Socrates was found guilty of corrupting youth because of his stories, and committed suicide. (Btw read up on Socrates - fascinating story).
Then drama was considered harmful to kids - kids acting out violant plays? Terrible! I can't remember the name of the famous dudes that got into trouble for that though.
>It angers me that instead of just getting off your lazy crack, dragging your box to a friends house and using his internet to do the *ONE-TIME Authentication* to unlock the game, you are going to go through the effort of downloading, cracking, burning, just so you can not pay for these peoples hard work.
You misunderstood my intentions. I would go through the effort of downloading, cracking and burning just so I don't have to lug my computer to work for the one-time authentication.
Money doesn't really come into it - I paid shit loads for the graphics card and everything else - an extra £30 doesn't matter to me. (UK Sterling if/. still blocks the pound symbol)
I know you view it as just lazy that I don't want to drag my computer into work, but what sort of precedent is this going to set? Am I supposed to drag it into work when I want to get day of defeat working as well?
And like I said, I have to take the machine into work (on the bus btw) because of an artificial restriction. I also have to buy a DVD drive since, well, I've just never needed one before, but I'm complaining at that, because I understand the requirement.
I realise copy protection is a hard system, and to be honest steam seems the best solution. But damnit, this time it's inconveniencing me, and when I bring it up, I'm told to either not buy then, or put up with the inconvienence.
I fail to see your point. The requirement for an internet connection is one they put in on purpose - it's not a technical requirement, so why can't I 'cry' about it?
My current choices are not play it, or steal it, or find a way to drag my machine into work, or sign up for a phone line just to play this game.
Also my argument was logical. I fail to see where I was illogical or stupid (but then if I am stupid, that might explain why I can't see this). So please point out the flaws in my argument.
For my research work I make holograms, and of course the biggest buyer is going to be advertisers. This scares the hell out of me that my work and research, in 5 years time, is going to be used to bug the hell out of everyone. I just pray more good than bad comes out of my work.
KDE's Kwallet is pretty close. It stores all your passwords (web page, msn/icq, irc and so on) in a single file. Then on websites when they want a password, you just type in any giberish, and let kwallet store it.
Then put the kwallet file on a usb stick, and you're all set!
It's best, of course, to have a password for the kwallet file, but you just type that in once when you log in, and it stays open until you log out again.
>Proposal: if we were only two dimensional, what would we make of a three-dimensional being? For example, would a third dimension be referred to as "curled?"
Not really, because the third dimension isn't curled:) In the same way the fourth dimension isn't curled just because we can't move both ways through time, or even traverse time in any other way but forward.
I want to wait for your reply to the dinosaurs question:0
Btw, I think we won't be able to post for much longer.
"It wasn't until later when MS-WORD was the leader that they finally let the WP Programers have access to the APIs. "
Is this true? Very interesting if so.
The MS Word coder that started a blog said in his blog that basically this was wrong. That in MS the windows team and office team didn't even talk to each other, let alone have secret api's, and that wordperfect used this api conspiracy theory to cover up that their code sucked.
"Well, that's an unfair statement. Was it the idea of evolution that allowed the Chinese to invent gunpowder?"
I meant more to generalise to science vs supernatural, than evolution vs. genesis specifically.
Looking at the website you linked to: "The problem, according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The instantaneous communication implied by the view of quantum physics would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier"
I realise this is talking about the past, but the problem isn't with special relativity - it's with general relativity, which is with acceleration, not speed. I hate to be pedantic, but I'm somewhat QM physicist. QM doesn't transmit any information _that we can classically retrieve faster than the speed of light_.
"The broader philosophical implications were, ironically, ignored and swept under the carpet." Also this is so very very wrong. Bohr and Einstein debated this for 20 years. The philosophical side of QM has been beaten out time and time again. Einstein threw many thought experiments at Bohr - from what if the observer is in a QM state, and what if the universe is in a QM state, and so on.
Then again, my idea of what is philosophical may differ from a religious view (no offence meant).
"Particle physicists today have also concluded that we live in ten dimensions." I do not know that this has been concluded. String theory allows for several different number of dimensions - I don't think 10 has been concluded above any others. That's one problem with sites like this one - you can't trust the information:( I realise, however, that things have to be simplified for the non-scientific.
