When theology looks to explain observable phenomena (be they fossils or historical events) then you'd be able to justify a claim that it was a science. Until then, it's at best an abstract philosophical discipline, the same as things like ethics, though with rather less practical applications.
Are you trying to claim that palaeontology/isn't/ a scientific discipline? Or that the study of history is fundamentally different? Either of those claims would need significant support before you could really justify them.
What's the point of invoking God if there's a good scientific explanation for some phenomenon? What does it bring to a discussion? Why would it be necessary?
You're free to believe whatever you want, but invoking God/as well as/ a scientific explanation seems a little pointless to me (and a lot of other people).
You're kind of missing the point of the basket analogy . . . in fact, you're actually/reinforcing/ the analogy. The point of it was that science/has/ peeled away the onion, continually and inexorablyy./Nothing/ has gone the other way. To destroy the analogy, you need to present some valid reason why science might/stop/ being able to peel away at the onion.
Your second point, the question of why having a scientific explanation should preclude God doing it, is where the question of faith/belief/whatever comes in. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you shouldn't be surprised (or offended) if someone thinks you're a little odd for believing that God caused some phenomenon, even though there's a good scientific explanation for it. Why would you invoke God in such a circumstance? Why would it be/necessary/? The only possible reason for invoking God is to justify your belief.
Science has proven to be a vastly powerful tool for explaining the universe, and there hasn't been any evidence presented to suggest that there are any phenomena it/can't/ explain. Given that, why is there any need for God?
So palaeontology isn't a science? They don't exactly get to test their hypotheses by performing experiments. Likewise/many/ areas of science.
History as a discipline might not use the formal scientific method, but it's not that different to scientific disciplines like palaeontology. Frequently lacking in rigour, but then that's almost inevitable in something as political as history.
"The reason for bringing up the Nuremberg defense in a discussion like this is to draw an analogy between it and the "just doing my job" argument"
WHich is moronic, because one is a case of horrendous war crimes and the other is refusing to allow a phone in a private usiness. One case has the individuals dragged screaming to their incineration, and one has people voluntarily choosing to enter a private establishment.
The analogy is/not/ between the actions, it's between the/reasoning behind them/. If you can't recognise that, then you really should have your Internet license revoked.
Then why say "just following orders" which was the justification for war crimes, when "just doing my job" is both more accurate and less evocative?
Or right, because it DOES imply something about war crimes, which OP acknowledged, and you're not honest enough to admit. You're completely wrong.
. . . . pardon? The reason for bringing up the Nuremberg defense in a discussion like this is to draw an analogy between it and the "just doing my job" argument - it's implying that the reasoning behind both of them (abdicating responsibility for your actions, and attempting to pass that responsibility on to your superiors) is the same. Can you argue with/that/?
The fact that the Nuremberg defense isn't considered acceptable, on the grounds that people should be held responsible for their actions if they're in a position where they can make a choice about them, suggests that by the same standard the "just doing my job" defense shouldn't be considered acceptable either. There's no reason to think that comparison isn't valid, or that it suggests that handing a teenager over to the police because of corporate policies is somehow equivalent to herding people into the gas chambers./All/ that comparison suggests is that using consistent standards, neither defense should be considered morally acceptable.
So, would you like to explain how I'm completely wrong?
I/hate/ this sort of argument. What the hell is wrong with making a philosophical comparison between the "just following orders" 'defense' and the concept of doing what your boss tells you even if it's stupid? It's a valid comparison, and it doesn't imply anything at all about trying to equate trivial stupidities with war crimes. It's just suggesting that they're related concepts, and arguing that they're/not/ is just plain stupid.
Making a comparison is/not/ the same as saying to concepts are equivalent!
And strangely enough, even in a country like Australia which has been metricised for 30 years, you can still buy wood in 50x100x(300n) sizes, and you get your ply in 1200x2400 sheets . . . All you normally end up doing is changing the constants, and it doesn't take a genius to deal with that.
