You get emotional about software you didn't even write? Honestly, take a good hard look at your life.
When your business or hobby relies on it, what do you expect|? And honestly if the same people are in charge, how can anyone let it go? There's every chance they'll do something equally daft in the near future.
Never mind didn't multiply by 3 in the end. So my math at 1am is as bad as yours. Point is still that the figures aren't impressive. That doesn't change.
I love how this was modded up. Slashdot has gone to the fucking dogs.
You're telling me to add things up for 24x7x365. Right there you fucked up because there aren't 7x365 days in a year. There are just 365 (and a quarter to be more exact).
So it's 365.26*24....now multiply by 3 and that's the number of kilowatt hours you're talking about. 8766 kilowatt hours.
Most of the households averages here exceed the figure calculated. So tell me again how the GP was right.
The moderators who modded you up and you yourself are lazy and stupid.
As for 2TB drives in datacenters I wasn't suggesting he go pick up a drive at his local Walmart and you know you're misrepresenting that too. What I was saying is that this also isn't a particularly large figure the average user doesn't have any idea how to grasp as the GP suggested.
Sorry -- I'll correct my own error. Copernicus was probably not a priest (even though many historians still claim he was, even Steven Hawking), though he held official positions in the church.
Once again just taking something and asserting it to be true because it suits you.
You do realize that papal infallibility was only officially asserted as a doctrine by the First Vatican Council in 1870?
Do I care? It's a childish piece of stupidity that stands today. There is no other suitable description for "I'm right if I say I am because God is on my side".
It's hardly something that pertains to Galileo's trial centuries before.
Of course it does so stop trying to weasel out of it. It stands today. It stood when the church admitted that it had "erred" and whether or not it formally stood it is clearly the same basis of arrogance that allowed for insanity like the imprisonment of scientists because their views did not agree with that of the church.
Since 1870, some historical documents have since been classified "infallible," but those are quite rare
So what if insanity that should never happen is rare? What kind of defence is that?
-- certainly nothing as mundane as the whole Galileo business.
You find attrocities "mundane". Here was a man of science - flawed as he was and politically inept - that had his life and scientific career ruined, was made to go blind without proper medical attention, was held under house arrest, was kept from seeing his daughter, was forced to recant his ideas not because he'd been proven wrong but because the church said so. Mundane to you maybe. To me it's an attrocity.
And many more "infallible" writings have come out of ecumenical councils than from popes.
I have news for you. No one and no group is infallible just because they claim to be. It is fantasy. It is insanity. It is the basis on which you do great acts of harm.
If you actually want an answer to your question, rather than just going on an ignorant self-righteous rant, you can easily find a lot of this information:
I quite frankly don't want to study your church or it's works of fantasy in more detail.
Okay, first off -- you're conflating a whole bunch of stuff between Copernicus and Galileo. Copernicus lived about a century before Galileo, was a priest, wrote his book, dedicated it to the pope, and nothing happened to it for about 75 years after his death. That hardly qualifies as trying to "bury" the science, and Copernicus was certainly never persecuted.
You've just finished telling me to check my facts and then launched into a tirade of misinformation.
First of all Galileo was born in 1564. Copernicus died in 1543. Now that's 21 years by my count, not 100. Even if you allow another 20 or 30 for Galileo to mature to adulthood your exaggeration of a century is preposterous.
Secondly, Copernicus did not publish his work, even when he was old and frail BECAUSE he feared retribution from the church (like taking away his lands even after his death). Yes he was never persecuted because he was more careful than Galilieo to hush up what he had discovered. That's a further indictment of the church.
Even in the early 1600s, Copernicus's book wasn't banned -- just a few short sections that asserted that heliocentrism was actually true as opposed to a mathematical model were censored.
Oh well that's alright then isn't it? That his most important discovery was censored. Just as long as the rest of the book was permitted. Idiot.
Galileo was free to read Copernicus's book, and I think we actually have his copy that just has a couple sentences edited out.
The important bit, you arrogant fool!!!!
They weren't trying to suppress the theory at that time
What? Are you mad? If they weren't trying to suppress the theory why do you think it was censored? Are you smoking dope??
. Oh, and by the way, Copernicus's theory still required lots of epicycles, and Copernicus really didn't hav
We're not talking 3,000 watts capacity, we're talking 3,000 watts 24x7 continuous draw, of redundant, backed-up power - the most expensive kind. Whole houses usually don't draw this much. And this is a *single* 42U rack.
