I know, I know the Lord^W aliens work in mysterious ways...
But actually I was doing the exact opposite of what you are saying. I am not making any assumptions about why they might disguise themselves, that is what the OP did. I merely pointed out that the assumption he was making didn't make much sense.
That's true, evolution covers the development of existing life but it does not explain the beginning of the process.
I would guess that all universes capable of supporting life would have it in some form. After all, the universe is big, real big. The life would not necessarily be intelligent however. The conditions sufficient for life and conditions sufficient for humans are very different I would think. Then again, who really knows? The problem with all this speculation about the likelihood of life and the evolution of intelligence is that we have a sample size of exactly one which we are using to extrapolate to all known universes.
I think you will eventually give the "if a thousand monkeys are typing on a thousand typewriters they will eventually type the works of shakespeare argument" which doesn't hold true under modern probability. The thousand monkeys comparison is not appropriate here because evolution is not a random process.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you mean any disrespect, but stereotyping religions is no different using stereotypes as a basis for racism. To be honest stereotyping based on religion is actually far different from stereotyping based on race. Race tells you nothing about a person but how they look, it is set in stone before they are born and they have no choice in it. Religion OTOH is something that everyone chooses for themselves and it changes with the person throughout their life. As such, religious belief does say quite a lot about a person.
That said, no one here knows enough about your religious belief to make a judgment about you. But if we did know you better we certainly could make a fair judgment based on it.
I think he means there is a difference between understanding it's a waste when the heat you are paying for is going out the window, there is a very direct cost. It's less likely for people to think that the heat coming out of the back of their vacuum cleaner is also wasted energy. Electrical appliances get hot when they run, right? Nothing unusual about that.
Nobody has any basis to make a judgment on something like climatology
Too bad. The risk of doing nothing is too costly. It would be nice if we could sit back and wait till "all the evidence is in", but no such point in time will ever come so we have to at some point decided to act on what we know even if only a small preponderance of the evidence supports our action.
You are seriously misrepresenting what I said. I don't believe and never implied that scientists are infallible. I don't believe and never did I imply that everything scientists say should be accepted blindly. I don't believe in and never did I imply that I believe in faith. I believe no one believes anything by faith, there are always reasons even if they are poor reasons.
What I advocate is a meritocratic approach to climate policy. No, scientists are not perfect. Yes, scientists make mistakes. However the people who dedicate their lives to understanding the climate and how it can be manipulated are less likely than anyone else to be wrong about the subject. Everyone can come to their own conclusions, but when deciding policy the opinions of a lawyer in Boston or a Mechanic in Tuscon should not be considered.
In addition, though the individual scientists are flawed the majority opinion of all the worlds climate researches is far less likely to be wrong than any individual's opinion.
Of course they used scientific methods. I said the belief in flat earth was disproved a thousand years before modern scientific methodology was formalized. No one said scientific methods couldn't ever be used before they were formalized. My point stands, your assertion that there was a time when a flat earth was the consensus among scientists is false.
Weren't the barcodes you were supposed to scan special codes found in advertisements? From what I recall it wasn't for the regular product codes. Ancient history, I could be wrong. I never used mine for it's intended purpose either.
My point is that while it's true that the scientific process is imperfect over the short term their is no better way for a lay person to judge the fitness of a theory than by looking at what the professionals are saying. Modern science especially something like climatology is extremely complicated and almost none of us who aren't professionals have any basis to make good judgments based on our superficial knowledge of the subject.
I think the history of the scientific method is important because it's a provably effective tool and also because it was relevant to the OP's flat earth assertion. Obviously because we don't have a control Earth to experiment with researchers can't base their conclusions only on the scientific method, but it is still useful for showing CO2's affect on the atmosphere and our affect on the CO2. All the ice core sampling and tree ring counting that is done shows that historical analysis is also being done where appropriate. You speak of a better method of understanding the climate which the professionals are overlooking, what exactly is it?
Please educate yourself on science before criticizing it. In science you don't ever prove anything absolutely correct. If that's what your looking for there are plenty of religions out there for you to try instead.
The belief in a flat earth predates the scientific method by at least a millennium so there never was a consensus among scientists that the earth was flat. The belief in a flat earth is in no way applicable to the modern scientific process.
