The simple fact is that the shield was NEVER built to defend against the Russians.
Historical revisionism at it's finest! When Reagan proposed the v1.0 missile defense, the USSR/Eastern Bloc was the only potential enemy. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were allies back then. Who else might Reagan have had in mind?
So - it is mostly against the "rogue" state.
At least that is the current excuse. Much like the justification for the invasion of Iraq, I expect that the rationale will change as circumstances require
The other thing that people don't realize is that this is a system of systems. There are several levels of defense that are being worked on.
The fundamental issue is still the same: how to shoot down a bullet with another bullet. It doesn't matter how many layers of abstraction you have, it never becomes any less complex than that. The physics of the problem suggest that the best way to stop a missile from landing is for it not to be launched in the first place. I don't see Bush pressing for disarmament though.
Besides, a missile is an expensive and complex toy. There are much simpler and cheaper ways to launch a nuclear attack. Some people in this thread have suggested a suitcase bomb. It would be much easier to utilize cargo containers as a delivery mechanism.
Patriots have been upgraded to do a better job than they did during Desert Storm,
Well, it wouldn't take much:
"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
The field-test results of what is currently available has not been encouraging. There are failures even with advance knowledge of the exact trajectory of a slow-moving target missile...
I think it has more to do with corporate welfare than actual defense. Defence department cronies get tons of federal cash and nobody really expects to see a finished product. They just have to rig up an an impressive looking prototype from time to time.
According to whom? What would you consider "proof" anyways? What reputable, peer-reviewed sources can you cite?
There are many recovered homosexuals you can meet who would be happy to shake your hand and tell you they no longer desire to sodomize another man.
Even if this were true, so what?
Tell me: what business is it of yours what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom? I'll give you a little hint - it is entirely none of mine.
Mostly it is determined by a relationship to the subjects father, meaning that is it not genetic but conditioned.
You would know this how?
But expecting moderation to properly label anything is out of the question.
I agree. Your post is clearly flamebait and it has not been modded down to -1. Not yet anyways.
And here I thought I was going to learn how I might have a shot at Kate Beckinsale or Lucy Liu, but instead it's only some lame story about astronomy. Thanks for getting my hopes up once again slashdot!!!
Oh dear, where to begin:
No slashdotter will ever get a chance at women that hot
With a id that low, you should know better than to get your hopes (or anything else!) up.
You do however have excellent taste in unobtainable women.
Most of the nutrients in the soil come from the rain, not from bio-degrading material.
That simply isn't true.
if all of the nutrients in the soil came from other plants and animals that bio-degraded, then the ecosystem in that area would be unsustainable over the long haul.
You are forgetting that the latest crop of plants are consuming nutrients from the soil. It's not like the nutrients accumulate forever and ever.
The US already puts out more grains that it can consume and this has happened while the population increased and the amount of farmed land decreased.
Yes, but that was accomplished due to mechanization and advances in fertilizer technology. I suspect massive farm subsidies have played a role in being able to afford the machinery and fertilizer as well.
We have many more specialized machines today than in the past, and they are more common. Back in the day, one farmer in the entire community might own a threshing machine. Nowadays, practically everyone has their own combine.
Additionally, some crops (notably corn) are grown almost entirely with fertilizer. There is little need for a sound crop rotation strategy when you can give manually give the crop the nutrients it needs most, when it needs them.
There are too many countries where there is little incentive to be a good farmer other than keeping your own alive
That's largely the result of US and European agricultural subsidies. We sell them our surplus crops cheaper than what they can grow themselves.
The US and a few other countries usually fill this gap.
I believe you mis-spelled that. The technical term is "dumping"
if you've ever driven by a corn field you can clearly see that they don't even bother to pull up the stalk.
It depends on what the crop was intended for. If it was grown for feed and intended to become silage, you would find that the stalks are harvested too.
Usually though, if the corn was planted for the kernels, the cobs and stalks are left behind. These can be collected for silage as well, but it is of a relatively poor quality. Furthermore, the time, labour and fuel costs of harvesting the residue left after combining must be factored in. It might not be worth the effort, particularly since you would have to seed the field with fall wheat or rye immediately to prevent soil erosion.
That was an interesting read. However, I could not help but notice that most of the sites and sources you referred to have a specific agenda to promote. As such, they are hardly impartial.
The other observation I have is that your statistics are really uncompelling. At best, you have some unsubstantiated corelations. There is nothing there to demonstrate a causal relationship between "better citizenship" and not attending the public school system.
The studies and surveys you quote do not go out of their way to identify the margin of error they use, which is the most important piece of information when analyzing statistics. Nor is it clear that their sample size is sufficiently large and is not biased.
