I agree, I'm an atheist but I thought that anti-Christian comment at the end was totally out of place and painted the writer of the article as an intolerant bigot. It was totally out of place in the article and really undermines his point.
This is one the things that sucks about being an atheist. Other than the existential dread, of course. I will never really have this feeling of community. I know that I will always be able to count on my close family, but that's where it ends.
I have no belief in god nor any intention to change my mind on the subject, but what you described is pretty appealing.
That's incredible that you are in such a long-lasting marriage despite only knowing the person for 3 weeks before you got married. Weren't you afraid that you didn't know the person well enough? At that point in time, you're still well in the "butterflies in the stomach" phase.
I always figured that the only speech that should maybe land you in trouble with the law is speech that incites violence against a certain group. No matter how much anyone might disagree with the statement above, it's certainly not that. It's pretty disappointing to see the state of "freedom of speech" on the planet these days...
If you really want to, we could go one step further and make the analogy even more complete by giving the person every reason to believe that the one claiming the tiger has been removed is wrong. Maybe the tiger's tail is showing and you can hear a roar every once in a while. "Oh don't mind that, I swear the tiger is gone." Then yes, I guess the analogy is even more accurate.:)
This is where someone jumps in and goes "blah blah blah blah victim blaming! Blah blah blah offensive! Blah blah blah slut shaming!"
Giving advice on how to protect yourself is now seen as victim blaming, so you won't see too much of that. We live in a society where if you jump in the tiger's cage and get eaten, it is considered offensive to say that maybe you shouldn't have jumped in the tiger's cage.
Precisely. I am appalled by the number of Americans in this discussion who seem to think this is fine. I can understand doing this to China cause they're pretty brazen about their espionage, but Germany? Added to the leaks about the surveyance of the Chancellor, this clearly shows the profound lack of trust the Americans have in their allies. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
I'm not sure they are really enablers, maybe they're a bit more pragmatic. The issue is that despite many people making little PSAs about online bullying, it's not really slowing down. I think it's really the nature of internet to enable this kind of behaviour. If that's the case, any attempt to reach the bullies themselves is pointless. Faced with this, the most sensible solutions are to either stop engaging with the internet, or to try to develop a resistance to it. It might be unfortunate that we have to do this, but as long as the internet provides anonimity, it seems to me to be the only solution. The people saying "whatever it's harmless" have developped this resistance, so they are comfortable online.
Just like you, it only took a few seconds of video for me to be thoroughly underwhelmed. Why was this even made into an interview? This is extremely pedestrian.
The other, more advanced technologies are being developped in the aim of eventually creating objects that can cloak themselves. What are you gonna do, carry your gigantic lens array with you so you can be invisible? Well then you'll have a problem, cause people will see the lenses... Or you, if they just look at you from any angle that isn't small. Why should anyone care? Why would these guys even compare this to the other work that's being done?
That's how the free open source community works. If you don't like something, it's pointless to just spend a lot of time bitching about it (like many linux users have done about systemd). Just go out and make your own version. Everyone who's been complaining about systemd better contribute to this thing.
Then I guess we're going to have to just disagree on this one. The dude in the original story had merely invited her for coffee and she refused. To my knowledge that was the end of that. They then spent an uncomfortable elevator ride. I really don't see why anyone should feel violated by this. If he'd really been insistent and pushy, then maybe you could really say that he'd gone too far.
I have a feeling this comment thread is basically just restating stuff that was said back then.
Dawkins, to my knowledge, said that women here shouldn't complain because women have it worse elsewhere. This has nothing to do with what I wrote. If you let the little wheels turn in your head, you'll see that I'm basically saying that, unlike what many people in the extreme left think, it is actually possible to judge whether it is reasonable for someone to feel a certain way. Basically, if a situation is only awkward, and you claim to be violated, then other people have the right to judge that you are exaggerating. This is trivially true to prove since I could claim at any moment, in bad faith, to be violated by any mundane action, and you would call me out on it. When people claim to have certain feelings, that does not mean that we should stop and act immediately to please them. Anyone can claim to feel anything. We only have to act if we can show that the action taken was actually harmful.
