced every day. If it makes you happy though, enjoy yourself.
As one of my favorite college professors used to say, "On a scale of trustworthiness, Biblical Archaeologists rank right under used-car salesmen."
I am a senior at Univeristy of California - San Diego. I was forced to use the turnitin.com system on several occasions. Having served my time in the university system, I have seen many students get away with cheating. As a student with something of a (imho) high moral code, this drives me crazy. I think cheating on a test or plagiarizing a paper is reprehensible. As an electrical engineer, I find it important that all other engineering majors believe in the same ethical code (such as the ieee code of ethics) - because cheating in the real world can lead to disastrous consequences.
Turnitin.com serves two important functions: to prevent plagarism, and to catch plagarism. In my writing classes, a few students (knowing that we use turnitin.com) plagiarized anyways. These idiots rightly deserved to be punished. On the downside, a friend of mine (writing a paper at 5am) forgot to use an endquote (") when citing something. She was marked for plagiarism, received an "F" in the class, and has that label on her permanent record. However, in that incident I find the administration to blame, not turnitin.com.
The honor system is a great ideal, but (at least at UCSD) it is not followed. Turnitin.com is not invasive, it simply ensures that people do their own work (and therefore the grading curve reflects students' actual achievments). They profit slightly by adding your paper to their database, but at least that way nobody can plagiarize your work- doing a service to you. BTW, no grading what-so-ever is done by turnitin.com - the web-service returns information on sources of text- not style of writing or anything else. TAs or Professors still do the grading - they will just know that they are grading an original work.
I think this Rosenfeld guy is a big whiner.
Because the feature was taken out of the nightly builds at some point in the 1.3 development - to my dismay.
The best thing about the new release is that they brought the "Close other tabs" menu option back!!!!! w000t!!!!!!!
Gone are the days when I have to close one tab at a time! Hooray!
I'm a student, and I use it daily. It is practically an extension of my brain.