So... everyone's religion should reconcile with your view of "a god.":) If it is laughable to fit Him into our understanding of the universe... then how is it we reconcile Him with OUR science?
No, I'm saying that if a creator-god put all of this together, the universe as it exists is part of that, and pretending like that isn't the case serves no purpose. Reality exists, and trying to contort that reality to match a belief that, say, the Earth is 6000 years old is kind of loony. If 'he' made it, then we should understand it the way it actually is, as opposed to the way we hope it is... I'm sure God was relieved when Galileo was un-excommunicated for saying the Earth goes around the sun.;-P
So how is it our science can prove or disprove anything about God?
Actually, it can't. By definition, he/she/it would outside of our science -- as you point out. I'm specifically saying that science can't actually speak to the question... but pretending that all science is wrong because your limited understanding of god says so is wrong.
I'm saying that a creator-god would be so vastly beyond our understanding, that trying to pigeon hole it into our limited understanding of the universe would be like an amoeba trying to conceptualize the solar system.
Have your religion, and have your science. Just remember which to look for to answers on what questions -- they don't need to be incompatible. I don't see a need for their to be an un-resolvable conflict between the two -- if you want to understand God, try to understand the universe as it really exists. You might not find an answer, but you'll come up with better questions.
I sure as heck don't claim to have any special insights on the matter -- I just know that I can barely wrap my head around half of the astronomy I see; trying to make categorical statements about anything which could have created all of this is way beyond me.:-P
The really devout ones would probably take this as evidence of intelligent design anyway.
The ones I know who are scientists who are also religious mostly accept that god isn't micro-managing the day-to-day stuff.
To me, I picture something more like us being critters in a lab experiment... "oh, look, the little blue ones are wearing pointy hats this year, how cute! I like it when they wear hats -- uh oh, the purple-speckled ones are fighting again, what a shame -- oops, I think I just stepped on the green ones".
He might be keeping score, but he's not altering reality around us.
The people who want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
We don't need to resolve science with religion... we need to reconcile religion with science. Once your god is outside the big bang where scientists just shrug, or addressing things like an afterlife... run wild.
If your religion can't incorporate what science tells us, you're choosing to live in ignorance and take your holy book as literal, factual information.
I know astrophysicists who are devoutly religious... first and foremost, they turn to the science to explain the universe as it exists. For them, god answers a completely different set of questions -- and I have no problem with that. If any entity DID create the universe, it's largely going to be beyond our ability to fully comprehend.
If a god exists, he's such a massively abstract and complex being, that trying to fit him/it/whatever into OUR understanding of the universe is laughable.
There are all too many instances of this happening. Even 'serious' companies like 5 star hotel firms are doing it now - not just the pseudo-hip companies.
Well, they've got, what... several hundred million users or so? I can see why marketers would realize they can't ignore it.
It has become inarguably pervasive. Twitter seems to be about as frequent on the web pages of pretty much every company as well.
To me it's like IRC... and I got bored with that in the 90s, so I've always looked at Facebook as kinda lame. But, hey, I also can't counter the fact that everybody else seems to think it's indispensable for day-to-day life... I'm apparently in the minority.
But now anyone can have a FB page from your grandmother to a company, it lost that unique feeling of being part of a club that was closed to outsiders.
Once again, yesterday's Dilbert seems apropos here. I definitely seems like every company nowadays has a Facebook page and thinks it is necessary for business. I've yet to encounter one I can't do business with without Facebook, but the first time I do that company is never going to see me again.
Even my 70 year old mother has come to the conclusion that Facebook is something that is a little sketchy and should have the minimum possible information in it -- when senior citizens start to realize that, you gotta figure the writing is on the wall.
As long as their revenues come from selling your personal information to advertisers, this will only get worse. I assume Facebook doesn't directly make money from their users -- I've never used it, but I don't know what the users would be paying for.
Thanks, I think. I'll have to read a little bit before the whooshing sound stops though.:-P
I take it "higher mass, lower momentum cold dark matter" wouldn't just be lots big rocks of really heavy elements, but essentially inert? Or would anything that big be generating something else that would rule it out?