The greatest crime of a lot of these extreme left ideologies, as far as I'm concerned, is to wish to make everything subjective. Who someone is is 100% irrelevant to their argument. The possible intentions they might have are also 100% irrelevant. Is the argument right or wrong? Would the argument be any better if it came out of someone else's mouth? This is nonsense. A logical argument exists independantly of the person who stated it. The habit that a lot of these people have of attacking people reather than arguments is a seriously anti-intellectual one, and you're not helping right now.
Unfortunately, some people have gotten it into their heads that they have a right to not feel awkard, and that feeling awkward makes them "violated". A clear abuse of the word, if I've ever seen any.
I'm pretty sure the dude had only asked her if she wanted to come up to his room for coffee. She just overreacted in a completely ridiculous way. Then the internet overreacted too cause that's what it does.
That's a good point. As far as I know, the princpal maintainer of the MESA open source code for star simulation does not have a background in astrophysics. He' s a programmer, and he is advised by people working in the field.
That's certainly something a lot of people are finding out. In times of economic troubles, fields like astronomy are the first to suffer.
As for the original question, I think you have more than enough time to learn physics and astronomy if you pick up some books and watch videos, to the point where you might be a pretty good amateur enthusiast. But contributing to the field? Maybe by doing some amateur astromy, you can help us spot objects. Lots of people are happy with that. I guess if you have good programming skills, you might spend some time learning physics to the point where you can run your own simulations, assuming you don't need a supercomputer to do so. 10 hours a week is definitely on the low side though, it's going to take a while to learn everything you need to know. Also, it's very unlikely you will get published unless you manage to be associated with a university. Maybe inquire into doing a part-time degree or something? The reality is that if you're not in the academic world, it's hard to contribute meaningfully.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, I'm an atheist but I thought that anti-Christian comment at the end was totally out of place and painted the writer of the article as an intolerant bigot. It was totally out of place in the article and really undermines his point.
This is one the things that sucks about being an atheist. Other than the existential dread, of course. I will never really have this feeling of community. I know that I will always be able to count on my close family, but that's where it ends.
I have no belief in god nor any intention to change my mind on the subject, but what you described is pretty appealing.
That's incredible that you are in such a long-lasting marriage despite only knowing the person for 3 weeks before you got married. Weren't you afraid that you didn't know the person well enough? At that point in time, you're still well in the "butterflies in the stomach" phase.
I always figured that the only speech that should maybe land you in trouble with the law is speech that incites violence against a certain group. No matter how much anyone might disagree with the statement above, it's certainly not that. It's pretty disappointing to see the state of "freedom of speech" on the planet these days...
If you really want to, we could go one step further and make the analogy even more complete by giving the person every reason to believe that the one claiming the tiger has been removed is wrong. Maybe the tiger's tail is showing and you can hear a roar every once in a while. "Oh don't mind that, I swear the tiger is gone." Then yes, I guess the analogy is even more accurate. :)
Wow, I'm feeling nostalgia right now. The good old days when running linux was much more of a pain that it is now.
This is where someone jumps in and goes "blah blah blah blah victim blaming! Blah blah blah offensive! Blah blah blah slut shaming!"
Giving advice on how to protect yourself is now seen as victim blaming, so you won't see too much of that. We live in a society where if you jump in the tiger's cage and get eaten, it is considered offensive to say that maybe you shouldn't have jumped in the tiger's cage.
Precisely. I am appalled by the number of Americans in this discussion who seem to think this is fine. I can understand doing this to China cause they're pretty brazen about their espionage, but Germany? Added to the leaks about the surveyance of the Chancellor, this clearly shows the profound lack of trust the Americans have in their allies. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
You're right, Escape-Meta-Alt-Control-Shift is a pretty decent OS. It's too bad that it lacks a proper text editor. Am I doing this right?
I'm not sure they are really enablers, maybe they're a bit more pragmatic. The issue is that despite many people making little PSAs about online bullying, it's not really slowing down. I think it's really the nature of internet to enable this kind of behaviour. If that's the case, any attempt to reach the bullies themselves is pointless. Faced with this, the most sensible solutions are to either stop engaging with the internet, or to try to develop a resistance to it. It might be unfortunate that we have to do this, but as long as the internet provides anonimity, it seems to me to be the only solution. The people saying "whatever it's harmless" have developped this resistance, so they are comfortable online.
