Or you could just stick this Babel fish in your ear.
> REMOVE GOWN. > PUT GOWN ON HOOK > GET TOWEL > PUT TOWEL ON DRAIN > GET SATCHEL > PUT SATCHEL IN FRONT OF PANEL > PUT MAIL ON SATCHEL > PRESS DISPENSER BUTTON
Aarrgghh.. I just got my first iTunes Store "Your request could not be completed. The item you've requested in not currently available in the US store."
From month or so back, I've had "A Taste of Honey" in my cart from Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass's "Whipped Cream & Other Delights" album. Today I went to purchase, and it auto-removed it from my cart saying "that item is no longer available".
Well, you can still search for it and find it, but you can't put it in a US shopping cart.
It really annoys me how people associate creationism with every stupid little idea that has something to do with life. Whether you see creationism as stupid or not is irrelevant. Most creationists I know (and I know a great many) don't believe in aliens at all.
Conversely, those who would marginalize exploring Intelligent Design on our planet generally are in favor of looking for it from space.
I'm not asking you to explain it, just to demonstrate it. If it's beyond demonstration, how can you possibly conclude that such a thing *does* exist?
The most compelling demonstration is that *anything* (energy, the laws of physics, etc.) exists at all. This is why the majority of the world credits something outside of nature -- something extra-natural, even though it is impossible for us to explain.
Nothing about the scientific method (testable/falsifiable/reproducible) is forcing scientists to claim that mater created itself, or has always existed, except the motive to not allow such a divine foot in the door. Such nature-only musings on origins are purely philosophical, or perhaps religious, but certainly not science.
> "Nature is all there is" is perfectly justified until you can demonstrate something that isn't nature.
There are many "demonstrations", but I'm assuming the only demonstration of the supernatural you'd accept would be a scientific one.
Science allows complex phenomena to be explained in terms of some useful choice of naturalistic axioms. But in explaining nature in terms of nature, you can't address things outside of nature. If you could, they'd be within nature.
So your criteria of acceptance based upon a demonstration is impossible to satisfy on your terms, since naturalistic reasoning can't and doesn't try to comment on the extra-natural. This makes your "justification" a statement of belief, rather than a testable criteria to be used to reach that belief.
> I consciously committed to it, because it's the most successful way we have to understand the Universe.
It is indeed.
> Even if science is never able to account for "everything", why is that any reason to believe that God exists?
Science will probably (in time) account for everything within it's limitations (nature only). Limitations of science are not evidence for God, and successes of science are not evidence against God.
> That's the whole point of the "god of the gaps" thing (and it's NOT a strawman, by the way, it's precisely the argument you presented).
My original post (the Intelligent Design Guy) was in keeping with the smart-ass slashdot-conformant culture -- namely attempting to stir the bees nest. I was merely poking fun at the arrogance of the many atheists who attempt to use science to disprove things that are by definition outside of what science could disprove. However, there seems to be intelligence on the other end of the http stream, so I'm answering more thoughtfully now.
>> you're trusting that a falsifiable naturalistic explanation will come along in time.
> And you're trusting that it won't.
Actually, I believe in the scientific method. I consider myself privileged to work among the largest concentration of scientific PhDs in America. I have faith, as you do, that the scientific method will ultimately discover all that it can naturalistically. The disagreement is whether anything outside of nature exists. Because you believe that nature is "all there is", then it's understandable that the scientific process would appear to have no limits in its explanatory power.
But you must acknowledge that the "nature is all there is" belief is your own personal contribution to the "What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?" thread, as you'd be hard pressed to explain the origins of the universe using only the universe itself, while still conforming to a scientific (testable and falsifiable) framework. It turns to philosophy very quickly. I love philosophy, but I don't like when people call it science. And people do this all the time.
> As the great Dana Scully once said, "Nothing happens in contradiction to nature; only in contradiction to what we know of it."
