Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
The odds of that happening arent that bad. Lets just say that there is a chance every nanosecond in every cubic micrometer of space (there are probably many more chances than this actually). If you use a height of 1 micrometer and the earth's surface area (1.38 x 10^42 micrometers i think), there are 1.38 x 10^42 chances every nanosecond. That means 4.25 x 10^58 chances every year. That means 4.25 x 10^67 chances every billion years. Not too mention that maybe not every planet will create life. Also, some scientists now believe that life came from aboard comets. That gives life a lot longer time than just a few billion years to be created. The odds are looking better and better arent they.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
We do know what cold is. In fact, cold doesn't really exist at all. Cold is merely a low amount of temperature. Temperature is the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. This is based on the mass and speed of the molecules in the substance.
>>Just because you can not see it, does not mean it is not there
If you cant see something, then you have to find some other way to prove it. We can find the temperature of a substance without using a stop watch to measure the speed of the molecules. We have set a temperature scale based on absolute zero and the difference between the temperatures of boiling water and ice (Kelvin). We then calibrate a thermometer to this scale using thermal equalibrium. This thermometer is put into thermal contact with the substance to find thermal equalibrium again. That is how we find the temperature without seeing it. It isnt some strange force. We know exactly how it works, therefore there is a fundamental understanding.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
I do agree that religion is not to blame for all of the bloodshed it supposedly caused. That is like blaming the internet for having pornography. Yes, it may make it easier for people to justify wars and inquisitions, but they would have happened without religion.
I do not agree with christians that believe that athiests should just let things be, however. Christianity is based on the belief that you are saving people by converting them. Most athiests I know, including myself, feel the same way about drawing people away from religion. People make much more reasonable decisions when they base them on empiracle (sp?) evidence and logical thought rather than religous beliefs. And yes, you can still have morals without being religous. Religion should be given no more credit for morals than they deserve for the inquisition.
Not only do athiests want to "save" the religous people, they want to make the world more fair for themselves. Just like your post states, it is almost impossible to get into political power without being religous. Athiests also want people to base decisions on things like cloning and genetic research with logical thought, not religion.
I am trying not to flame religous people. They are not ignorant or stupid. They are just misled by our society. Hopefully in a few thousand years humanity will look back on athiests as saviors of the human intellect just like we now look on the early christians as the protectors of the poor and impovished (sp?).
Wait a minute, the previous poster asked you where science helped proove there is a God. Your response to him had nothing to do with his question. Am I just mistaken (it is possible) or did you just avoid the question?
Re:life's beginning is confused with human life's
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
One of the major problems that religous people have with creating life this way is that scientists may actually prove that the soul doesn't exist. Once we - humans - can find exactly how living things make their decisions or formulate ideas, we will finally prove that all humans are are complex probablistic automata (as you put it). This would understandably make the religous community very worried. I dont think it means all that much really. It doesnt mean that we are no more important than insects. I would expect an ant to kill a million humans to save one ant if it could, just like I would expect a human to kill a million ants to save one human.
People who seperate their religous life and the rest of their life are not two faced. While I agree that a person's personal decisions should be based on all of their beliefs, I think that larger decisions like genetics must be thought through more delicately. For public decisions, the scientific and religous communities are often broke apart. In this case, the decision clearly falls on the scientific community. If some bishops were praying to God to create a living thing out of nothing it would be different, but that is not the case.
It is idiots like you that make me ashamed of not only my generation, but my entire race. Oh no, they tear gased a few riotoss (sp?) retareds. Be lucky that they didnt kill them. Sometimes I just wish that riot cops would just start shooting. That wouldnt only stop that riot, but it would make them happen less frequently. As an additional benefit there would be many less idiots running around in this world.
They are our streets, if we The People want them back from the cars, for a few days, then we The People will take them back.
And if we The People want it back from the protestors then we The People have the people we pay to take care of people like you (the police) take it back by any means nessessary.
