Um yeah that freedom from religion part in the constitution, oh wait it must be in the bill of rights, wasnt it right with the separation of Church and state. Oh wait it is not there at all, the only thing in there is the 1st amendment and it's statement about freedom of religion.
Now don't despair, no matter how hard you try you cannot have freedom from religion(bear with me here). Everyone belives in something and that is their religion, and you are free to practice it all you want (look at football fans for instance or linux fans for that matter).
In conclusion do not feel threatend by Bush, do you really think that he is going to reinstate the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, heck no. Sure maybe he might make the law of the land more friendly to religion or even certain religions but above all you are free to practice your religion and that is in the first amendment.
hehe, I just did a search for crappy software and Slashdot had the first two entries. Something about lotus domino and apogee.
Seriously though Google is great and like it or not I realize they have to make money some way. Instead of gripping about all the bad ways they could make money, like large intrusive banner ads, and biased search results we should wish them the best of luck, and provide them with good (as in constructive) feedback on any changes that they might be making in the future.
My only current gripe, they hired away the team captain for UCSB's ultimate frisbee team (he said it was an offer he couldn't refuse).
Read the Invisible Man by HG Wells. Not only is it a good book but the "science" behind the invisible man in the book is very similar to what is detailed in this article as well as making up solutions to other problems that have to be solved to make a person invisible.
Other replys in this thread suggest this as a method of tattoo removal. One of the problems with making something invisible is pigment, such as what is used to make tattoos. To "remove" a tattoo this process would not help at all. Pigment also exists in your hair, skin, eyes, and blood. To achieve invisibility those pigments would have to be removed (ouch) or modified.
Again if invisibility intrigues you read The Invisible Man by HG Wells (Hollow Man looks stupid)
why so many people complain about how useful playing doom on a digital camera when you have a big powerfull computer. Sheesh people it is not like these people had a digital camera and not a computer and needed to play doom. They did it because it was a challenge, because it was interesting, and because they could (some of the same reasons I am building an 80" tall desk that sits next to my bunk bed). I would go so far a to say Geeks in general enjoy doing strange and unexpected things that don't make sense to a "normal" person.
Instead of running all applications remotely from a server(and thereby focusing the load on the server) Linux Now is attempting to utilize the power(ie processor and storage) of each individual workstation and distributing the load on the network while at the same time retaining the easy administration of one system.
1. surround the any body part that is to be part of the simulation with a powered exoskeleton. To be relevant feet will be used in this example. 2. the user would be suspended above the ground and the exoskeleton mechanism connected to a stable and stationary shell. 3. the mechanism surrounding the feet would be able to move in all directions, prevent movement in certain directions/beyond a threshold in a certain direction. This would allow a user to seemingly stand on solid ground( the exoskelton determines the location of the ground and does not allow verticle movement beyond that threshold, with an angle a slope is approximated) pick up one foot and begin the walking motion ( this would require a force censor in the exoskeleton to sense the desire to move in a direction and power that move itself to be as close to natural movement as possible(user begins to move foot forward sensor detects and responds by moving the mechanism surrounding the foot forward at an equivalent pace).
I hope this all makes some sort of sense (it does to me)
Advantages: idea could be extended to approximate other movements such as climbing a ladder, picking up a rock and throwing it. Requires space for the exoskeleton and nothing more and allows infinite space.
Disadvantages: darned expensive and hard to implement.
for the inner ear/ balence problem what exactly is the inner ear sensing?? air pressure, something else??
This is the fun part of where I stand. One side with postmodernist philosophers and the other with scientific naturalists (yes a simplification i know:) ).
First of all I disagree with the idea that the difference of a child from either of it's parents is proof of evolution(at least in the way I define the word). It is a biological mechanism that does a darned good job of ensuring we dont have to deal with a bunch of duplicates running around. Sure God could have made us reproduce exact copies but how much fun would that be (and dont even get into the confusion that it would cause:) )
When I hear about a biologist sequencing an organisms genome i come not to the conclusion of obvious evolution but of intelligent design ( hey its pretty much a program for life ). About the mathematical simulations I have not seen the results thereoff and if i did I probably would not understand them well enough to judge the validity of them but I have also seen studies that attempt to compute probabilities related to evolution coupled with the age of the earth and come up with not nearly enough years (yeah they could be a bunch of BS as well but studies can be bias in many ways).
At some point most everything comes down to at least a small part of faith. You take it on faith that evolution is not just as much a myth as the belief of scientists years ago that the sun revolved around the earth.
Luckily I do not base my faith upon my vast knowledge of the subject of evolution (yeah right) but upon the death and resurection of Christ (the sound of a can of worms opening) this is the case for many Christians that I know. To tie this all in with the subject.... I do not believe evolution should be taught as absolute fact in schools but neither should religion be forced on people in schools (it should also not be such a taboo subject in our society but that is another story).