Again, it is an interesting read and it will surely help those who are already committed to the cause avoid any unpleasant cognitive dissonance. But it doesn't do much more than that.
Dogs are creatures of instinct and some of those instincts are the product of many generations of selective breeding. Some breeds of dogs are good-natured and friendly, some are good hunters, and some are aggressive and violent.
At some point in their lives, a dog's instincts will over-ride any training they have been given. The effects of this can vary in severity. My family keeps Labrador Retrievers, and they appear to have two fundamental urges: they like to swim, and they like to dig. Now, this behaviour certainly annoys my mother because:
the dogs are occasionally compelled to dig in her flower beds
The dogs like to go swimming in the semi-stagnant pond on our farm
but apart from the flowers, nobody gets hurt.
Contrast this with dogs that have historically been bred to fight. When their instincts take over, the effects typically include disfigurement and death.
The relevant point is that dogs are not born a tabula rasa. Behavioural conditioning can encourage them to do what we want them to do, but some of their behaviours are hard-wired.
one of the greatest franchises in videogame history
I've never played Halo. I don't think I have seen it being played either. Could someone please tell me what is so great about Halo?
Honestly, I'm not trolling here. What does Halo offer that is different and improved from other platform-based FPS? Is it the weapons? The controls? The plot? The visials? The levels? What does Halo do that makes it so great?
Our focus really is in delivering the best experience to Windows customers.
I think this is the single most important statement in the article!
Clearly, m$ has experienced a major paradigm shift. When should we expect to see the results of this new corporate strategy?
Unless of course, they define "best experience" as customers being forced to purchase mediocre software at inflated rates.
Perhaps we shouldn't expect too much. After all, Gates promised that security would be job #1 a couple of years ago, and we have yet to see any significant improvements in that regard.
The Linux kernel on the other hand, I believe, is explicitly distributed with "absolutely no warranty, whatsoever".
I believe that the microsoft EULA essentially states the same thing:
15. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you. Any supplements or updates to the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express, implied or statutory.
and
LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Software does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its essential purpose.
Commercial software provides no advantage in that regard...
I came down with a serious case of flu just before my last final exam before the Christmas break. I was doing major projectile vomiting and feeling terrible. Later in the day, I dragged myself down to the student health center and got a note from the doctor there who vouched that I was too sick to write the exam.
A went to the Professor's office a couple of days later when I was feeling better to explain the situation and ask about a re-sit. It was a small class and he noticed that I wasn't there for the exam. It was a half-term course, and University policy was that resits could only be conducted at the end of full-year term, which would have been in April.
The Professor did not think it was fair that I would have to write an exam for a course that was over four months ago, and he didn't want to go to the trouble of making up a new set of exam questions for just one student. Since the final exam only counted for 15% of the total grade and I already had an A-, the Professor suggested that if I just showed up and handed in a blank exam book, he would give me an A- as my final grade for the course.
I was more than pleased to agree.
The re-sit was scheduled for the last day of final exams in April. I decided that this was the perfect opportunity to combine final exams and intoxication. I drank a lot of beer and headed off to the exam. The only shortfall in my strategy is that they will not let people leave the examination room until 45 minutes after the exam began. I was doing OK at the beginning, but the 45 minute interval could not arrive soon enough for my liking. Fortunately, I made it to the men's room in the nick of time. I made a mental note to stick with liquor if a similar opportunity ever presented itself again.
It didn't, but I can honestly claim that I wrote a final exam totally drunk, and still got an A.
Are there any triangular circles? Nope. Perpetual motion machines? Not a chance. Married bachelors? Ha!
It is interesting that you essentially concede my point with your pink elephant example, but then you try really hard to deny it. I'm not sure why, because the point I was originally trying to make is/was so very minor.
And hey-presto! we've just come up with some more things that even a supposedly-omnipotent being couldn't do. Therefore, ``omnipotence'' is its own self-contained oxymoron.
No, actually. The thing is, if a truly omnipotent being were to exist, it could (by definition) create any of those paradoxes you have listed. How could it do so? I have no idea but then again, neither of us are omnipotent. Just as I cannot have an internal representation of what an infinite series of objects looks like, I am also unable to comprehend the possibilities of what an omnipotent being would be able to do.
If I were to become part of the Q-continuum, I presumably could alter the fundamental nature of reality in such a way so that I could create a square-circle if that was what I really wanted to do. As an encore, I would divide by zero just because I could!
I'm sorry, but hand-waving won't do shit to stave off your crisis of faith.
Since you obviously know me so well, could you please tell me which crisis of faith it is that I am trying to stave off?
To paraphrase the Monty Python sketch, an argument is a series of linked premises designed to establish a conclusion.