Just like you, it only took a few seconds of video for me to be thoroughly underwhelmed. Why was this even made into an interview? This is extremely pedestrian.
The other, more advanced technologies are being developped in the aim of eventually creating objects that can cloak themselves. What are you gonna do, carry your gigantic lens array with you so you can be invisible? Well then you'll have a problem, cause people will see the lenses... Or you, if they just look at you from any angle that isn't small. Why should anyone care? Why would these guys even compare this to the other work that's being done?
This comment is sadly underrated.
You make a strong point.
Bring on the generic MOBA game slashvertisements! Lest my eyes roll right out of my skull after another of those damn clickbaity articles.
That's how the free open source community works. If you don't like something, it's pointless to just spend a lot of time bitching about it (like many linux users have done about systemd). Just go out and make your own version. Everyone who's been complaining about systemd better contribute to this thing.
Then I guess we're going to have to just disagree on this one. The dude in the original story had merely invited her for coffee and she refused. To my knowledge that was the end of that. They then spent an uncomfortable elevator ride. I really don't see why anyone should feel violated by this. If he'd really been insistent and pushy, then maybe you could really say that he'd gone too far.
I have a feeling this comment thread is basically just restating stuff that was said back then.
Dawkins, to my knowledge, said that women here shouldn't complain because women have it worse elsewhere. This has nothing to do with what I wrote. If you let the little wheels turn in your head, you'll see that I'm basically saying that, unlike what many people in the extreme left think, it is actually possible to judge whether it is reasonable for someone to feel a certain way. Basically, if a situation is only awkward, and you claim to be violated, then other people have the right to judge that you are exaggerating. This is trivially true to prove since I could claim at any moment, in bad faith, to be violated by any mundane action, and you would call me out on it. When people claim to have certain feelings, that does not mean that we should stop and act immediately to please them. Anyone can claim to feel anything. We only have to act if we can show that the action taken was actually harmful.
This fails to address the point I made, but I guess I should have expected nothing else. :)
Reading the summary, I was amazed that according to their own figures, 41% of men have suffered sexual harrassment, yet the quote is only about women.
The greatest crime of a lot of these extreme left ideologies, as far as I'm concerned, is to wish to make everything subjective. Who someone is is 100% irrelevant to their argument. The possible intentions they might have are also 100% irrelevant. Is the argument right or wrong? Would the argument be any better if it came out of someone else's mouth? This is nonsense. A logical argument exists independantly of the person who stated it. The habit that a lot of these people have of attacking people reather than arguments is a seriously anti-intellectual one, and you're not helping right now.
The funny thing is that the very same woman who complained had been making dick jokes on twitter in the morning of that day.
Unfortunately, some people have gotten it into their heads that they have a right to not feel awkard, and that feeling awkward makes them "violated". A clear abuse of the word, if I've ever seen any.
I'm pretty sure the dude had only asked her if she wanted to come up to his room for coffee. She just overreacted in a completely ridiculous way. Then the internet overreacted too cause that's what it does.
The bastard child of physics?
That's a good point. As far as I know, the princpal maintainer of the MESA open source code for star simulation does not have a background in astrophysics. He' s a programmer, and he is advised by people working in the field.
That's certainly something a lot of people are finding out. In times of economic troubles, fields like astronomy are the first to suffer.
As for the original question, I think you have more than enough time to learn physics and astronomy if you pick up some books and watch videos, to the point where you might be a pretty good amateur enthusiast. But contributing to the field? Maybe by doing some amateur astromy, you can help us spot objects. Lots of people are happy with that. I guess if you have good programming skills, you might spend some time learning physics to the point where you can run your own simulations, assuming you don't need a supercomputer to do so. 10 hours a week is definitely on the low side though, it's going to take a while to learn everything you need to know. Also, it's very unlikely you will get published unless you manage to be associated with a university. Maybe inquire into doing a part-time degree or something? The reality is that if you're not in the academic world, it's hard to contribute meaningfully.