Although, you know, that's actually one of the saner complaints I've heard about going metric - it's not/valid/, but far saner than most.
I call bullshit simply based on the question of where the hell Tesla would have gotten the ~80 petajoules of energy needed for a 20 megaton explosion, regardless of how wonderful his deathray may have been. Even if he was charging some massive bank of capacitors for a year, that would require 2.5GW for the whole year, which is utterly ridiculous for 1908.
Without knowing more about the parameters of the camera, you can't say whether that variation is noise or actual data . . . It's certainly an interesting quick analysis, though.
Actually, most cars with electronic fuel injection will simply not inject/any/ fuel into the cylinders when the accelerator isn't being pressed, so coasting (with the clutch disengaged, so you're in gear) will actually use zero fuel.
One of the many reasons modern cars are so much more fuel efficient than older ones . . .
I just love people spouting this off, without a single fact to back it up. How about Washington DC which has the strictest gun laws in the Country, and is the murder capitol? Or how about San Fransisco, or any of the many other progressive cities which ban guns. Or how about Australia where the gun ban resulted in a SURGE of gun related violence.
Hey dickhead, you might want to actually look up the Australian statistics, rather than just believing whatever the NRA tells you - when gun ownership laws were tightened dramatically in 1996, there was a massive/drop/ in gun related crime, and it's stayed at significantly reduced levels since. Feel free to look up the numbers on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, since they're all freely available.
If you want to cite examples to support your case, you should probably take a bit more care with your research. Fucker.
Okay, I'll accept that you weren't talking out of your arse. Can you point at examples of these studies, or are they all in offline sources?
I will still say that my experience of abusive situations would suggest that sexual, physical and emotional abuse are all very tightly interlinked - isolating their seperate effects would be extremely difficult to do. I may be focussing too tightly on abusive/families/ though (ironically, the opposite of most people's paranoia). My understanding was that this was the most common situation by far, but I could easily be wrong.
So tell me, do you really think sexual abuse is somehow/not/ physical abuse? I mean, is holding a girl down and raping her not physically abusive? Is holding a knife to a kid's throat while he's sodomised not physical abuse, simply because there's a sexual aspect to it as well? And where's the magic line drawn between sexual abuse and emotional abuse?
I don't know the details of the reseach you're citing, but my experience has sexual abuse encompassing many/most aspects of both emotional and physical abuse, as well as the sexual aspects. Withouth knowing more about that research I can't say if they've taken any of that into account, or sufficiently into account, or if their results are just bunkum. If they think physical abuse is "far worse" than sexual abuse, I'm leaning towards bunkum.
I will say, however, that I/don't/ agree with the whole 'think of the children' crap, for most of the same reasons I disagree with the security theatre approach to dealing with terrorism - it's designed to make people feel better, not to do something about the real problems.
Most legally blind people can see at least a little, just not well enough to be able to deal with everyday life by vision alone (think of all the people with tunnel vision or similar, for a start). Why do you think things like screen magnifiers and large print books are useful? And hey, if you can tell what denomination a note is simply by recognising that the splodge of colour you can see is orange rather than blue or green, you're ahead.
And you have no idea how much I dislike this feature (which solaris, at least as of solaris 8, shared) - if I want the damned thing to quit, I'll/tell/ it to, otherwise I'd like to be able to go back and review stuff from earlier in the file.
Personally, I consider using a default pager that's capable of scrolling backwards is a good example of polish.
What would happen to them is the same thing that happened to the people who rose up against Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and the Chinese government. They would be gunned down by the tools of the state and any survivors gathered for the torture chamber just to make sure the point was not lost on the rest of the populace, primarily because of the lack of means to oppose that level of force.
Ooookay . . . If you/really/ think the US military would do that to the US populace, then you have bigger problems than your gun fetish.
Or maybe you're right, and the US/has/ really become a nation where the military would be willing to commit mass murder of their fellow citizens. If that's the case, then you're fucked, and all the handguns and rifles in he world won't help.