Your example about all but God being able to do something is really quite pointless. This is obviously not a course in formal logic, but all the same I would have thought that you would be able to create a valid argument. If not, please feel free to continue with the ad-homenim attacks.
Careful, I think your blinder might be slipping.
Oh well, ad-homenim it is then.
I'll spell this one out a bit more clearly, since you really didn't think about the details of your "test" of omniscience. In your example, you know in advance what the predictions are, and as such the experiement is utterly compromised. Under double-blind conditions, a truly omniscient being should be able to predict with 100% accuracy exactly what you will do in the next 5 minutes, 5 hours, or whatever interval was mutually acceptable.
Unh-huh. ``Teach the controversy.'' More properly, ``Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'' Because, like, if you use your brain, we won't be able to pull the wool over your eyes.
Straw man and ad-homenium. I think I detect a hint of "poisoning the well" too. That's one of the nice things about/. - so much variety!
Look, if you are unable to participate in, or uninterested in a rational discussion, just say so.
And all I'm doing is pointing out that you're worng. Sorry.
When are you going to do that? All you have done is indicate that you disagree with my opinions.
...unless you've got a working perpetual motion machine to bring out? Because that's exactly as possible as your omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god *could* create a perpetual motion machine, simply by virtue of it being omnipotent.
Proving that the universe is creatorless is trivial;
You are indeed a great philosopher. I'm clearly out of my league here. Please enlighten me with the details, if you can dumb them down to my level..
Whether or not there's some remarkable being that resembles a giant plate of spaghetti is another matter entirely,
Actually, it is the core issue I presented. Can you logically prove that such a being does not exist?
but we can be certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe.
Why? Because your definitions say so? What if your premises are wrong?
That's the interesting thing about logic. If you start from false premises, you can logically reach a false conclusion.
A gazelle with an amputated horn looks nearly exactly
That might be true in the realm of mathematics, but with maths you are dealing with very well-defined sets. Elsewhere, proof by contradiction is hardly trivial.
Admittedly, I did not make that point crystal clear in my (brief) post, but I was thinking specifically about philosphical matters.
All but God can prove this sentence true.
I'm sorry, but that statement does not "prove" anything. Sophistry is useful for entertainment and scoring cheap points, but it doesn't add anything of substance to the debate.
I was thinking more along the lines of a formal proof and your example does not qualify.
Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem.
Actually, the halting program is undecidable over Turning machines. I don't think the example has anything to do with onmiscience or omnipotence, other than to demonstrate that a Turing machine is neither.
You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.
This is not a logical argument either.
First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?
Those are interesting questions, and it is reasonable to assume that people have been debating such issues for thousands of years, and we haven't reached any universal conclusions yet.
All I did was point out that it is not logically possible to prove that something (outside of the realm of mathematics) does not exist.
I cannot logically prove that hobbits do not exist. I cannot logically prove that the FSM (and his noodly appendage) does not exist. I cannot logically prove that unicorns do not exist - regardless whether any of those examples exist or not. When you get into philosophical matters, it is even more complicated because everything rides on your definitions and axioms.
That's all I wanted to point out. I do hope you feel better after having vented your spleen though.
Forcing pornography to be distributed to communities that don't want it is violating their freedom to keep obscenity out of their community.
Interesting troll...
In this instance, who is the community? ICANN is theoretically a global entity. Clearly there isn't 100% concensus on the issue, and it isn't clear that there is a majority opinion either.
Additionally, I fail to see how the existence of the.xxx domain (or lack thereof) can be equated with "forcing pornography to be distributed by communities that don't want it". Could you explain that for me?
Looks like it was the EU's fault, not the typical scapegoat "various Christian extremist groups"
Well, according to one source, the EU intervention may have been a favour to the Bush administration. The US government clearly dictates terms to ICANN, but it would be politically inconvenient to be seen doing so.
Of course, if you did a bit of research, you would probably know that already...
First off, congrats on such an interesting and well-informed post.
Plato, however, was the thinker who went on to have the greatest influence on Western thought throughout antiquity,
I have heard it said that the history of Western civilization is merely a series of footnotes to Plato. That being said, I think Plato's influence had a lot more to do with his theories of love, piety, politics, education, and justice than the theory of forms. The theory of forms is, you have summarized difficult to get your head around. Real knowledge is mystical and I guess most of us are just chained up in the cave looking at the shadows.
Plato's epistemology is difficult to understand today, when the population (in the West at least) is better-educated than the average member of a Greek polis. It would have been much less accessible and understandable in less enlightened times.
It is right and proper to give Plato his due for the influence he has had on this part of the world, but I suspect that you give him a bit too much credit here.