I think that you put far too much blame on television. Kids dont eat McDonalds because they think it is healthy, its because they like how it tastes. They dont think that Gap pants or more durable, they think they are cool. The TV is not responsible for all of our social problems, and I cant stand people who think it is. All it is is a medium for advertisement. Saying that TV is bad because of the advertisements is like saying that all technology is bad because nuclear weapons are a type of technology.
Do not flame me, I am not saying that they didnt do anything wrong, I am saying that I am ignorant of the actual wrongdoings that the WTO took place in. And please do not say that there is no form of democratic feedback. I would like to know actual cases in which the WTO either broke the law or drastically inhibited the civil rights of the American public. Any feedback would be very appreciated so that I could make an educated opinion regarding this current problem.
You are correct, there is no difference between physical violence or the social violence that you stated. The difference is the punishment. While the ISP may be able to sue, the police may have to shoot and kill the rioters. The real problem is the fact that rioters do not think that they should be treated violently.
For Gods Sake! The real criminals are the violent protestors. Sure there are alot of non-violent protestors, but that does not change anything. Im sure many of the Nazi soldiers were very nice guys, but we still had to kill them so that we could get to the guys like Hitler and his close advisors. To make an omlet you have to crack some eggs. If they were openly shooting innocent people or even rioters, that would be different. But just tear gas is a very humane way to end this mindless protesting.
It is not illegal for the government to block access to the WTO. The protestors are invading the cival liberties of innocent people. You can protest all you like, but you cannot interupt the lives of innocent citizens.
And by the way, the difference between the Boston Tea Party and this Seattle situation is that in this modern scenerio there is no unjust law to protest. And IMHO, even the people taking part in the Boston Tea Party went out of line, but that is only my opinion.
The is an ENORMOUS difference between a Democracy and a Republic. A Democracy is a government where all people have an equal voice in governmental affairs. A Republic is where the rules are made by the majority as long as it does not impose on the civil liberties of the majority. A true Democracy can never exist, which is why our government works much better as a republic.
I do agree that we are deifying ourselves, and rightly so. If we could travel back in time a couple thousands of years ago, we would be worshoped as gods because of what we can do with technology. And humans defying nature is not a bad thing. First there were atoms which then became molecules which then became life which then became mankind. We are just the next step of the evolution of the universe - intelligent animals. If we use all of the resources on this planet we will just move to the next just like you change a busted lightbulb.
What I believe the poster was stating was that in the past only the intelligent people could actually be successful. I think he was referring to the fact that now even unintelligent people can be successful because our society no longer prizes ettiquette and high levels of literacy. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, I am just telling what I think the author was actually saying.
Why would you want to avoid irradiated foods? It is far healthier than foods that are infested with all sorts of bacteria. Irradiated milk can sit in room temperature for weeks and never get spoiled. Oh, what a terrible thing.
Actually, life could still exist on land. Life would start in the ocean where the gravitational pull is less. But life would slowly adapt as the creatures started to live closer and closer to the surface. After billions of years, there would finally be very muscular animals that could live on land.
Bullying is not the problem that they are looking for. People who push other kids around (such as bullys) release their anger all of the time. That means a very little chance that they will go off and start shooting everyone in the school. Whether or not being a troubled kid or a bully is worse is another debate. Bullys simply are not what this study is about.
How can anyone think that they can predict what will happen in 100 years? It would be tough to even guess which technologies will shape the next century, let alone what their effects will be. Anything that actually comes true will be pure luck. The only prediction I am going to make is that we will still be here, and even that isnt definete. Im just content with taking it one day at a time.
Everything will still be in the molecular level, so you dont have to worry about quarks or anything. I dont even think quantum physics will be an issue right now. Im sure some day computer will get to the sub-atomic level, but that wont be for a long time.
The problem is that it isnt only Unreal that is going to notice that Linux users arent buying. Other companies will see this and then decide not to make Linux versions. If you dont plan on playing Unreal that is fine. But if you do want to play then buy it once the linux version is out and do as the previous poster asked. This will be the only way to get more linux versions of games sold.