I believe that our Aussie friends, who banned guns a few years back, experienced an increase in violent crime--after all, when the good people can't defend themselves, the bad are emboldened. The Swiss, on the other hand, have a machine gun in every house--and they have a much lower crime rate. Why risk breaking into a house when you know the owner can blow you away?
That would be a wonderful line of reasoning, if it were true. Unfortunately, there/was/ no increase in violent crime in Australia coincident with the bans and buy-back schemes, and there was also a/massive/ reduction in firearms related deaths and crimes. The supposed increase in violent crime is basically bullshit made up by the NRA.
If the risk of being blown away is going to deter crime, why does the US have such a/high/ crime rate? It's not like the populace there is exactly lightly armed . . ..
This is a good example of the kind of wooly thinking that's driving this violent porn ban - it/sounds/ like a reasonable idea, but it really doesn't stand up to analysis (as a number of posts have shown, with links to research showing exactly the opposite of what you're saying).
Try to keep your emotions/out/ of your chains of reasoning - you get much better results that way.
Window Maker really needs a dockapp library that handles scaling of the dockapp window . . . I imagine it wouldn't be all/that/ complex, but hey, you'd still have to get people to use it . ..
You are misinformed - the redirection wasn't completely automatic, it went through a page that told you what was happening, and gave you a link to the.com site along with a warning about its content (see it at http://144.135.18.91 assuming it hasn't been taken down by now).
Yeah, a direct redirection without any choice in the matter would be way over the top, but a redirection implemented this way seems quite reasonable.
Well, here in.au we have an electorate of around 8 or 10 million people (I dont know the number, and I'm too lazy to go search), and we do the entire voting and counting process by hand, in one day, from 8am to 6pm for voting and then counting from then on until it's finished.
I don't recall an election where the result wasn't known by around midnight of the same day, and I also don't recall an election that required a major recount. In fact, I can't recall/any/ recounts off the top of my head.
Or you could just highlight the URL in your client and then paste it into the browser window (opening a new tab for it if you like). Two steps, in the logical order, and way faster than the Windows way.
Didn't know of that nice feature that almost all *nix browsers have? Well, now you do.
ummm . . . take a look at that guy's site - he does that sort of thing for a living, and not only does he understand the issues involved with floating point optimisations and accuracy, he's actually working on FP optimisation and accuracy benchmarks for GCC.
So yeah, in general your advice is good, but this time you're trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Try using NetSpace - they currently offer 512/128 capped at 10GB peak and 10GB off peak, for $99 a month. Not sure about their dialup plans, though . ..
They're even quite Linux friendly, though they don't say so anywhere . ..
Slashdot Mirror
When theology looks to explain observable phenomena (be they fossils or historical events) then you'd be able to justify a claim that it was a science. Until then, it's at best an abstract philosophical discipline, the same as things like ethics, though with rather less practical applications.
/isn't/ a scientific discipline? Or that the study of history is fundamentally different? Either of those claims would need significant support before you could really justify them.
Are you trying to claim that palaeontology
himi
What's the point of invoking God if there's a good scientific explanation for some phenomenon? What does it bring to a discussion? Why would it be necessary?
/as well as/ a scientific explanation seems a little pointless to me (and a lot of other people).
You're free to believe whatever you want, but invoking God
himi
You're kind of missing the point of the basket analogy . . . in fact, you're actually /reinforcing/ the analogy. The point of it was that science /has/ peeled away the onion, continually and inexorablyy. /Nothing/ has gone the other way. To destroy the analogy, you need to present some valid reason why science might /stop/ being able to peel away at the onion.
/necessary/? The only possible reason for invoking God is to justify your belief.
/can't/ explain. Given that, why is there any need for God?