I believe people are sure of it needing to be accounted for... but how we know to be looking for it in the first place is one of those things I just have to mostly take on faith.
Something as remote as a galaxy walks with a limp, and you guys work out the height of the stairs he fell from. Or something.:-P
or could they still break if the impact was big enough???
I'm sure given a big enough impact, anything would break. (Short of a #2 General Dynamics hull that is.)
I think for cars it's a combination of not sending shards all over the place, and allowing for some give to absorb the impact. I suspect if everything was too rigid, much more force gets transferred to the occupants.
Seriously. I'm a rocket scientist, and I'm baffled by the mixed properties of 'dark matter'. Can we land a probe on it, or would baryonic space probes pass right through it?
I think that's kind of the point, isn't it?
We don't know WTF it is, or what it's made up of... only that we can measure it's gravitational effects but can't directly figure out how to observer it.
Beyond that, I've never heard anyone offer an good, testable explanation of what it is, merely what we think it isn't.
So, does "having" this processor mean it is going to be "flaunted". "Flaunt" has a kind of negative connotation of waving something around to be sure everybody can see it.
Maybe words like "have", "sport", "use", "be built with", or "ship with" might be more applicable.
TFA doesn't have the word "flaunt" in it. Maybe a little less editorializing in the headlines would be good here. In this case, it's just plain not applicable -- no more than my desktop machine is "flaunting" it's quad-core Intel CPU.
At the current state of copyright law, it's probably better to be caught tunneling into a game shop and stealing physical copies than downloading the same amount of copies on bittorrent.
I can imagine some poor married soul, who happens to have a "facebook profile" then gets sudden unsolicitated profile matches from this dating site, then has to explain to his/her partner....
Well, if I go to my spam folder I'm sure I'll discover several unsolicited "matches" from Russian women who want to chat with me.
Mark it for spam like it is, and let the messages disappear like they ought to into the bit bucket. Now, if you start responding to them, well, then you might have something to explain to your partner.
If you're descended from genes too slow to outrun and outwit a woolly mammoth, how the fuck did you get here in the first place?
Dude, look around out there... there is a large part of the human race that likely couldn't outrun or outwit much of anything.
Let a woolly mammoth loose in a mall, and I'm betting on the mammoth until someone else arrives who can fight back. As a species, we don't necessarily select for direct confrontations with large mammals very much nowadays.:-P
Just because our ancestors did all of those things, doesn't mean we still do.
But, why remove it in the first place? For a decade or more, the status bas has been useful to check what that link you are about to click on actually points to. Removing it just opens people up to all sorts of things.
To me, that is kinda like having a mod to my car to add back the rear view mirror. I just don't see why removing it in the first place is 'progress'... I am beginning to fear Firefox may have jumped the shark.
Which is annoying, because IE still sucks, Safari is annoying, and I can't even begin to care about Chrome.
The last cool innovation in a web browser that I actually found useful was tabs. Quite sad, really.
Are you joking? The iPad isn't even allowed to have arrow keys
Actually, it took me two months to discover this on my iPad... If you press and hold on text entry fields, you get a 'zoom' bubble, slide your finger until the cursor is where you want it, and release... It's actually faster than arrow keys.
You have equivalent functionality... Not better, just different.
Can't speak to the ones in Florida, but the ones up here in Canada are made of the exact same wood as a regular house.
Full on 16 inch centered studs, wooden roof trusses and floor beams, gyproc walls and ceilings, proper fiberglass insulation, the whole kit. As far as I could tell, there's not a lick of aluminum in the whole damned thing.
When my parents retired, they bought a pre-fab home to put on their retirement property (formerly the cottage). It came in two halves, is constructed with standard 2x4, sits on a slab, and is better insulated than almost any home I have seen. If they wanted, they could have put in a basement.