Slashdot Mirror
The odds of that happening arent that bad. Lets just say that there is a chance every nanosecond in every cubic micrometer of space (there are probably many more chances than this actually). If you use a height of 1 micrometer and the earth's surface area (1.38 x 10^42 micrometers i think), there are 1.38 x 10^42 chances every nanosecond. That means 4.25 x 10^58 chances every year. That means 4.25 x 10^67 chances every billion years. Not too mention that maybe not every planet will create life. Also, some scientists now believe that life came from aboard comets. That gives life a lot longer time than just a few billion years to be created. The odds are looking better and better arent they.
We do know what cold is. In fact, cold doesn't really exist at all. Cold is merely a low amount of temperature. Temperature is the average molecular kinetic energy of a substance. This is based on the mass and speed of the molecules in the substance.
>>Just because you can not see it, does not mean it is not there
If you cant see something, then you have to find some other way to prove it. We can find the temperature of a substance without using a stop watch to measure the speed of the molecules. We have set a temperature scale based on absolute zero and the difference between the temperatures of boiling water and ice (Kelvin). We then calibrate a thermometer to this scale using thermal equalibrium. This thermometer is put into thermal contact with the substance to find thermal equalibrium again. That is how we find the temperature without seeing it. It isnt some strange force. We know exactly how it works, therefore there is a fundamental understanding.
I do agree that religion is not to blame for all of the bloodshed it supposedly caused. That is like blaming the internet for having pornography. Yes, it may make it easier for people to justify wars and inquisitions, but they would have happened without religion.
I do not agree with christians that believe that athiests should just let things be, however. Christianity is based on the belief that you are saving people by converting them. Most athiests I know, including myself, feel the same way about drawing people away from religion. People make much more reasonable decisions when they base them on empiracle (sp?) evidence and logical thought rather than religous beliefs. And yes, you can still have morals without being religous. Religion should be given no more credit for morals than they deserve for the inquisition.
Not only do athiests want to "save" the religous people, they want to make the world more fair for themselves. Just like your post states, it is almost impossible to get into political power without being religous. Athiests also want people to base decisions on things like cloning and genetic research with logical thought, not religion.
I am trying not to flame religous people. They are not ignorant or stupid. They are just misled by our society. Hopefully in a few thousand years humanity will look back on athiests as saviors of the human intellect just like we now look on the early christians as the protectors of the poor and impovished (sp?).
Wait a minute, the previous poster asked you where science helped proove there is a God. Your response to him had nothing to do with his question. Am I just mistaken (it is possible) or did you just avoid the question?
One of the major problems that religous people have with creating life this way is that scientists may actually prove that the soul doesn't exist. Once we - humans - can find exactly how living things make their decisions or formulate ideas, we will finally prove that all humans are are complex probablistic automata (as you put it). This would understandably make the religous community very worried. I dont think it means all that much really. It doesnt mean that we are no more important than insects. I would expect an ant to kill a million humans to save one ant if it could, just like I would expect a human to kill a million ants to save one human.
People who seperate their religous life and the rest of their life are not two faced. While I agree that a person's personal decisions should be based on all of their beliefs, I think that larger decisions like genetics must be thought through more delicately. For public decisions, the scientific and religous communities are often broke apart. In this case, the decision clearly falls on the scientific community. If some bishops were praying to God to create a living thing out of nothing it would be different, but that is not the case.
It is idiots like you that make me ashamed of not only my generation, but my entire race. Oh no, they tear gased a few riotoss (sp?) retareds. Be lucky that they didnt kill them. Sometimes I just wish that riot cops would just start shooting. That wouldnt only stop that riot, but it would make them happen less frequently. As an additional benefit there would be many less idiots running around in this world.
They are our streets, if we The People want them back from the cars, for a few days, then we The People will take them back.
And if we The People want it back from the protestors then we The People have the people we pay to take care of people like you (the police) take it back by any means nessessary.
I think that you put far too much blame on television. Kids dont eat McDonalds because they think it is healthy, its because they like how it tastes. They dont think that Gap pants or more durable, they think they are cool. The TV is not responsible for all of our social problems, and I cant stand people who think it is. All it is is a medium for advertisement. Saying that TV is bad because of the advertisements is like saying that all technology is bad because nuclear weapons are a type of technology.