Also this whole "the other 6 are spiritual"? Come on. The other dimensions are rolled up very tightly, and are used to explain electric fields and so on. It's not some dimension that carries ghosts or something like out of x-files. And what does if mean to be supernatural anyway? It just doesn't make sense.
"Contradiction proponents usually just cherrypick passages and yell bloody murder, for the most part." Well there's not much to 'pick' on. If it turns out that there are 11 dimensions, would you denounce the bible, or say that the 10-dimension-dude read Genesis wrong?
And what about the whole young earth thing? If you add up the ages of people, it just doesn't add up right. It makes the earth very young. Very very young. According to the bible, the earth wasn't even around when we think there were dinosaurs. That seems like a pretty huge contradiction.
"Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex."
Yeah I meant creationists.:)
"whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense)." So, what is supernatural then? Can you give an example of something supernatural that you think might one day be proven by science?
"if one rules out a possible solution (the supernatural), even before the initial hypothesis is made, a truly scientific investigation cannot ensue." Ruling out the the supernatural has been the way mankind has gone forward in the last thousand years. "Why is there lightning? Oh it's supernatural - God is angry." Imagine leaving it there.
I see evolutionists coming up with a better understand on humans and animals, leading to medicines and so on. What advancements have the supernaturalists made? It's not useful to consider the supernatural side - nothing has come of it for the last several thousand years.
Books like the bible can be shown to show and predict anything - after the fact. But are useless are saying anything in advance. Look at Nostradamus's work.
For example: "[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,". That could just as easily mean the earth is flat, but round.
Also, belief in God. Fair enough - world around us, humans, stuff like that. You can make a reasonable case.
But belief in Christ? Where does that come from? Because one book said so? There's tons of other holy books with different holy people in. Why is the bible right and the others wrong? The only answer is "because I feel it's right", but other people feel _their_ religion is right, so you have to rely on something else.
"Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident."
Of course simplifying doesn't take intelligence. For one, the simplified version could require less energy, or take less space, or any thing else that gives an advantage. And simplifying can happen by some complex bit simply being dropped. Simplifying isn't debated even by evolutionists as it has been seen to happen. Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex. I would guess that simplifying is much easier.:)
Just because my thoughts arrive from randomness, doesn't mean that my thoughts are random. This is clearly false. Snowflakes have clear structure but arrive from randomness. Hurricans have structure and arrive from randomness.
Logic is formally defined. I doubt there is anyone that is even half respected that argues against logic.
As for whether my thoughts matter.. is that relevant? It's seems that almost all religious debates come down to one thing. Religious people doing proof-by-wishing. It's always "My life would be pointless without X, therefore X is true". That's why religion and science will never be compatible. Imagine scientists complaining that relativity and quantum theory are too hard, so we are going to stick to newtonian physics 'because it's easier'.
Woah, rocks have billions of souls that combine to make one big soul.
Wait.. a dead animal doesn't have a soul, but a rock does? Couldn't the atom-souls groups together in the carcass and make a big soul again?
What about mass-less particles? Do they have souls? Does a photon have a soul, and what happens when the photon is in a superposition? Does the soul also exist in a superposition?
I don't think "Dawkins" ever said something as complicated as a virus sprung out of nowhere.
WP puts viruses as appearing in the first _2 billion_ years of evolution.
Wikipedia further has this to say: "Life appears, probably first as self-reproducing RNA molecules." And goes on to give the current thoughts on how life started:
"1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane.
3. Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce "ribozymes", which are able to produce more of themselves under very specific conditions."
This is a long way from your strawman argument of a complex virus being spontanously created.
Slashdot Mirror
Um it goes back way further than that.
Socrates was found guilty of corrupting youth because of his stories, and committed suicide. (Btw read up on Socrates - fascinating story).
Then drama was considered harmful to kids - kids acting out violant plays? Terrible! I can't remember the name of the famous dudes that got into trouble for that though.
You have to connect to steam to play half life 2 anyway, so the patch will probably just be pushed in then.
>It angers me that instead of just getting off your lazy crack, dragging your box to a friends house and using his internet to do the *ONE-TIME Authentication* to unlock the game, you are going to go through the effort of downloading, cracking, burning, just so you can not pay for these peoples hard work.
/. still blocks the pound symbol)
You misunderstood my intentions. I would go through the effort of downloading, cracking and burning just so I don't have to lug my computer to work for the one-time authentication.