As his prized student, and intellectual successor, you can see how Aristotle was clearly influenced by the theory of forms, even though he rejects most of it. The example of the seed is a fine example. One would not better understand a seed by contemplating the ultimate form of the seed, which contains all of the aspects of "seed-ness". No, in order to understand a seed one must be aware of what the seed is intended to do, and that is to reproduce the species, given the proper conditions.
Now, I don't think that this is entirely arbitrary - although an object's purpose is highly dependant upon your point of view. From the perspective of the zucchini plant, a seed has one purpose. From the perspective of a bird, a seed has a rather different purpose.
Now, as I said before, Thomas Aquinas did the world a great favour by showing that Aristotle's theories were consistent with the theology of the day. However, in trying to incorporate the Judeo-Christian God into the picture, he stretched things more than a little to make things all fit together. One hesitates to say he was a man with an agenda, but his writings served their purpose, and spawned a great deal of debate.
This wasn't my point. I am saying that Christian theology motivated the development of rational inquiry into natural laws.
In a sense, it did. The Church was the center of art, culture, and knowledge at that period of time in Europe at least. There was a great deal of knowledge and learning taking place in the Arabic and Asian cultures as well, but the world was a much larger place back then. Having a virtual monopoly on the subject, it is difficult to fathom that philosophy and science could develop without the Church being involved.
The problem is, there were very hard limits about what theories could be openly discussed. There was progress, but only within certain boundaries. If your theory was too bold, too radical for the authorities to accept, the only course of action was release the theory after the author's death, and hope that the heirs did not suffer unduly.
So yes, the Church had an impact, but it was not the only one, the first one, and may not have been the most important one.
It's important to understand that the very concept of rational inquiry is something that had to be invented and is not inherent in the human brain.
True, and this concept appears to have been invented by Thales of Miletus, who is widely credited with being the first scientest on record.
Scientific inquiry occurs infrequently in primitive cultures,
Largely because members of primitive cultures do not have the time or energy to speculate about such things. When you are struggling for basic survival, there is not much use for intellectuals.
But that does not mean theology is relative. It is either true or it's not, provability notwithstanding.
I think that for believers, theology is true period. Unless subject to coercion, it does not make se
I had no dispute with your post until I got to ths part:
Modern Western science owes its existence to Christian epistemology. The Platonism prevalent throughout the middle ages explicitly denied the possibility of a "scientific method."
Where did you get *that* idea from?
Did you ever hear of a guy called Aristotle?
Did you know that St. Thomas of Aquinas' greatest achievement was to demonstrate that Aristotelian principles were consistent with the Church's theology? Otherwise the Church would have branded Aristotle's teachings as heresy.
The Church itself was a far greater impediment to scientific progress than the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers.
It was devout believers like Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler who shook off the pervasive Greek influence
Pervasive? You mean like Eratosthenes? In 200 BC he claimed that the Earth was a sphere and calculated the radius of the sphere but he was off by 15%. What a bastard!
And Galileo and Copernicus were held back by the pervasive Greek influence in mathematics and astronomy as well. Why was Pythagoras always going on about those bloody triangles anyways!
Or perhaps it was that Galileo et. al. advanced the cause of science by challenging the commonly held beliefs of the church that were demonstrably incorrect.
At the time the Church was the center of knowledge and learning, but any "advancement" had to be consistent with a set of core religious beliefs. The only pervasive beliefs that they shook off were those of the Church.
and took to heart the notion that a rational God would make a world that can be rationally understood.
Today we take that notion for granted, but it's arguably the most important development in all of science.
Is it?
I fail to see a connection between the two statements actually. Theology is something you choose to believe in. The decision to believe or not believe is based on faith. Science on the other had, is not dependant upon faith. 2+2=4 is axiomatically true regardless of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
ID claims that there is a designer, a master engineer.
I am amazed that people still try to resurrect the argument from design. I thought that David Hume pretty much destroyed that line of reasoning a couple of hundred years ago.
Do you assume that you just happened to luckily shake the bag up (even if you did this 10,000+ times) or do you assume that after you shook it up that someone snuck in and arranged everything all nice and neatly?
If you assume the existence of this designer, what do you really know about him/her/them? How many times did the designer re-arrange things before it was done correctly? How do you know that you are looking at the final release and not an alpha or beta version? Why should you assume there was just one designer? Why could it not be a team or committee of designers? Perhaps the designer was just a dumb mechanic playing with some toys? How can you make any observations about the morality and intent about the designer if you can only see the results?
If you subscribe to ID, you must be able to respond to those objections. Further appeals to faith and religious texts simply are not adequate evidence to shore up the crumbling foundation on which the theory of ID is based.