It most definitely is NOT a mobile home or a trailer. It just happens to be built indoors and trucked to your location and then has final assembly done on site. It has a full on peaked roof with shingles and all the fixins.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm saying that if a creator-god put all of this together, the universe as it exists is part of that, and pretending like that isn't the case serves no purpose. Reality exists, and trying to contort that reality to match a belief that, say, the Earth is 6000 years old is kind of loony. If 'he' made it, then we should understand it the way it actually is, as opposed to the way we hope it is ... I'm sure God was relieved when Galileo was un-excommunicated for saying the Earth goes around the sun. ;-P
Actually, it can't. By definition, he/she/it would outside of our science -- as you point out. I'm specifically saying that science can't actually speak to the question ... but pretending that all science is wrong because your limited understanding of god says so is wrong.
I'm saying that a creator-god would be so vastly beyond our understanding, that trying to pigeon hole it into our limited understanding of the universe would be like an amoeba trying to conceptualize the solar system.
Have your religion, and have your science. Just remember which to look for to answers on what questions -- they don't need to be incompatible. I don't see a need for their to be an un-resolvable conflict between the two -- if you want to understand God, try to understand the universe as it really exists. You might not find an answer, but you'll come up with better questions.
I sure as heck don't claim to have any special insights on the matter -- I just know that I can barely wrap my head around half of the astronomy I see; trying to make categorical statements about anything which could have created all of this is way beyond me. :-P
The ones I know who are scientists who are also religious mostly accept that god isn't micro-managing the day-to-day stuff.
To me, I picture something more like us being critters in a lab experiment ... "oh, look, the little blue ones are wearing pointy hats this year, how cute! I like it when they wear hats -- uh oh, the purple-speckled ones are fighting again, what a shame -- oops, I think I just stepped on the green ones".
He might be keeping score, but he's not altering reality around us.
The people who want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
We don't need to resolve science with religion ... we need to reconcile religion with science. Once your god is outside the big bang where scientists just shrug, or addressing things like an afterlife ... run wild.
If your religion can't incorporate what science tells us, you're choosing to live in ignorance and take your holy book as literal, factual information.
I know astrophysicists who are devoutly religious ... first and foremost, they turn to the science to explain the universe as it exists. For them, god answers a completely different set of questions -- and I have no problem with that. If any entity DID create the universe, it's largely going to be beyond our ability to fully comprehend.
If a god exists, he's such a massively abstract and complex being, that trying to fit him/it/whatever into OUR understanding of the universe is laughable.
Well, they've got, what ... several hundred million users or so? I can see why marketers would realize they can't ignore it.
It has become inarguably pervasive. Twitter seems to be about as frequent on the web pages of pretty much every company as well.
To me it's like IRC ... and I got bored with that in the 90s, so I've always looked at Facebook as kinda lame. But, hey, I also can't counter the fact that everybody else seems to think it's indispensable for day-to-day life ... I'm apparently in the minority.
Once again, yesterday's Dilbert seems apropos here. I definitely seems like every company nowadays has a Facebook page and thinks it is necessary for business. I've yet to encounter one I can't do business with without Facebook, but the first time I do that company is never going to see me again.
Even my 70 year old mother has come to the conclusion that Facebook is something that is a little sketchy and should have the minimum possible information in it -- when senior citizens start to realize that, you gotta figure the writing is on the wall.
As long as their revenues come from selling your personal information to advertisers, this will only get worse. I assume Facebook doesn't directly make money from their users -- I've never used it, but I don't know what the users would be paying for.
Thanks, I think. I'll have to read a little bit before the whooshing sound stops though. :-P
I take it "higher mass, lower momentum cold dark matter" wouldn't just be lots big rocks of really heavy elements, but essentially inert? Or would anything that big be generating something else that would rule it out?
I believe people are sure of it needing to be accounted for ... but how we know to be looking for it in the first place is one of those things I just have to mostly take on faith.
Something as remote as a galaxy walks with a limp, and you guys work out the height of the stairs he fell from. Or something. :-P
You sir, are correct. I did in fact mean a General Products hull. :-P
Thanks.
I'm sure given a big enough impact, anything would break. (Short of a #2 General Dynamics hull that is.)
I think for cars it's a combination of not sending shards all over the place, and allowing for some give to absorb the impact. I suspect if everything was too rigid, much more force gets transferred to the occupants.
That would be different.