Money doesn't really come into it - I paid shit loads for the graphics card and everything else - an extra £30 doesn't matter to me. (UK Sterling if
I know you view it as just lazy that I don't want to drag my computer into work, but what sort of precedent is this going to set? Am I supposed to drag it into work when I want to get day of defeat working as well?
And like I said, I have to take the machine into work (on the bus btw) because of an artificial restriction. I also have to buy a DVD drive since, well, I've just never needed one before, but I'm complaining at that, because I understand the requirement.
I realise copy protection is a hard system, and to be honest steam seems the best solution. But damnit, this time it's inconveniencing me, and when I bring it up, I'm told to either not buy then, or put up with the inconvienence.
I have a connection at work - how else do you think I chat on slashdot all day *grin*
I fail to see your point.
The requirement for an internet connection is one they put in on purpose - it's not a technical requirement, so why can't I 'cry' about it?
My current choices are not play it, or steal it, or find a way to drag my machine into work, or sign up for a phone line just to play this game.
Also my argument was logical. I fail to see where I was illogical or stupid (but then if I am stupid, that might explain why I can't see this). So please point out the flaws in my argument.
I will bitch about online activation.
I have the internet at work, but not at home.
How do I play? I'm a student live in rented accommodation without a phoneline.
I could protest and just not play - but I doubt they care. So screw it - I'm going to steal it and crack it as soon as I can.
Because some of us don't like to be forced to watch adverts on the dvd's that we buy?
For my research work I make holograms, and of course the biggest buyer is going to be advertisers. This scares the hell out of me that my work and research, in 5 years time, is going to be used to bug the hell out of everyone.
I just pray more good than bad comes out of my work.
There's talk about adding that feature to kpasswordbox or whatever it is.
KDE's Kwallet is pretty close. It stores all your passwords (web page, msn/icq, irc and so on) in a single file. Then on websites when they want a password, you just type in any giberish, and let kwallet store it.
Then put the kwallet file on a usb stick, and you're all set!
It's best, of course, to have a password for the kwallet file, but you just type that in once when you log in, and it stays open until you log out again.
"begs the question" - begging the question means that a statements conclusion is the assumption it was based upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question
"I'd probably advertise Java as a must-have,"
"even possible I'd consider someone with no Java skills"
I hate you.
Or do what my brother did. Marry a Korean. :)
>Proposal: if we were only two dimensional, what would we make of a three-dimensional being? For example, would a third dimension be referred to as "curled?"
:) In the same way the fourth dimension isn't curled just because we can't move both ways through time, or even traverse time in any other way but forward.
:0
Not really, because the third dimension isn't curled
I want to wait for your reply to the dinosaurs question
Btw, I think we won't be able to post for much longer.
i'm johnflux AT gmail d com
What's compo? I checked wikipedia and google :\
"It wasn't until later when MS-WORD was the leader that they finally let the WP Programers have access to the APIs. "
Is this true? Very interesting if so.
The MS Word coder that started a blog said in his blog that basically this was wrong. That in MS the windows team and office team didn't even talk to each other, let alone have secret api's, and that wordperfect used this api conspiracy theory to cover up that their code sucked.
This is certainly an interesting conversation :)
:( I realise, however, that things have to be simplified for the non-scientific.
"Well, that's an unfair statement. Was it the idea of evolution that allowed the Chinese to invent gunpowder?"
I meant more to generalise to science vs supernatural, than evolution vs. genesis specifically.
Looking at the website you linked to:
"The problem, according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The instantaneous communication implied by the view of quantum physics would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier"
I realise this is talking about the past, but the problem isn't with special relativity - it's with general relativity, which is with acceleration, not speed. I hate to be pedantic, but I'm somewhat QM physicist. QM doesn't transmit any information _that we can classically retrieve faster than the speed of light_.
"The broader philosophical implications were, ironically, ignored and swept under the carpet."
Also this is so very very wrong. Bohr and Einstein debated this for 20 years. The philosophical side of QM has been beaten out time and time again. Einstein threw many thought experiments at Bohr - from what if the observer is in a QM state, and what if the universe is in a QM state, and so on.
Then again, my idea of what is philosophical may differ from a religious view (no offence meant).
"Particle physicists today have also concluded that we live in ten dimensions."