This is feasible? That's a *lot* of power...
What are you on about? 3kW is nothing and many 2 story houses running an airconditioner run 5 times that! Sure it's not backed up and unless then owner is rich or insane it's not running 24x7 so you may have some point on expense, but to put things in perspective 1000W vacuum cleaners are relatively weak. Again I'm not suggesting these are run 24x7. But we're not talking the power out put of the sun at 30 paces when we're talking 3kW.
Similarly "many terabytes" is unimpressive when I can get 2TB drives for well under $200 and 200 cores ain't so impressive when a standard mid range desktop comes with 4 these days.
How about some basic biology. Males are wired for sex and females are wired to be selective about sex. Its not opinion, it is biology.
Um it's an oversimplified version of biology born of fear. Male-as-sexual-aggressor, female-as-selective is a stereotype that isn't born out in nature. There are plenty of selective males. There are plenty of sexually promiscuous females. Both sexes are capable of a wide gamut of behaviour when it comes to sex and aggression.
I'd mod you down but you're already at -1. Just because you worry you can't control your urges, doesn't mean others can't. And i tend to agree that you're probably going to leave any girl you teach a distrust of a particular gender or that sex is bad emmotionally broken.
The people who pass the DMCA and the Sonny Bono copyright act lose the right to complain about g 'heavy-handed 19th century regulations'. Corruption in the US seems to have reached new lows.
What concerns me even more is that world-wide it seems like politicians are more willing than ever to act against the best interests of the people they are meant to be representing, or pass universally unpopular legislation that a well informed public would never vote for directly. Now THAT is corruption. And there seems to be nothing and no one anywhere with the will or ability to stop the landslide.
My wife and I are hobby photographers. One of the things that brought us together actually. We've got a young one and another on the way so we love prints. Here's the thing though. We long ago ran out of wall space, and no one likes being made to sit and look at an album. Digital picture frames have their place. I bought my wife one for her birthday this year. Hundreds of pics in a small space.
Then punish the man. Do not suppress what he had to say.
The fact that his evidence was extremely difficult to duplicate, and contained major flaws, were also strikes against him. For example, he was completely wrong about comets.
There is nothing in the scientific method that says a scientist should be ignored unless his or her work contains absolutely no flaws. There's certainly nothing that says the work should be suppressed or that he should be tortured, denied medical treatment and imprisoned.
Furthermore a lot of his work was trivial to duplicate. For example showing the crescent shape of venus, or the moons of Jupiter required only that a telescope be aimed at them.
No. They were not justified to any extent. If you adhere to the scientific method you present counter claims. You might deny publication in a referred journal. Howver you do not suppress what a scientist has to say. You don't torture them or threaten them with torture if they don't recant. You don't deny them medical treatment. You don't imprison them. You don't ruin them.
The geocentric theory based on epicycles had predictive power too: it could be used to predict eclipses to a reasonable accuracy.
No one suggests that it should have been supressed until the appropriate evidence emerged.
The heliocentric model explained the retrograde motion of planets, but also made predictions about parallax of heavenly bodies, which was not observed (since the measurements available at the time were not sensitive enough).
Again what's your point? How does this justify banning books describing the theory that eventually proved to be correct?
Bot theories had merit, and given the information available at the time, neither was perfect. That doesn't excuse the church from supressing the ideas, but it's naive to argue along the lines of "Galileo was right and the church was wrong". Galileo just didn't play the politics right.
That's your straw man, not my argument. My argument is that Galileo's work should not have been suppressed, nor should he have been subjected to the vile treatment he received. You've conceded at least the first point while you continue to try to justify the second.
I was talking about the scientific method if you bother to read what I actually wrote instead of launching into a tirade about how your pet relgious body did no wrong.
It amazes me that people CONTINUE to this day to try to justify medieval practices like torture, the banning of scientific books etc.
When people say "impossible" they generally mean "not possible given what I currently understand about XYZ"
People don't understand the scientific method, and many don't want to. I had a discussion on slashdot yesterday about Galileo (brought on by the story about Copernicus) and someone had the simple mindedness to suggest that since Galileo didn't know that the orbits of bodies were elliptical rather than circular, that the Roman Catholic church was justified in their treatment of him and suppression of his ideas. A clearer demonstration of misunderstanding of the scientific method I could not have thought up.
Well, then I guess I'll piss you off even further by pointing out that Galileo's views were discredited by actual DATA at the time.