Of course, what you really need is a double-walled one with fake fish in between the layers or something like a snowglobe. :-P
You always could (for specific versions of 'could').
The adage is that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" -- it pertains to hypocrisy.
I think that's kind of the point, isn't it?
We don't know WTF it is, or what it's made up of ... only that we can measure it's gravitational effects but can't directly figure out how to observer it.
Beyond that, I've never heard anyone offer an good, testable explanation of what it is, merely what we think it isn't.
Seriously, "flaunt"?
So, does "having" this processor mean it is going to be "flaunted". "Flaunt" has a kind of negative connotation of waving something around to be sure everybody can see it.
Maybe words like "have", "sport", "use", "be built with", or "ship with" might be more applicable.
TFA doesn't have the word "flaunt" in it. Maybe a little less editorializing in the headlines would be good here. In this case, it's just plain not applicable -- no more than my desktop machine is "flaunting" it's quad-core Intel CPU.
At the current state of copyright law, it's probably better to be caught tunneling into a game shop and stealing physical copies than downloading the same amount of copies on bittorrent.
Sadly, you are probably correct.
Or, maybe Minecraft imitated life to begin with. It's not like the concept of sappers and tunneling was invented by Minecraft.
Now, that doesn't mean that tunneling into a video game store isn't just plain bizarre.
Well, if I go to my spam folder I'm sure I'll discover several unsolicited "matches" from Russian women who want to chat with me.
Mark it for spam like it is, and let the messages disappear like they ought to into the bit bucket. Now, if you start responding to them, well, then you might have something to explain to your partner.
Well, it would mean that someone is dating me for my BRAINZ!!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one. ;-)
Dude, look around out there ... there is a large part of the human race that likely couldn't outrun or outwit much of anything.
Let a woolly mammoth loose in a mall, and I'm betting on the mammoth until someone else arrives who can fight back. As a species, we don't necessarily select for direct confrontations with large mammals very much nowadays. :-P
Just because our ancestors did all of those things, doesn't mean we still do.
there's already an extension to add the status bar functionality back
But, why remove it in the first place? For a decade or more, the status bas has been useful to check what that link you are about to click on actually points to. Removing it just opens people up to all sorts of things.
To me, that is kinda like having a mod to my car to add back the rear view mirror. I just don't see why removing it in the first place is 'progress' ... I am beginning to fear Firefox may have jumped the shark.
Which is annoying, because IE still sucks, Safari is annoying, and I can't even begin to care about Chrome.
The last cool innovation in a web browser that I actually found useful was tabs. Quite sad, really.
Because, if they looked, they would be responsible for what people send.
It is why the phone company (and, to a certain extent ISPs) enjoy common carrier status.
All they have to be is content neutral, and they really aren't in the business of copyright infringement ... They just move data.
How would you get out then?
Oh, rimshot!!!!
Not all apps are as stable as you'd like. You need something to press to exit to your home screen if your app decides it just wants to freeze...
It is also how you do task switching ... Double click, and the tray shows running apps.
Are you joking? The iPad isn't even allowed to have arrow keys
Actually, it took me two months to discover this on my iPad ... If you press and hold on text entry fields, you get a 'zoom' bubble, slide your finger until the cursor is where you want it, and release ... It's actually faster than arrow keys.
You have equivalent functionality ... Not better, just different.
Cheers
Can't speak to the ones in Florida, but the ones up here in Canada are made of the exact same wood as a regular house.
Full on 16 inch centered studs, wooden roof trusses and floor beams, gyproc walls and ceilings, proper fiberglass insulation, the whole kit. As far as I could tell, there's not a lick of aluminum in the whole damned thing.
Different animals entirely.
Exactly this.
When my parents retired, they bought a pre-fab home to put on their retirement property (formerly the cottage). It came in two halves, is constructed with standard 2x4, sits on a slab, and is better insulated than almost any home I have seen. If they wanted, they could have put in a basement.
It most definitely is NOT a mobile home or a trailer. It just happens to be built indoors and trucked to your location and then has final assembly done on site. It has a full on peaked roof with shingles and all the fixins.
The two are very different things.