If you've got a system that works better than the scientific method which has been developed for many centuries and used to bring our civilization to the level of technical sophistication that we now enjoy then I'd love to hear all about it. If not then please take a seat and stop trying to hinder attempts at progress.
Yes, unless you've got a theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence to the satisfaction of the majority of people who study the problem.
He looks more like he was on the receiving end of a squadron of rabid lawyers.
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
A few problems, first of all you say their are countless times but that is obviously not the case as evident by the fact that most of the examples you gave are different accounts of the same event. Secondly, no where in any of those verses does Jesus say he is divine. Granted you imply that is what they are saying, but if you read them clearly they are not. The closest he gets to saying that is saying he is the Son of God, but does that make him divine? No, that puts him at the same level as us who the Bible also refers to as children of God.
As a side note, it's interesting that the different accounts of the same events in Jesus life quote him as saying the same thing in different ways. So much for Biblical inerrancy.
That isn't correct, there physics of >3D space is not the same as the physics of 3D space, for example life as we know it could not exist in 4D space. It is very possible that the math that allows for black rings only works in 4 dimensions.
And regarding the difference between "out there" and "the microscopic level", the article isn't saying there are no black rings out there, it says their are no big black rings out there. That much is true, and so much as they are too small to be observed their theoretical existence can't be used to prove or disprove any theories.
Yeah, *fuck* all those stupid rabble. If those people, like cancer researchers and their ilk, don't have the time to be Linux geeks they get what they deserve.
BTW, that sounds like it would be an awesome case mod for all the overclockers out there. Maybe someone at MIT could turn the whole ocean tank at the New England Aquarium into a supercomputer!
All the problems you mention are problems with the War on Drugs, not problems with marijuana. On that you won't find an argument, the War on Drugs causes more problems than it solves (none) and is an unmitigated disaster (as all our War on $SCAPEGOATs tend to be).
What does being liberal have to do with being Christian? It has a lot to do with it actually. It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a conservative to follow the teachings of Christ.
Yep, all those problems that marijuana causes such as... umm... well... look over there! An illegal immigrant!
Ridiculousness aside that argument is false simply because industrial hemp has negligible amounts of THC in it. So even if we assume THC is evil that doesn't explain the banning of industrial hemp.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I know the Lord^W aliens work in mysterious ways...
But actually I was doing the exact opposite of what you are saying. I am not making any assumptions about why they might disguise themselves, that is what the OP did. I merely pointed out that the assumption he was making didn't make much sense.
That's true, evolution covers the development of existing life but it does not explain the beginning of the process.
I would guess that all universes capable of supporting life would have it in some form. After all, the universe is big, real big. The life would not necessarily be intelligent however. The conditions sufficient for life and conditions sufficient for humans are very different I would think. Then again, who really knows? The problem with all this speculation about the likelihood of life and the evolution of intelligence is that we have a sample size of exactly one which we are using to extrapolate to all known universes.
Do our human scientists disguise themselves when studying pond scum? Why would alien's bother hiding themselves from us simple beings?
That said, no one here knows enough about your religious belief to make a judgment about you. But if we did know you better we certainly could make a fair judgment based on it.
You are indeed missing something. I'm guessing you never went to college?
I think he means there is a difference between understanding it's a waste when the heat you are paying for is going out the window, there is a very direct cost. It's less likely for people to think that the heat coming out of the back of their vacuum cleaner is also wasted energy. Electrical appliances get hot when they run, right? Nothing unusual about that.
Nobody has any basis to make a judgment on something like climatology
Too bad. The risk of doing nothing is too costly. It would be nice if we could sit back and wait till "all the evidence is in", but no such point in time will ever come so we have to at some point decided to act on what we know even if only a small preponderance of the evidence supports our action.
You are seriously misrepresenting what I said. I don't believe and never implied that scientists are infallible. I don't believe and never did I imply that everything scientists say should be accepted blindly. I don't believe in and never did I imply that I believe in faith. I believe no one believes anything by faith, there are always reasons even if they are poor reasons.