If you can find this message in this massive discussion flame agree dissagree, make fun etc also feel free to email me for further discussion ( i for one actually like this subject:) )
David Demmin Christian Electrical Engineering Major and Ultimate Frisbee player
You skipped one thing. Hypothesis' are tested. Something is proven when through the reproducable results of experimentation. Therefore evolution cannot be proven neither can any historical event. Gravity and relativistic physics on the other hand can be proven(if they are ever replaced with a different theory it does not mean that you cannot prove something just that the methods used were flawed or incomplete).
By the way I am a Christian, and I no i cannot prove God exists, it is just the most rational conclusion I can come to. Futhermore there are many Christians in the world that would rather die than attempt to force their beliefs on others but still desire to share their faith with others.
On the issues mentioned by Analog, I believe that the "truth" of something does not depend on what anyone believes therefore you could go find two people who believe opposite things (one Flat Earth believer, one Round Earth believer) and despite what ever either person believes and how much faith they put in their view there is a "true" view.
extreme sarcasm to be taken in following comment.
I am not right about everything, just closer than everyone else:)
[Tangent Topic Discussion but then where would/. be without them.]
The following is the opinion of the author, and from what I have experienced many Christians.
God created the Universe, God created man in this Universe, man was created with a free will in the image of God, and man was created perfect.
From this I fail to see where we can blame God for pain and suffering. Man was created perfect, what more could we ask for. Somehow we (mankind) has managed to ruin this good deal. Again we ruined our own lives, and now in many cases we come crying back to God as if it was his fault. He then makes payment for the trouble we got ourselves into through his Son Jesus Christ. Then some of us refuse this free gift and again come down on God for his solution. We messed our lives up in the first place and I, personally am happy to accept his solution.
From this I can see no reason why God is somehow obligated to do things our way, IMO he should, and does know best.
My Faith in the above is based upon the Fact that I have seen in personal searching.
I would have more to say about the AC's comments about if God is omnipotent then why did he....? because I am having trouble grasping the entire concept of omnipotence:) .
Thanks for your posts, Puff and Tenareth. (You too of course AC, and thanks for the interesting questions a welcome break from Engineering Finals)
Exodus 22:29 just says to "give" your firstborn to God not to sacrifice. If you continue reading through the old testament it goes on to describe how first born children must be "redeemed" with an animal.
I would not exactly call circumcision mutilation (certainly no worse than tatoos and piercings people get today).
I also lean more on the side of Child Pornography and Hate literature as harmful to children but you are entitled to your opinion.
I actually think that the Roman Empire had become more "civilized" by that point and started crucifying, burning, and feeding people to lions by that point.
After having personally read (parts) of the Bible i fail to see any reason it should be censored. The examples provided above are not overly graphic not the type of thing that would have a negative effect on children. And I am curious about your definition of unscientific ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Um yeah that freedom from religion part in the constitution, oh wait it must be in the bill of rights, wasnt it right with the separation of Church and state. Oh wait it is not there at all, the only thing in there is the 1st amendment and it's statement about freedom of religion.
Now don't despair, no matter how hard you try you cannot have freedom from religion(bear with me here). Everyone belives in something and that is their religion, and you are free to practice it all you want (look at football fans for instance or linux fans for that matter).
In conclusion do not feel threatend by Bush, do you really think that he is going to reinstate the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, heck no. Sure maybe he might make the law of the land more friendly to religion or even certain religions but above all you are free to practice your religion and that is in the first amendment.
Seriously though Google is great and like it or not I realize they have to make money some way. Instead of gripping about all the bad ways they could make money, like large intrusive banner ads, and biased search results we should wish them the best of luck, and provide them with good (as in constructive) feedback on any changes that they might be making in the future.
My only current gripe, they hired away the team captain for UCSB's ultimate frisbee team (he said it was an offer he couldn't refuse).
Read the Invisible Man by HG Wells. Not only is it a good book but the "science" behind the invisible man in the book is very similar to what is detailed in this article as well as making up solutions to other problems that have to be solved to make a person invisible.
Other replys in this thread suggest this as a method of tattoo removal. One of the problems with making something invisible is pigment, such as what is used to make tattoos. To "remove" a tattoo this process would not help at all. Pigment also exists in your hair, skin, eyes, and blood. To achieve invisibility those pigments would have to be removed (ouch) or modified.
Again if invisibility intrigues you read The Invisible Man by HG Wells (Hollow Man looks stupid)
why so many people complain about how useful playing doom on a digital camera when you have a big powerfull computer. Sheesh people it is not like these people had a digital camera and not a computer and needed to play doom. They did it because it was a challenge, because it was interesting, and because they could (some of the same reasons I am building an 80" tall desk that sits next to my bunk bed). I would go so far a to say Geeks in general enjoy doing strange and unexpected things that don't make sense to a "normal" person.
Instead of running all applications remotely from a server(and thereby focusing the load on the server) Linux Now is attempting to utilize the power(ie processor and storage) of each individual workstation and distributing the load on the network while at the same time retaining the easy administration of one system.
2. the user would be suspended above the ground and the exoskeleton mechanism connected to a stable and stationary shell.
