speaking of gravitational rippling, maybe you can answer a question for me... Special relativity says there isn't any particular speed that is at rest, right? Speeds are always relative, right?
But gravitational rippling leaks energy until the object is at rest, right? So there must be a rest state of zero speed.. so there must be an absolute zero speed?
Ah okay, I misunderstood you sorry. I'm not sure that that counts as being narrow minded, but just wrong or misinformed. Not sure - I'll go with you on this one.
Anyway, as I said in my other posts, I was being a bit contraire, but my point about religous people believing in things despite science still holds.
Heh, I admit I was being a bit contraire about the relgious=creationalists=young-earth.
About the science link - scientists are just humans as well. Maybe there were scientists in the egyptian times that still believed that the pharoh was God. It's very hard to shake off your upbringing, no matter how logical it is. We are still all tied down by emotions. I know my ex-gf is bad for me, but I still want her back. But I know logically it would be bad, and that it's only a survival trait talking, and so on. Doesn't make it any easy to reject:)
But despite this, my main point still holds. To be religous, you need faith. And to be a scientist you need to reject faith, and try to be as logical as you can within human limits.
I was thinking more of believers of young-earth rather than creationalists.
"And as to the Earth not being created just a few thousand years ago, were you there to say that it wasn't? I believe you have a bit of faith too."
It's not faith at all - it's logical reasoning. There is a huge amount of evidence to show it was created longer than a few thousand years. Evidence such as dinosaurs.
Theories that dinosaurs died from the flood are even more illogical than the satan idea. The evidence points to that humans weren't around 10 million years ago in any form, let alone 60 million years ago when dinosaurs became extinct.
Saying I have faith borders on an insult. Given strong evidence for an alternative view, I would change my opinons. Faith doesn't allow for that.
It annoys me how much damage creationalists do based on blind faith.
I thought you did say that it proved that god did not exist. Hmm, you write: "... if there's a lack of proof, one should assume god does not exist."
I think I got thrown by the word "assume". I'm not sure what it means from a logical view. If we were talking about unicorns, then I think it would be prudent to assume that unicorns don't exist, based on lack of evidence (although obiously not proven they don't exist).
However when it comes to a God, it's a bit harder to justify that you can assume God don't exist based on a lack of evidence, because the universe is a lot less explored and understood then the face of the earth. However, I think discussing what we conclusions we can assume based on incomplete knowledge starts to become philosophy, rather than logic.
"It is conceivable that God or a god exists who makes no conceivable difference to any observation we could possibly make and yet still exists. The belief that such a god exists is, I think, clearly agnostic."
The first statement wasn't quite my line of reasoning. God could make an observable difference, but we are unable to know or prove that God had an influence on the outcome.
For example, it is impossible to prove that a die is loaded by observing the outcomes. (You could however give a probability of whether it is loaded)
Back to your statement, believing in a God that really doesn't have any affect on anything isn't agnostic. You could believe that God merely observes, and only affects the metaphysical world (e.g. sends you to heaven or hell when you die). That belief is clearly not agnostic.
Anyway, I'm rambling too much. I think I've covered all your main points.
I can't reply for the other guy, but "not religous" is also my most important characteristic for a girl.
I'm a scientist, and believing in something without any proof or reasoning goes against everything I stand for.
How can you discuss it when there isn't even any logical reasoning behind it?
Next thing you'll know, they'll be telling you how they believe the earth was made a few thousand years ago, and that dinosaurs fosils were put here by the devil to mislead us. (and that is, as far as I understand, what creationalists believe).
I agree with you, although I'm on the other side of the fence.
I broke up after 3 years with a girl, partially due to disagreements on politics. I disliked her conservative side - she felt being gay is a sin of God and is immoral, and things like that. And she disliked by liberal side - she wanted a religous guy who believed in a religion etc.
"A scientist would say, surely, that it should be possible to establish the existence of god if god exists"
On what basis do you say this on? If God exists, it does not imply that we can prove it.