I do not know that this has been concluded. String theory allows for several different number of dimensions - I don't think 10 has been concluded above any others. That's one problem with sites like this one - you can't trust the information
Also this whole "the other 6 are spiritual"? Come on. The other dimensions are rolled up very tightly, and are used to explain electric fields and so on. It's not some dimension that carries ghosts or something like out of x-files. And what does if mean to be supernatural anyway? It just doesn't make sense.
"Contradiction proponents usually just cherrypick passages and yell bloody murder, for the most part."
Well there's not much to 'pick' on. If it turns out that there are 11 dimensions, would you denounce the bible, or say that the 10-dimension-dude read Genesis wrong?
And what about the whole young earth thing? If you add up the ages of people, it just doesn't add up right. It makes the earth very young. Very very young. According to the bible, the earth wasn't even around when we think there were dinosaurs.
That seems like a pretty huge contradiction.
"Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex."
:)
Yeah I meant creationists.
"whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense)."
So, what is supernatural then? Can you give an example of something supernatural that you think might one day be proven by science?
"if one rules out a possible solution (the supernatural), even before the initial hypothesis is made, a truly scientific investigation cannot ensue."
Ruling out the the supernatural has been the way mankind has gone forward in the last thousand years. "Why is there lightning? Oh it's supernatural - God is angry." Imagine leaving it there.
I see evolutionists coming up with a better understand on humans and animals, leading to medicines and so on. What advancements have the supernaturalists made? It's not useful to consider the supernatural side - nothing has come of it for the last several thousand years.
Books like the bible can be shown to show and predict anything - after the fact. But are useless are saying anything in advance.
Look at Nostradamus's work.
For example:
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,".
That could just as easily mean the earth is flat, but round.
Also, belief in God. Fair enough - world around us, humans, stuff like that. You can make a reasonable case.
But belief in Christ? Where does that come from? Because one book said so? There's tons of other holy books with different holy people in. Why is the bible right and the others wrong?
The only answer is "because I feel it's right", but other people feel _their_ religion is right, so you have to rely on something else.
What's the difference between a void and a hole?
"Simplifying takes intelligence - it doesn't just happen by accident."
:)
Of course simplifying doesn't take intelligence. For one, the simplified version could require less energy, or take less space, or any thing else that gives an advantage.
And simplifying can happen by some complex bit simply being dropped. Simplifying isn't debated even by evolutionists as it has been seen to happen.
Most evolutionists stick to that things can't be made more complex.
I would guess that simplifying is much easier.
Just because my thoughts arrive from randomness, doesn't mean that my thoughts are random. This is clearly false. Snowflakes have clear structure but arrive from randomness. Hurricans have structure and arrive from randomness.
Logic is formally defined. I doubt there is anyone that is even half respected that argues against logic.
As for whether my thoughts matter.. is that relevant?
It's seems that almost all religious debates come down to one thing. Religious people doing proof-by-wishing. It's always "My life would be pointless without X, therefore X is true".
That's why religion and science will never be compatible.
Imagine scientists complaining that relativity and quantum theory are too hard, so we are going to stick to newtonian physics 'because it's easier'.
Woah, rocks have billions of souls that combine to make one big soul.
Wait.. a dead animal doesn't have a soul, but a rock does? Couldn't the atom-souls groups together in the carcass and make a big soul again?
What about mass-less particles? Do they have souls? Does a photon have a soul, and what happens when the photon is in a superposition? Does the soul also exist in a superposition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexit y
I don't think "Dawkins" ever said something as complicated as a virus sprung out of nowhere.
WP puts viruses as appearing in the first _2 billion_ years of evolution.
Wikipedia further has this to say: "Life appears, probably first as self-reproducing RNA molecules."
And goes on to give the current thoughts on how life started:
"1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane.
3. Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce "ribozymes", which are able to produce more of themselves under very specific conditions."
This is a long way from your strawman argument of a complex virus being spontanously created.
I have mod points, and I was looking through this post.
Every "right" post that I've seen and thought to mod up, ends with this whole "but I'm sure I won't get modded up because of my views" crap.
No one likes to mod up such a post.
*looks*. Oh, so I did.l _recursion
I had just meant tail-recursive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai
Too much SML I'm afraid. I forget recursion generally means stack recursion.