Personally, I am quite in favour of pointing out that evolution is only a theory. I believe in Karl Popper's theory of knowledge and refutation. However, ID fails as a theory, so it cannot be considered as an alternative explanation to evolution.
ID should be discussed in philosophy classes. It does not appear to have any place in biology classes because it has nothing to do with biology.
Slashdot Mirror
Historical revisionism at it's finest! When Reagan proposed the v1.0 missile defense, the USSR/Eastern Bloc was the only potential enemy. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were allies back then. Who else might Reagan have had in mind?
So - it is mostly against the "rogue" state.At least that is the current excuse. Much like the justification for the invasion of Iraq, I expect that the rationale will change as circumstances require
The other thing that people don't realize is that this is a system of systems. There are several levels of defense that are being worked on.The fundamental issue is still the same: how to shoot down a bullet with another bullet. It doesn't matter how many layers of abstraction you have, it never becomes any less complex than that. The physics of the problem suggest that the best way to stop a missile from landing is for it not to be launched in the first place. I don't see Bush pressing for disarmament though.
Besides, a missile is an expensive and complex toy. There are much simpler and cheaper ways to launch a nuclear attack. Some people in this thread have suggested a suitcase bomb. It would be much easier to utilize cargo containers as a delivery mechanism.
Patriots have been upgraded to do a better job than they did during Desert Storm,Well, it wouldn't take much:
The field-test results of what is currently available has not been encouraging. There are failures even with advance knowledge of the exact trajectory of a slow-moving target missile...
I think it has more to do with corporate welfare than actual defense. Defence department cronies get tons of federal cash and nobody really expects to see a finished product. They just have to rig up an an impressive looking prototype from time to time.
It's a bad combination - cronyism and PR.
According to whom? What would you consider "proof" anyways? What reputable, peer-reviewed sources can you cite?
There are many recovered homosexuals you can meet who would be happy to shake your hand and tell you they no longer desire to sodomize another man.Even if this were true, so what?
Tell me: what business is it of yours what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom? I'll give you a little hint - it is entirely none of mine.
Mostly it is determined by a relationship to the subjects father, meaning that is it not genetic but conditioned.You would know this how?
But expecting moderation to properly label anything is out of the question.I agree. Your post is clearly flamebait and it has not been modded down to -1. Not yet anyways.
Oh dear, where to begin:
Autism - is it good, or is it whack?
That simply isn't true.
if all of the nutrients in the soil came from other plants and animals that bio-degraded, then the ecosystem in that area would be unsustainable over the long haul.You are forgetting that the latest crop of plants are consuming nutrients from the soil. It's not like the nutrients accumulate forever and ever.
Yes, but that was accomplished due to mechanization and advances in fertilizer technology. I suspect massive farm subsidies have played a role in being able to afford the machinery and fertilizer as well.
We have many more specialized machines today than in the past, and they are more common. Back in the day, one farmer in the entire community might own a threshing machine. Nowadays, practically everyone has their own combine.
Additionally, some crops (notably corn) are grown almost entirely with fertilizer. There is little need for a sound crop rotation strategy when you can give manually give the crop the nutrients it needs most, when it needs them.
There are too many countries where there is little incentive to be a good farmer other than keeping your own aliveThat's largely the result of US and European agricultural subsidies. We sell them our surplus crops cheaper than what they can grow themselves.
The US and a few other countries usually fill this gap.I believe you mis-spelled that. The technical term is "dumping"
It depends on what the crop was intended for. If it was grown for feed and intended to become silage, you would find that the stalks are harvested too.
Usually though, if the corn was planted for the kernels, the cobs and stalks are left behind. These can be collected for silage as well, but it is of a relatively poor quality. Furthermore, the time, labour and fuel costs of harvesting the residue left after combining must be factored in. It might not be worth the effort, particularly since you would have to seed the field with fall wheat or rye immediately to prevent soil erosion.
That was an interesting read. However, I could not help but notice that most of the sites and sources you referred to have a specific agenda to promote. As such, they are hardly impartial.
The other observation I have is that your statistics are really uncompelling. At best, you have some unsubstantiated corelations. There is nothing there to demonstrate a causal relationship between "better citizenship" and not attending the public school system.
The studies and surveys you quote do not go out of their way to identify the margin of error they use, which is the most important piece of information when analyzing statistics. Nor is it clear that their sample size is sufficiently large and is not biased.
Again, it is an interesting read and it will surely help those who are already committed to the cause avoid any unpleasant cognitive dissonance. But it doesn't do much more than that.
Has it? I don't suppose you could provide a reputable, peer-reviewed source for that proof you speak of?