Do not flame me, I am not saying that they didnt do anything wrong, I am saying that I am ignorant of the actual wrongdoings that the WTO took place in. And please do not say that there is no form of democratic feedback. I would like to know actual cases in which the WTO either broke the law or drastically inhibited the civil rights of the American public. Any feedback would be very appreciated so that I could make an educated opinion regarding this current problem.
You are correct, there is no difference between physical violence or the social violence that you stated. The difference is the punishment. While the ISP may be able to sue, the police may have to shoot and kill the rioters. The real problem is the fact that rioters do not think that they should be treated violently.
For Gods Sake! The real criminals are the violent protestors. Sure there are alot of non-violent protestors, but that does not change anything. Im sure many of the Nazi soldiers were very nice guys, but we still had to kill them so that we could get to the guys like Hitler and his close advisors. To make an omlet you have to crack some eggs. If they were openly shooting innocent people or even rioters, that would be different. But just tear gas is a very humane way to end this mindless protesting.
It is not illegal for the government to block access to the WTO. The protestors are invading the cival liberties of innocent people. You can protest all you like, but you cannot interupt the lives of innocent citizens.
And by the way, the difference between the Boston Tea Party and this Seattle situation is that in this modern scenerio there is no unjust law to protest. And IMHO, even the people taking part in the Boston Tea Party went out of line, but that is only my opinion.
The is an ENORMOUS difference between a Democracy and a Republic. A Democracy is a government where all people have an equal voice in governmental affairs. A Republic is where the rules are made by the majority as long as it does not impose on the civil liberties of the majority. A true Democracy can never exist, which is why our government works much better as a republic.
Anything that happens to innocent people by the cops is nothing compared to the things these rioters are doing to innocent people.
I do agree that we are deifying ourselves, and rightly so. If we could travel back in time a couple thousands of years ago, we would be worshoped as gods because of what we can do with technology. And humans defying nature is not a bad thing. First there were atoms which then became molecules which then became life which then became mankind. We are just the next step of the evolution of the universe - intelligent animals. If we use all of the resources on this planet we will just move to the next just like you change a busted lightbulb.
What I believe the poster was stating was that in the past only the intelligent people could actually be successful. I think he was referring to the fact that now even unintelligent people can be successful because our society no longer prizes ettiquette and high levels of literacy. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, I am just telling what I think the author was actually saying.
Why would you want to avoid irradiated foods? It is far healthier than foods that are infested with all sorts of bacteria. Irradiated milk can sit in room temperature for weeks and never get spoiled. Oh, what a terrible thing.
Actually, life could still exist on land. Life would start in the ocean where the gravitational pull is less. But life would slowly adapt as the creatures started to live closer and closer to the surface. After billions of years, there would finally be very muscular animals that could live on land.
Bullying is not the problem that they are looking for. People who push other kids around (such as bullys) release their anger all of the time. That means a very little chance that they will go off and start shooting everyone in the school. Whether or not being a troubled kid or a bully is worse is another debate. Bullys simply are not what this study is about.
How can anyone think that they can predict what will happen in 100 years? It would be tough to even guess which technologies will shape the next century, let alone what their effects will be. Anything that actually comes true will be pure luck. The only prediction I am going to make is that we will still be here, and even that isnt definete. Im just content with taking it one day at a time.
And this doesn't detract from the holiday spirit for you?
Everything will still be in the molecular level, so you dont have to worry about quarks or anything. I dont even think quantum physics will be an issue right now. Im sure some day computer will get to the sub-atomic level, but that wont be for a long time.
The problem is that it isnt only Unreal that is going to notice that Linux users arent buying. Other companies will see this and then decide not to make Linux versions. If you dont plan on playing Unreal that is fine. But if you do want to play then buy it once the linux version is out and do as the previous poster asked. This will be the only way to get more linux versions of games sold.
Another reason to not buy UT.
Which is another reason for them and other gaming companies to not release any more games for linux.