What I advocate is a meritocratic approach to climate policy. No, scientists are not perfect. Yes, scientists make mistakes. However the people who dedicate their lives to understanding the climate and how it can be manipulated are less likely than anyone else to be wrong about the subject. Everyone can come to their own conclusions, but when deciding policy the opinions of a lawyer in Boston or a Mechanic in Tuscon should not be considered.
In addition, though the individual scientists are flawed the majority opinion of all the worlds climate researches is far less likely to be wrong than any individual's opinion.
Of course they used scientific methods. I said the belief in flat earth was disproved a thousand years before modern scientific methodology was formalized. No one said scientific methods couldn't ever be used before they were formalized. My point stands, your assertion that there was a time when a flat earth was the consensus among scientists is false.
Weren't the barcodes you were supposed to scan special codes found in advertisements? From what I recall it wasn't for the regular product codes. Ancient history, I could be wrong. I never used mine for it's intended purpose either.
My point is that while it's true that the scientific process is imperfect over the short term their is no better way for a lay person to judge the fitness of a theory than by looking at what the professionals are saying. Modern science especially something like climatology is extremely complicated and almost none of us who aren't professionals have any basis to make good judgments based on our superficial knowledge of the subject.
I think the history of the scientific method is important because it's a provably effective tool and also because it was relevant to the OP's flat earth assertion. Obviously because we don't have a control Earth to experiment with researchers can't base their conclusions only on the scientific method, but it is still useful for showing CO2's affect on the atmosphere and our affect on the CO2. All the ice core sampling and tree ring counting that is done shows that historical analysis is also being done where appropriate. You speak of a better method of understanding the climate which the professionals are overlooking, what exactly is it?
Please educate yourself on science before criticizing it. In science you don't ever prove anything absolutely correct. If that's what your looking for there are plenty of religions out there for you to try instead.
The belief in a flat earth predates the scientific method by at least a millennium so there never was a consensus among scientists that the earth was flat. The belief in a flat earth is in no way applicable to the modern scientific process.
If you've got a system that works better than the scientific method which has been developed for many centuries and used to bring our civilization to the level of technical sophistication that we now enjoy then I'd love to hear all about it. If not then please take a seat and stop trying to hinder attempts at progress.
Yes, unless you've got a theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence to the satisfaction of the majority of people who study the problem.
He looks more like he was on the receiving end of a squadron of rabid lawyers.
A few problems, first of all you say their are countless times but that is obviously not the case as evident by the fact that most of the examples you gave are different accounts of the same event. Secondly, no where in any of those verses does Jesus say he is divine. Granted you imply that is what they are saying, but if you read them clearly they are not. The closest he gets to saying that is saying he is the Son of God, but does that make him divine? No, that puts him at the same level as us who the Bible also refers to as children of God.
As a side note, it's interesting that the different accounts of the same events in Jesus life quote him as saying the same thing in different ways. So much for Biblical inerrancy.
That isn't correct, there physics of >3D space is not the same as the physics of 3D space, for example life as we know it could not exist in 4D space. It is very possible that the math that allows for black rings only works in 4 dimensions.
And regarding the difference between "out there" and "the microscopic level", the article isn't saying there are no black rings out there, it says their are no big black rings out there. That much is true, and so much as they are too small to be observed their theoretical existence can't be used to prove or disprove any theories.
I see, that might work (at least as much as anything DRM related works)
Yeah, *fuck* all those stupid rabble. If those people, like cancer researchers and their ilk, don't have the time to be Linux geeks they get what they deserve.
BTW, that sounds like it would be an awesome case mod for all the overclockers out there. Maybe someone at MIT could turn the whole ocean tank at the New England Aquarium into a supercomputer!
Who says the players are on the internet? Is a network connection a requirement to watch movies in HD?
That's very true, energy should be a priority. You can't solve all the worlds problems at once.
All the problems you mention are problems with the War on Drugs, not problems with marijuana. On that you won't find an argument, the War on Drugs causes more problems than it solves (none) and is an unmitigated disaster (as all our War on $SCAPEGOATs tend to be).
That was brilliant! Anyone have any space ketchup to put on the space fries?
Yep, all those problems that marijuana causes such as... umm... well... look over there! An illegal immigrant!
Ridiculousness aside that argument is false simply because industrial hemp has negligible amounts of THC in it. So even if we assume THC is evil that doesn't explain the banning of industrial hemp.