I have seen similar statistics quoted, but the corelation they claim exists turns out to be spurious upon closer examination.
It isn't quite as simple as that.
Dogs are creatures of instinct and some of those instincts are the product of many generations of selective breeding. Some breeds of dogs are good-natured and friendly, some are good hunters, and some are aggressive and violent.
At some point in their lives, a dog's instincts will over-ride any training they have been given. The effects of this can vary in severity. My family keeps Labrador Retrievers, and they appear to have two fundamental urges: they like to swim, and they like to dig. Now, this behaviour certainly annoys my mother because:
but apart from the flowers, nobody gets hurt.
Contrast this with dogs that have historically been bred to fight. When their instincts take over, the effects typically include disfigurement and death.
The relevant point is that dogs are not born a tabula rasa. Behavioural conditioning can encourage them to do what we want them to do, but some of their behaviours are hard-wired.
A dog is not the only master of it's behaviour.
I've never played Halo. I don't think I have seen it being played either. Could someone please tell me what is so great about Halo?
Honestly, I'm not trolling here. What does Halo offer that is different and improved from other platform-based FPS? Is it the weapons? The controls? The plot? The visials? The levels? What does Halo do that makes it so great?
I think this is the single most important statement in the article!
Clearly, m$ has experienced a major paradigm shift. When should we expect to see the results of this new corporate strategy?
Unless of course, they define "best experience" as customers being forced to purchase mediocre software at inflated rates.
Perhaps we shouldn't expect too much. After all, Gates promised that security would be job #1 a couple of years ago, and we have yet to see any significant improvements in that regard.
I believe that the microsoft EULA essentially states the same thing:
and
Commercial software provides no advantage in that regard...
I came down with a serious case of flu just before my last final exam before the Christmas break. I was doing major projectile vomiting and feeling terrible. Later in the day, I dragged myself down to the student health center and got a note from the doctor there who vouched that I was too sick to write the exam.
A went to the Professor's office a couple of days later when I was feeling better to explain the situation and ask about a re-sit. It was a small class and he noticed that I wasn't there for the exam. It was a half-term course, and University policy was that resits could only be conducted at the end of full-year term, which would have been in April.
The Professor did not think it was fair that I would have to write an exam for a course that was over four months ago, and he didn't want to go to the trouble of making up a new set of exam questions for just one student. Since the final exam only counted for 15% of the total grade and I already had an A-, the Professor suggested that if I just showed up and handed in a blank exam book, he would give me an A- as my final grade for the course.
I was more than pleased to agree.
The re-sit was scheduled for the last day of final exams in April. I decided that this was the perfect opportunity to combine final exams and intoxication. I drank a lot of beer and headed off to the exam. The only shortfall in my strategy is that they will not let people leave the examination room until 45 minutes after the exam began. I was doing OK at the beginning, but the 45 minute interval could not arrive soon enough for my liking. Fortunately, I made it to the men's room in the nick of time. I made a mental note to stick with liquor if a similar opportunity ever presented itself again.
It didn't, but I can honestly claim that I wrote a final exam totally drunk, and still got an A.
Oh really? What about the BBC? The compulsary license model seems to produce a lot more quality programming than the commercial model.
It is interesting that you essentially concede my point with your pink elephant example, but then you try really hard to deny it. I'm not sure why, because the point I was originally trying to make is/was so very minor.
And hey-presto! we've just come up with some more things that even a supposedly-omnipotent being couldn't do. Therefore, ``omnipotence'' is its own self-contained oxymoron.
No, actually. The thing is, if a truly omnipotent being were to exist, it could (by definition) create any of those paradoxes you have listed. How could it do so? I have no idea but then again, neither of us are omnipotent. Just as I cannot have an internal representation of what an infinite series of objects looks like, I am also unable to comprehend the possibilities of what an omnipotent being would be able to do.
If I were to become part of the Q-continuum, I presumably could alter the fundamental nature of reality in such a way so that I could create a square-circle if that was what I really wanted to do. As an encore, I would divide by zero just because I could!
I'm sorry, but hand-waving won't do shit to stave off your crisis of faith.
Since you obviously know me so well, could you please tell me which crisis of faith it is that I am trying to stave off?
To paraphrase the Monty Python sketch, an argument is a series of linked premises designed to establish a conclusion.
Your example about all but God being able to do something is really quite pointless. This is obviously not a course in formal logic, but all the same I would have thought that you would be able to create a valid argument. If not, please feel free to continue with the ad-homenim attacks.
Careful, I think your blinder might be slipping.
Oh well, ad-homenim it is then.