3. the mechanism surrounding the feet would be able to move in all directions, prevent movement in certain directions/beyond a threshold in a certain direction. This would allow a user to seemingly stand on solid ground( the exoskelton determines the location of the ground and does not allow verticle movement beyond that threshold, with an angle a slope is approximated) pick up one foot and begin the walking motion ( this would require a force censor in the exoskeleton to sense the desire to move in a direction and power that move itself to be as close to natural movement as possible(user begins to move foot forward sensor detects and responds by moving the mechanism surrounding the foot forward at an equivalent pace).
I hope this all makes some sort of sense (it does to me)
Advantages: idea could be extended to approximate other movements such as climbing a ladder, picking up a rock and throwing it. Requires space for the exoskeleton and nothing more and allows infinite space.
Disadvantages: darned expensive and hard to implement.
for the inner ear/ balence problem what exactly is the inner ear sensing?? air pressure, something else??
This is the fun part of where I stand. One side with postmodernist philosophers and the other with scientific naturalists (yes a simplification i know :) ).
:) )
:) )
First of all I disagree with the idea that the difference of a child from either of it's parents is proof of evolution(at least in the way I define the word). It is a biological mechanism that does a darned good job of ensuring we dont have to deal with a bunch of duplicates running around. Sure God could have made us reproduce exact copies but how much fun would that be (and dont even get into the confusion that it would cause
When I hear about a biologist sequencing an organisms genome i come not to the conclusion of obvious evolution but of intelligent design ( hey its pretty much a program for life ). About the mathematical simulations I have not seen the results thereoff and if i did I probably would not understand them well enough to judge the validity of them but I have also seen studies that attempt to compute probabilities related to evolution coupled with the age of the earth and come up with not nearly enough years (yeah they could be a bunch of BS as well but studies can be bias in many ways).
At some point most everything comes down to at least a small part of faith. You take it on faith that evolution is not just as much a myth as the belief of scientists years ago that the sun revolved around the earth.
Luckily I do not base my faith upon my vast knowledge of the subject of evolution (yeah right) but upon the death and resurection of Christ (the sound of a can of worms opening) this is the case for many Christians that I know. To tie this all in with the subject.... I do not believe evolution should be taught as absolute fact in schools but neither should religion be forced on people in schools (it should also not be such a taboo subject in our society but that is another story).
If you can find this message in this massive discussion flame agree dissagree, make fun etc
also feel free to email me for further discussion ( i for one actually like this subject
David Demmin
Christian
Electrical Engineering Major
and Ultimate Frisbee player
You skipped one thing. Hypothesis' are tested. Something is proven when through the reproducable results of experimentation. Therefore evolution cannot be proven neither can any historical event. Gravity and relativistic physics on the other hand can be proven(if they are ever replaced with a different theory it does not mean that you cannot prove something just that the methods used were flawed or incomplete).
By the way I am a Christian, and I no i cannot prove God exists, it is just the most rational conclusion I can come to. Futhermore there are many Christians in the world that would rather die than attempt to force their beliefs on others but still desire to share their faith with others.
To avoid repetition I agree with Puff.
:)
On the issues mentioned by Analog, I believe that the "truth" of something does not depend on what anyone believes therefore you could go find two people who believe opposite things (one Flat Earth believer, one Round Earth believer) and despite what ever either person believes and how much faith they put in their view there is a "true" view.
extreme sarcasm to be taken in following comment.
I am not right about everything, just closer than everyone else
[Tangent Topic Discussion but then where would /. be without them.]
....? because I am having trouble grasping the entire concept of omnipotence :) .
The following is the opinion of the author, and from what I have experienced many Christians.
God created the Universe, God created man in this Universe, man was created with a free will in the image of God, and man was created perfect.
From this I fail to see where we can blame God for pain and suffering. Man was created perfect, what more could we ask for. Somehow we (mankind) has managed to ruin this good deal. Again we ruined our own lives, and now in many cases we come crying back to God as if it was his fault. He then makes payment for the trouble we got ourselves into through his Son Jesus Christ. Then some of us refuse this free gift and again come down on God for his solution. We messed our lives up in the first place and I, personally am happy to accept his solution.
From this I can see no reason why God is somehow obligated to do things our way, IMO he should, and does know best.
My Faith in the above is based upon the Fact that I have seen in personal searching.
I would have more to say about the AC's comments about if God is omnipotent then why did he
Thanks for your posts, Puff and Tenareth. (You too of course AC, and thanks for the interesting questions a welcome break from Engineering Finals)
Exodus 22:29 just says to "give" your firstborn to God not to sacrifice. If you continue reading through the old testament it goes on to describe how first born children must be "redeemed" with an animal.
I would not exactly call circumcision mutilation (certainly no worse than tatoos and piercings people get today).
I also lean more on the side of Child Pornography and Hate literature as harmful to children but you are entitled to your opinion.
actually new testament gentile converts (Christian) were not required to become Jewish (ie circumcised).
I actually think that the Roman Empire had become more "civilized" by that point and started crucifying, burning, and feeding people to lions by that point.
After having personally read (parts) of the Bible i fail to see any reason it should be censored. The examples provided above are not overly graphic not the type of thing that would have a negative effect on children. And I am curious about your definition of unscientific ideas.