"that if there's a lack of proof, one should assume god does not exist" - this is a logical fallacy, even given the previous assumption. Lack of proof for X does not prove !X. For example, it could be that we haven't come across the proof for God yet.
I've been looking at learning python for a while.. Just one thing has been holding me back - doing GUI work with it. I don't really understand how I would do a kde GUI with python. I assume I would use pyqt and pykde bindings. Then I have two toolkits in my program to switch between - qt's and python's? So which do I use?
Also I couldn't find any good help on python + kde. It seems that for a totally newbies to python it's going to be a bit difficult to get up and running. And kdevelop at the moment doesn't seem to support python yet:(
I keep meaning to actually give it a try. I just wish there was a pykde book, like there is a pyqt book:)
>That's a tautology, since Windows is one of the platforms for XFree86.
I think your logic is slightly off, or you misunderstood me (or I didn't write what I meant).
I was saying that XFree86 runs on more platforms than windows. Just because it also runs on windows, doesn't make anything a tautology. Now if windows can run as a client on XFree86, then the two sets would be equal.
Well, the one example that I was thinking of in particular was Transitive, which is about emulating cpus on other cpus. I know they use the GPU for optimisation.
I see nothing particulary evil or bad of transgaming. Seems like a small company struggling to get along. They provide a service, and some people pay for it. $5 a month is next to nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Gravitation rippling only happens to accelerating object"
ahh, that answers my questions - thanks.
but you're not answering my question.
"Plowing through space" implies there is a space to move relative to.
These gravity ripples leak away energy, slowing it down.
I hope they do better than eclipse.
Aren't there problems with eclipse's licensing that prevent it running with qt?
speaking of gravitational rippling, maybe you can answer a question for me...
Special relativity says there isn't any particular speed that is at rest, right? Speeds are always relative, right?
But gravitational rippling leaks energy until the object is at rest, right? So there must be a rest state of zero speed.. so there must be an absolute zero speed?
Will this new license allow eclipse to use qt?
Insightful? :P
The parent even mentioned RSI. Not many coders with bad RSI can type faster than speaking it
Because too many times I've seen users use a monitor at 60hz ? :)
Ah okay, I misunderstood you sorry.
I'm not sure that that counts as being narrow minded, but just wrong or misinformed. Not sure - I'll go with you on this one.
Anyway, as I said in my other posts, I was being a bit contraire, but my point about religous people believing in things despite science still holds.
Closed minded to ideas that the earth was created a few thousand years ago, with no proof?
I'm not sure that counts as closed minded by many standards. Usually there has to be some scientific basis first.
Show me some evidence, and I'll consider it.
Heh, I admit I was being a bit contraire about the relgious=creationalists=young-earth.
:)
About the science link - scientists are just humans as well. Maybe there were scientists in the egyptian times that still believed that the pharoh was God. It's very hard to shake off your upbringing, no matter how logical it is. We are still all tied down by emotions.
I know my ex-gf is bad for me, but I still want her back. But I know logically it would be bad, and that it's only a survival trait talking, and so on. Doesn't make it any easy to reject
But despite this, my main point still holds. To be religous, you need faith. And to be a scientist you need to reject faith, and try to be as logical as you can within human limits.
I was thinking more of believers of young-earth rather than creationalists.
"And as to the Earth not being created just a few thousand years ago, were you there to say that it wasn't? I believe you have a bit of faith too."
It's not faith at all - it's logical reasoning. There is a huge amount of evidence to show it was created longer than a few thousand years. Evidence such as dinosaurs.
Theories that dinosaurs died from the flood are even more illogical than the satan idea. The evidence points to that humans weren't around 10 million years ago in any form, let alone 60 million years ago when dinosaurs became extinct.
Saying I have faith borders on an insult. Given strong evidence for an alternative view, I would change my opinons. Faith doesn't allow for that.
It annoys me how much damage creationalists do based on blind faith.
I thought you did say that it proved that god did not exist.
Hmm, you write: "... if there's a lack of proof, one should assume god does not exist."