I'll spell this one out a bit more clearly, since you really didn't think about the details of your "test" of omniscience. In your example, you know in advance what the predictions are, and as such the experiement is utterly compromised. Under double-blind conditions, a truly omniscient being should be able to predict with 100% accuracy exactly what you will do in the next 5 minutes, 5 hours, or whatever interval was mutually acceptable.
Unh-huh. ``Teach the controversy.'' More properly, ``Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'' Because, like, if you use your brain, we won't be able to pull the wool over your eyes.
Straw man and ad-homenium. I think I detect a hint of "poisoning the well" too. That's one of the nice things about /. - so much variety!
Look, if you are unable to participate in, or uninterested in a rational discussion, just say so.
And all I'm doing is pointing out that you're worng. Sorry.
When are you going to do that? All you have done is indicate that you disagree with my opinions.
An omnipotent god *could* create a perpetual motion machine, simply by virtue of it being omnipotent.
Proving that the universe is creatorless is trivial;
You are indeed a great philosopher. I'm clearly out of my league here. Please enlighten me with the details, if you can dumb them down to my level..
Whether or not there's some remarkable being that resembles a giant plate of spaghetti is another matter entirely,
Actually, it is the core issue I presented. Can you logically prove that such a being does not exist?
but we can be certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe.
Why? Because your definitions say so? What if your premises are wrong?
That's the interesting thing about logic. If you start from false premises, you can logically reach a false conclusion.
A gazelle with an amputated horn looks nearly exactly
That might be true in the realm of mathematics, but with maths you are dealing with very well-defined sets. Elsewhere, proof by contradiction is hardly trivial.
Admittedly, I did not make that point crystal clear in my (brief) post, but I was thinking specifically about philosphical matters.
All but God can prove this sentence true.I'm sorry, but that statement does not "prove" anything. Sophistry is useful for entertainment and scoring cheap points, but it doesn't add anything of substance to the debate.
I was thinking more along the lines of a formal proof and your example does not qualify.
Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem.Actually, the halting program is undecidable over Turning machines. I don't think the example has anything to do with onmiscience or omnipotence, other than to demonstrate that a Turing machine is neither.
You could also foil a supposedly-omniscient god just by asking it to tell you what you'll do next. Whatever the god tells you, do something else.This is not a logical argument either.
First cause? Well, if everything needs a creator, then what created the creator? Omnibenevolent? Then, whence comes evil?Those are interesting questions, and it is reasonable to assume that people have been debating such issues for thousands of years, and we haven't reached any universal conclusions yet.
All I did was point out that it is not logically possible to prove that something (outside of the realm of mathematics) does not exist.
I cannot logically prove that hobbits do not exist. I cannot logically prove that the FSM (and his noodly appendage) does not exist. I cannot logically prove that unicorns do not exist - regardless whether any of those examples exist or not. When you get into philosophical matters, it is even more complicated because everything rides on your definitions and axioms.
That's all I wanted to point out. I do hope you feel better after having vented your spleen though.
sed 's/PP/GPP/'
It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.
I agree with the rest of your post, although I think the PP is clearly a troll.
Surely the music collection in the folder is a series of files?
Interesting troll...
In this instance, who is the community? ICANN is theoretically a global entity. Clearly there isn't 100% concensus on the issue, and it isn't clear that there is a majority opinion either.
Additionally, I fail to see how the existence of the .xxx domain (or lack thereof) can be equated with "forcing pornography to be distributed by communities that don't want it". Could you explain that for me?
Well, according to one source, the EU intervention may have been a favour to the Bush administration. The US government clearly dictates terms to ICANN, but it would be politically inconvenient to be seen doing so.
Of course, if you did a bit of research, you would probably know that already...
First off, congrats on such an interesting and well-informed post.
Plato, however, was the thinker who went on to have the greatest influence on Western thought throughout antiquity,
I have heard it said that the history of Western civilization is merely a series of footnotes to Plato. That being said, I think Plato's influence had a lot more to do with his theories of love, piety, politics, education, and justice than the theory of forms. The theory of forms is, you have summarized difficult to get your head around. Real knowledge is mystical and I guess most of us are just chained up in the cave looking at the shadows.
Plato's epistemology is difficult to understand today, when the population (in the West at least) is better-educated than the average member of a Greek polis. It would have been much less accessible and understandable in less enlightened times.
It is right and proper to give Plato his due for the influence he has had on this part of the world, but I suspect that you give him a bit too much credit here.
As his prized student, and intellectual successor, you can see how Aristotle was clearly influenced by the theory of forms, even though he rejects most of it. The example of the seed is a fine example. One would not better understand a seed by contemplating the ultimate form of the seed, which contains all of the aspects of "seed-ness". No, in order to understand a seed one must be aware of what the seed is intended to do, and that is to reproduce the species, given the proper conditions.