Your second point, the question of why having a scientific explanation should preclude God doing it, is where the question of faith/belief/whatever comes in. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you shouldn't be surprised (or offended) if someone thinks you're a little odd for believing that God caused some phenomenon, even though there's a good scientific explanation for it. Why would you invoke God in such a circumstance? Why would it be
Science has proven to be a vastly powerful tool for explaining the universe, and there hasn't been any evidence presented to suggest that there are any phenomena it
himi
So palaeontology isn't a science? They don't exactly get to test their hypotheses by performing experiments. Likewise /many/ areas of science.
History as a discipline might not use the formal scientific method, but it's not that different to scientific disciplines like palaeontology. Frequently lacking in rigour, but then that's almost inevitable in something as political as history.
himi
Last I heard Linux supported more architectures than NetBSD (Greg KH's numbers, couldn't be bothered googling).
NetBSD's portability stopped being amazing a long time ago.
himi
The analogy is
There's apparently no point continuing.
himi
. . . . pardon? The reason for bringing up the Nuremberg defense in a discussion like this is to draw an analogy between it and the "just doing my job" argument - it's implying that the reasoning behind both of them (abdicating responsibility for your actions, and attempting to pass that responsibility on to your superiors) is the same. Can you argue with
The fact that the Nuremberg defense isn't considered acceptable, on the grounds that people should be held responsible for their actions if they're in a position where they can make a choice about them, suggests that by the same standard the "just doing my job" defense shouldn't be considered acceptable either. There's no reason to think that comparison isn't valid, or that it suggests that handing a teenager over to the police because of corporate policies is somehow equivalent to herding people into the gas chambers.
So, would you like to explain how I'm completely wrong?
himi
I /hate/ this sort of argument. What the hell is wrong with making a philosophical comparison between the "just following orders" 'defense' and the concept of doing what your boss tells you even if it's stupid? It's a valid comparison, and it doesn't imply anything at all about trying to equate trivial stupidities with war crimes. It's just suggesting that they're related concepts, and arguing that they're /not/ is just plain stupid.
/not/ the same as saying to concepts are equivalent!
Making a comparison is
himi
And strangely enough, even in a country like Australia which has been metricised for 30 years, you can still buy wood in 50x100x(300n) sizes, and you get your ply in 1200x2400 sheets . . . All you normally end up doing is changing the constants, and it doesn't take a genius to deal with that.
/valid/, but far saner than most.
Although, you know, that's actually one of the saner complaints I've heard about going metric - it's not
himi
I call bullshit simply based on the question of where the hell Tesla would have gotten the ~80 petajoules of energy needed for a 20 megaton explosion, regardless of how wonderful his deathray may have been. Even if he was charging some massive bank of capacitors for a year, that would require 2.5GW for the whole year, which is utterly ridiculous for 1908.
himi
Without knowing more about the parameters of the camera, you can't say whether that variation is noise or actual data . . . It's certainly an interesting quick analysis, though.
himi
Actually, most cars with electronic fuel injection will simply not inject /any/ fuel into the cylinders when the accelerator isn't being pressed, so coasting (with the clutch disengaged, so you're in gear) will actually use zero fuel.
One of the many reasons modern cars are so much more fuel efficient than older ones . . .
himi
Hey dickhead, you might want to actually look up the Australian statistics, rather than just believing whatever the NRA tells you - when gun ownership laws were tightened dramatically in 1996, there was a massive /drop/ in gun related crime, and it's stayed at significantly reduced levels since. Feel free to look up the numbers on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, since they're all freely available.
If you want to cite examples to support your case, you should probably take a bit more care with your research. Fucker.
himi
Okay, I'll accept that you weren't talking out of your arse. Can you point at examples of these studies, or are they all in offline sources?
/families/ though (ironically, the opposite of most people's paranoia). My understanding was that this was the most common situation by far, but I could easily be wrong.
I will still say that my experience of abusive situations would suggest that sexual, physical and emotional abuse are all very tightly interlinked - isolating their seperate effects would be extremely difficult to do. I may be focussing too tightly on abusive
himi
So tell me, do you really think sexual abuse is somehow /not/ physical abuse? I mean, is holding a girl down and raping her not physically abusive? Is holding a knife to a kid's throat while he's sodomised not physical abuse, simply because there's a sexual aspect to it as well? And where's the magic line drawn between sexual abuse and emotional abuse?