I think I got thrown by the word "assume". I'm not sure what it means from a logical view.
If we were talking about unicorns, then I think it would be prudent to assume that unicorns don't exist, based on lack of evidence (although obiously not proven they don't exist).
However when it comes to a God, it's a bit harder to justify that you can assume God don't exist based on a lack of evidence, because the universe is a lot less explored and understood then the face of the earth.
However, I think discussing what we conclusions we can assume based on incomplete knowledge starts to become philosophy, rather than logic.
"It is conceivable that God or a god exists who makes no conceivable difference to any observation we could possibly make and yet still exists. The belief that such a god exists is, I think, clearly agnostic."
The first statement wasn't quite my line of reasoning. God could make an observable difference, but we are unable to know or prove that God had an influence on the outcome.
For example, it is impossible to prove that a die is loaded by observing the outcomes. (You could however give a probability of whether it is loaded)
Back to your statement, believing in a God that really doesn't have any affect on anything isn't agnostic. You could believe that God merely observes, and only affects the metaphysical world (e.g. sends you to heaven or hell when you die).
That belief is clearly not agnostic.
Anyway, I'm rambling too much. I think I've covered all your main points.
I can't reply for the other guy, but "not religous" is also my most important characteristic for a girl.
I'm a scientist, and believing in something without any proof or reasoning goes against everything I stand for.
How can you discuss it when there isn't even any logical reasoning behind it?
Next thing you'll know, they'll be telling you how they believe the earth was made a few thousand years ago, and that dinosaurs fosils were put here by the devil to mislead us. (and that is, as far as I understand, what creationalists believe).
I agree with you, although I'm on the other side of the fence.
I broke up after 3 years with a girl, partially due to disagreements on politics. I disliked her conservative side - she felt being gay is a sin of God and is immoral, and things like that. And she disliked by liberal side - she wanted a religous guy who believed in a religion etc.
Your logic is waaaay off.
"A scientist would say, surely, that it should be possible to establish the existence of god if god exists"
On what basis do you say this on? If God exists, it does not imply that we can prove it.
"that if there's a lack of proof, one should assume god does not exist" - this is a logical fallacy, even given the previous assumption. Lack of proof for X does not prove !X. For example, it could be that we haven't come across the proof for God yet.
I've been looking at learning python for a while.. Just one thing has been holding me back - doing GUI work with it.
:(
:)
I don't really understand how I would do a kde GUI with python. I assume I would use pyqt and pykde bindings. Then I have two toolkits in my program to switch between - qt's and python's? So which do I use?
Also I couldn't find any good help on python + kde. It seems that for a totally newbies to python it's going to be a bit difficult to get up and running. And kdevelop at the moment doesn't seem to support python yet
I keep meaning to actually give it a try. I just wish there was a pykde book, like there is a pyqt book
I don't follow debian development at all..
but at a random guess, it seems likely that they are holding off until the impending release.
>>A lot more than windows that's for sure.
>That's a tautology, since Windows is one of the platforms for XFree86.
I think your logic is slightly off, or you misunderstood me (or I didn't write what I meant).
I was saying that XFree86 runs on more platforms than windows. Just because it also runs on windows, doesn't make anything a tautology. Now if windows can run as a client on XFree86, then the two sets would be equal.
Well, the one example that I was thinking of in particular was Transitive, which is about emulating cpus on other cpus. I know they use the GPU for optimisation.
How exactly does downloading cracks support terrorists? Please explain how me using their bandwidth to download it, puts money in their pockets.
That's my reason I don't buy Ati :)
hmm, I would love to play red alert2 using the offical CDs as well, but also forced to use a crack.
And that's on windows.
I hate cd protection soooo much.
Hmm, is this the best top 10 they can do?
I see nothing particulary evil or bad of transgaming. Seems like a small company struggling to get along. They provide a service, and some people pay for it. $5 a month is next to nothing.
Hence the alchol :)
What an arrogant dick you are.