Now, I don't think that this is entirely arbitrary - although an object's purpose is highly dependant upon your point of view. From the perspective of the zucchini plant, a seed has one purpose. From the perspective of a bird, a seed has a rather different purpose.
Now, as I said before, Thomas Aquinas did the world a great favour by showing that Aristotle's theories were consistent with the theology of the day. However, in trying to incorporate the Judeo-Christian God into the picture, he stretched things more than a little to make things all fit together. One hesitates to say he was a man with an agenda, but his writings served their purpose, and spawned a great deal of debate.
This wasn't my point. I am saying that Christian theology motivated the development of rational inquiry into natural laws.
In a sense, it did. The Church was the center of art, culture, and knowledge at that period of time in Europe at least. There was a great deal of knowledge and learning taking place in the Arabic and Asian cultures as well, but the world was a much larger place back then. Having a virtual monopoly on the subject, it is difficult to fathom that philosophy and science could develop without the Church being involved.
The problem is, there were very hard limits about what theories could be openly discussed. There was progress, but only within certain boundaries. If your theory was too bold, too radical for the authorities to accept, the only course of action was release the theory after the author's death, and hope that the heirs did not suffer unduly.
So yes, the Church had an impact, but it was not the only one, the first one, and may not have been the most important one.
It's important to understand that the very concept of rational inquiry is something that had to be invented and is not inherent in the human brain.
True, and this concept appears to have been invented by Thales of Miletus, who is widely credited with being the first scientest on record.
Scientific inquiry occurs infrequently in primitive cultures,
Largely because members of primitive cultures do not have the time or energy to speculate about such things. When you are struggling for basic survival, there is not much use for intellectuals.
But that does not mean theology is relative. It is either true or it's not, provability notwithstanding.
I think that for believers, theology is true period. Unless subject to coercion, it does not make se
I had no dispute with your post until I got to ths part:
Modern Western science owes its existence to Christian epistemology. The Platonism prevalent throughout the middle ages explicitly denied the possibility of a "scientific method."Where did you get *that* idea from?
Did you ever hear of a guy called Aristotle?
Did you know that St. Thomas of Aquinas' greatest achievement was to demonstrate that Aristotelian principles were consistent with the Church's theology? Otherwise the Church would have branded Aristotle's teachings as heresy.
The Church itself was a far greater impediment to scientific progress than the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers.
It was devout believers like Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler who shook off the pervasive Greek influencePervasive? You mean like Eratosthenes? In 200 BC he claimed that the Earth was a sphere and calculated the radius of the sphere but he was off by 15%. What a bastard!
And Galileo and Copernicus were held back by the pervasive Greek influence in mathematics and astronomy as well. Why was Pythagoras always going on about those bloody triangles anyways!
Or perhaps it was that Galileo et. al. advanced the cause of science by challenging the commonly held beliefs of the church that were demonstrably incorrect. At the time the Church was the center of knowledge and learning, but any "advancement" had to be consistent with a set of core religious beliefs. The only pervasive beliefs that they shook off were those of the Church.
and took to heart the notion that a rational God would make a world that can be rationally understood. Today we take that notion for granted, but it's arguably the most important development in all of science.Is it?
I fail to see a connection between the two statements actually. Theology is something you choose to believe in. The decision to believe or not believe is based on faith. Science on the other had, is not dependant upon faith. 2+2=4 is axiomatically true regardless of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
I am amazed that people still try to resurrect the argument from design. I thought that David Hume pretty much destroyed that line of reasoning a couple of hundred years ago.
Do you assume that you just happened to luckily shake the bag up (even if you did this 10,000+ times) or do you assume that after you shook it up that someone snuck in and arranged everything all nice and neatly?If you assume the existence of this designer, what do you really know about him/her/them? How many times did the designer re-arrange things before it was done correctly? How do you know that you are looking at the final release and not an alpha or beta version? Why should you assume there was just one designer? Why could it not be a team or committee of designers? Perhaps the designer was just a dumb mechanic playing with some toys? How can you make any observations about the morality and intent about the designer if you can only see the results?
If you subscribe to ID, you must be able to respond to those objections. Further appeals to faith and religious texts simply are not adequate evidence to shore up the crumbling foundation on which the theory of ID is based.
Personally, I am quite in favour of pointing out that evolution is only a theory. I believe in Karl Popper's theory of knowledge and refutation. However, ID fails as a theory, so it cannot be considered as an alternative explanation to evolution.
ID should be discussed in philosophy classes. It does not appear to have any place in biology classes because it has nothing to do with biology.