/don't/ agree with the whole 'think of the children' crap, for most of the same reasons I disagree with the security theatre approach to dealing with terrorism - it's designed to make people feel better, not to do something about the real problems.
I don't know the details of the reseach you're citing, but my experience has sexual abuse encompassing many/most aspects of both emotional and physical abuse, as well as the sexual aspects. Withouth knowing more about that research I can't say if they've taken any of that into account, or sufficiently into account, or if their results are just bunkum. If they think physical abuse is "far worse" than sexual abuse, I'm leaning towards bunkum.
I will say, however, that I
himi
Most legally blind people can see at least a little, just not well enough to be able to deal with everyday life by vision alone (think of all the people with tunnel vision or similar, for a start). Why do you think things like screen magnifiers and large print books are useful? And hey, if you can tell what denomination a note is simply by recognising that the splodge of colour you can see is orange rather than blue or green, you're ahead.
himi
And you have no idea how much I dislike this feature (which solaris, at least as of solaris 8, shared) - if I want the damned thing to quit, I'll /tell/ it to, otherwise I'd like to be able to go back and review stuff from earlier in the file.
Personally, I consider using a default pager that's capable of scrolling backwards is a good example of polish.
himi
Ooookay . . . If you
Or maybe you're right, and the US
himi
That would be a wonderful line of reasoning, if it were true. Unfortunately, there /was/ no increase in violent crime in Australia coincident with the bans and buy-back schemes, and there was also a /massive/ reduction in firearms related deaths and crimes. The supposed increase in violent crime is basically bullshit made up by the NRA.
If the risk of being blown away is going to deter crime, why does the US have such a /high/ crime rate? It's not like the populace there is exactly lightly armed . . . .
This is a good example of the kind of wooly thinking that's driving this violent porn ban - it /sounds/ like a reasonable idea, but it really doesn't stand up to analysis (as a number of posts have shown, with links to research showing exactly the opposite of what you're saying).
Try to keep your emotions /out/ of your chains of reasoning - you get much better results that way.
himi
Window Maker really needs a dockapp library that handles scaling of the dockapp window . . . I imagine it wouldn't be all /that/ complex, but hey, you'd still have to get people to use it . . .
himi (current maintainer of wmacpi)
You are misinformed - the redirection wasn't completely automatic, it went through a page that told you what was happening, and gave you a link to the .com site along with a warning about its content (see it at http://144.135.18.91 assuming it hasn't been taken down by now).
Yeah, a direct redirection without any choice in the matter would be way over the top, but a redirection implemented this way seems quite reasonable.
himi
Well, here in .au we have an electorate of around 8 or 10 million people (I dont know the number, and I'm too lazy to go search), and we do the entire voting and counting process by hand, in one day, from 8am to 6pm for voting and then counting from then on until it's finished.
/any/ recounts off the top of my head.
.
I don't recall an election where the result wasn't known by around midnight of the same day, and I also don't recall an election that required a major recount. In fact, I can't recall
All you need is to be organised . . .
himi
Or you could just highlight the URL in your client and then paste it into the browser window (opening a new tab for it if you like). Two steps, in the logical order, and way faster than the Windows way.
Didn't know of that nice feature that almost all *nix browsers have? Well, now you do.
himi
ummm . . . take a look at that guy's site - he does that sort of thing for a living, and not only does he understand the issues involved with floating point optimisations and accuracy, he's actually working on FP optimisation and accuracy benchmarks for GCC.
So yeah, in general your advice is good, but this time you're trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
himi
Try using NetSpace - they currently offer 512/128 capped at 10GB peak and 10GB off peak, for $99 a month. Not sure about their dialup plans, though . . .
.
They're even quite Linux friendly, though they don't say so anywhere . .
himi