Fundamental truth: Scully rocks (even slashdot trolls wouldn't dare disagree). The quote is good. Much of what some consider contradictions (many examples spring to mind, including quantum's nonlocality vs. relativity's locality limited by c) are probably simply due to placing concepts into erroneous contradictory categories -- categories chosen and limited by the current scientific models. These will fix themselves in time. (Unless the universe is somehow contradictory at its core. That would be interesting, but I don't think it's true. Again, faith at work.)
Science can only speak to what is testable, falsifiable, and reproducible. In other words the natural, and only the natural. Those limitations are kinda the whole point of this "What do you believe that you can't prove" discussion.
Those like you who open with "God of the gaps" strawmen arguments are merely stating their precommitment to the philosophy that everything can ultimately be accounted for by purely naturalistic processes, though they generally admit not to know where the rules for the processes come from, let alone the ~10^80 particles upon which the rules act. If they do claim to know these things, then it inevitably falls outside of what is testable, falsifiable, and reproducible, so it's no longer science, and they're playing their own "Science of the gaps" game, trusting that a falsifiable naturalistic explanation will come along in time.
Given your precommitment to naturalism, does the supernatural not exist, or is it merely not important? (You'll probably ignore this question)
These maps are generated using excellent seed criteria that give the player the feeling of playing a pre-designed map but with completely unique designs every time
The same was done with Gateway to Apshai (1983)
Seeded randomness created approx 800 levels on the Coleco version, and 128 levels on the Atari/C64 versions.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could just stick this Babel fish in your ear.
> REMOVE GOWN.
> PUT GOWN ON HOOK
> GET TOWEL
> PUT TOWEL ON DRAIN
> GET SATCHEL
> PUT SATCHEL IN FRONT OF PANEL
> PUT MAIL ON SATCHEL
> PRESS DISPENSER BUTTON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jq_5ltkno
What about the aircraft mounted pain guns? http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/09/19/202227.shtml
-----
Understanding the FFT, Second Edition
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Second-Revised-Anders-Zonst/dp/0964568152/
Examples are in BASIC (with line numbers even), but very simple explaination of the fast Fourier transform.
-----
Adventures in Group Theory: Rubik's Cube, Merlin's Machine, and Other Mathematical Toys (2nd edition)
http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Group-Theory-Merlins-Mathematical/dp/0801890136/
Introduction to group theory using Rubik's cubes. Lots of typos, but they won't slow you down much.
-----
Cryptography Decrypted
http://www.amazon.com/Cryptography-Decrypted-H-X-Mel/dp/0201616475/
Cryptography explained in pictures.
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera
You're welcome.
There is a proper way to do an unnecessary Google on someone else's behalf: http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=Red+light+camera
The most effective form of cryptanalysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis
That about sums up my experiences as well.
There's an movement afoot) to make the Zorkmid into a geocoin.
Speaking of classic game cover art, the cover to Archon is now also on a geocoin.
I like the "weather balloon" explanation best.
Aarrgghh.. I just got my first iTunes Store "Your request could not be completed. The item you've requested in not currently available in the US store."
From month or so back, I've had "A Taste of Honey" in my cart from Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass's "Whipped Cream & Other Delights" album. Today I went to purchase, and it auto-removed it from my cart saying "that item is no longer available".
Well, you can still search for it and find it, but you can't put it in a US shopping cart.
http://www.atariage.com/magazines/atariage.html
Aliens are also not "disprovable, repeatable [sic], or predictable", and yet they are tolerated by the scientific community.
Conversely, those who would marginalize exploring Intelligent Design on our planet generally are in favor of looking for it from space.
Anyone have a mirror of the "pretty pictures"?s a.JPGs ia.JPGu rope.JPG
- http://www.doxpara.com.nyud.net:8090/planetsony_u
- http://www.doxpara.com.nyud.net:8090/planetsony_a
- http://www.doxpara.com.nyud.net:8090/planetsony_e
If you want to be nit-picky, Barbie actually says "Math class is tough".
The most compelling demonstration is that *anything* (energy, the laws of physics, etc.) exists at all. This is why the majority of the world credits something outside of nature -- something extra-natural, even though it is impossible for us to explain.
Nothing about the scientific method (testable/falsifiable/reproducible) is forcing scientists to claim that mater created itself, or has always existed, except the motive to not allow such a divine foot in the door. Such nature-only musings on origins are purely philosophical, or perhaps religious, but certainly not science.
There are many "demonstrations", but I'm assuming the only demonstration of the supernatural you'd accept would be a scientific one.
Science allows complex phenomena to be explained in terms of some useful choice of naturalistic axioms. But in explaining nature in terms of nature, you can't address things outside of nature. If you could, they'd be within nature.
So your criteria of acceptance based upon a demonstration is impossible to satisfy on your terms, since naturalistic reasoning can't and doesn't try to comment on the extra-natural. This makes your "justification" a statement of belief, rather than a testable criteria to be used to reach that belief.
It is indeed.
> Even if science is never able to account for "everything", why is that any reason to believe that God exists?
Science will probably (in time) account for everything within it's limitations (nature only). Limitations of science are not evidence for God, and successes of science are not evidence against God.
> That's the whole point of the "god of the gaps" thing (and it's NOT a strawman, by the way, it's precisely the argument you presented).
My original post (the Intelligent Design Guy) was in keeping with the smart-ass slashdot-conformant culture -- namely attempting to stir the bees nest. I was merely poking fun at the arrogance of the many atheists who attempt to use science to disprove things that are by definition outside of what science could disprove. However, there seems to be intelligence on the other end of the http stream, so I'm answering more thoughtfully now.
> And you're trusting that it won't.
Actually, I believe in the scientific method. I consider myself privileged to work among the largest concentration of scientific PhDs in America. I have faith, as you do, that the scientific method will ultimately discover all that it can naturalistically. The disagreement is whether anything outside of nature exists. Because you believe that nature is "all there is", then it's understandable that the scientific process would appear to have no limits in its explanatory power.
But you must acknowledge that the "nature is all there is" belief is your own personal contribution to the "What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?" thread, as you'd be hard pressed to explain the origins of the universe using only the universe itself, while still conforming to a scientific (testable and falsifiable) framework. It turns to philosophy very quickly. I love philosophy, but I don't like when people call it science. And people do this all the time.
> As the great Dana Scully once said, "Nothing happens in contradiction to nature; only in contradiction to what we know of it."
Fundamental truth: Scully rocks (even slashdot trolls wouldn't dare disagree). The quote is good. Much of what some consider contradictions (many examples spring to mind, including quantum's nonlocality vs. relativity's locality limited by c) are probably simply due to placing concepts into erroneous contradictory categories -- categories chosen and limited by the current scientific models. These will fix themselves in time. (Unless the universe is somehow contradictory at its core. That would be interesting, but I don't think it's true. Again, faith at work.)
Science can only speak to what is testable, falsifiable, and reproducible. In other words the natural, and only the natural. Those limitations are kinda the whole point of this "What do you believe that you can't prove" discussion.
Those like you who open with "God of the gaps" strawmen arguments are merely stating their precommitment to the philosophy that everything can ultimately be accounted for by purely naturalistic processes, though they generally admit not to know where the rules for the processes come from, let alone the ~10^80 particles upon which the rules act. If they do claim to know these things, then it inevitably falls outside of what is testable, falsifiable, and reproducible, so it's no longer science, and they're playing their own "Science of the gaps" game, trusting that a falsifiable naturalistic explanation will come along in time.
Given your precommitment to naturalism, does the supernatural not exist, or is it merely not important? (You'll probably ignore this question)
Atheist Scientist: Sure.
Intelligent Design Guy: Any change God falls within the remaining 95%?
Atheist Scientist: No way!
I'm sure the small print says "Jeri not included".
I got to meet this gal a few weeks back, and I can assure you she's definitely female.
here
The same was done with Gateway to Apshai (1983)
Seeded randomness created approx 800 levels on the Coleco version, and 128 levels on the Atari/C64 versions.