Convenient of you to leave out all of the data regarding the earth centred view that had been discredited. Or thae fact that cycles and epi-cycles cannot fully and accurately explain the planetary motions obverved. At worst Galileo proposed a better model that had some bugs to be worked out. It's hard to work out those bugs when you're forced to recant and locked up for the rest of your life without medical treatment.
To be specific: orbits are elliptical, not circular as Galileo claimed. They brought a Jesuit against him, who had the data the astronomers gathered. The values predicted by Galileo's theory didn't hold up to the observations.
You are an idiot. NO ONE understood that the orbits were elliptical until Kepler. Cycles and epicycles - the standard explanation of the day endorsed by the church ALSO did not agree with the data.
Not to mention all the other data that had to be ignored - such as simple observation of ships masts appearing before the ship on the seas.
But what really pissed the Catholic hierarchy off was that Galileo wrote his explanation as a conversation between a learned master (himself) and a pupil (the Pope), and the giving the pupil quotes from the current Pope, which were then rebutted to make the "pupil" look foolish. These were written not in the traditional language of science (Latin, I believe), but in Italian, so the common person could read the dialog. Think of it as "populist" science.
The Pope apparently didn't mind that much - science wasn't a big deal to him - but with the Protestant Reformation pummeling away at papal authority, Galileo managed to smartass his was into trouble with the rest of the Vatican hierarchy, who demanded he be brought to task.
Yes we all know that Galileo was arrogant and foolish in his presentation. That doesn't make it okay to quash scientific enquiry, outlaw any book that suggests that the earth is not the center of the universe, or imprison and torture an old man and deny him medical treatment and force him to recant his ideas.
Apologists like you make me ill. No wonder you are posting as A/C.
Well, then I guess I'll piss you off even further by pointing out that Galileo's views were discredited by actual DATA at the time.
Well I guess that makes imprisoning him and withholding medical treatment okay then? The correct way to counter bad data is with an opposing work that shows the flaws in the first.
The most accurate data they had at his time did not support his interpretation. So no, scientific truth was not buried because of politics, scientific falsehoods (as judged by the scientific community of the day) were buried because of politics.
That's acutally complete horseshit, but even if it were true it at the very least makes a joke out of papal infallibility, or the fiction that the church is benevolent and good.
Condemning the house arrest of political dissidents in an era when those unpopular with the rulers were often killed out of hand is as silly as complaining that Attila the Hun failed to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Reductio ad absurdum is one of the weakest ways of countering any argument. It says that you can't counter the actual point but will resort to countering a parody of it in the hope that your opponent (not you) looks foolish.
As to the infallibility question, the doctrine you refer to only applies when the Pope makes a ruling that he declares infallible, not in everyday decisions. Think of this as the difference between Lehman Brothers putting out a stock prediction and claiming to have received information from the future that this will be the price.
So it only applies when the Pope (who is after all fallible) says it applies? Yeah that fucking makes sense. So if he's prone to error what the fuck prevents him from evoking his infallibility in a situation where he is wrong. That's right the magical holy spirit that flies around and tells him that he should use it. Give me a fucking break. The stupidity and logical fallacy so permeates the religion that recognising the stupidity requires that you are not religious.
That was hundreds of years ago, it was a very different time.
The church righting it's error may be tardy, but at least they did FINALLY do it. I'm guessing our contemporary politicians' various political parties will never stop denying any and all errors.
The church is suppose to be infallible. Or at least the pope is. At least they did right their mistake 400-500 years later has to the most piss weak excuse I've ever heard. You're admitting the doctrine of papal infallibility is a crock of shit. It wouldn't take much to prove the rest of the most basic and common church doctrines are absurd. It's time we got past imaginary friends and supernatural bullshit dictating our morality.
Data mining and number crunching, Variable stars
on
Scientific R&D At Home?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
After about a year Hubble data is available online. So is data from a bunch of world class instruments. Learning to reduce and data mine that data will allow you to potentially contribute. You have to be good enough to pick up on something that the experts have missed or haven't had time to analyse. Even the basic reduction isn't an easy thing to learn, especially on your own and unsupported by an institution.
If you want to collect original data you can always get into variable star observing. Chances are you will not make a discovery (though again you can go data mining) but if you collect data points they may be used to make a discovery. I don't know how long this will be relevant until nightly whole sky surveys take over but for now it's a good way to get involved. Start here http://www.aavso.org/
I agree with others who've stated that if your motivation is to get famous you're probably barking up the wrong tree. You may get lucky but your chances of winning lotto are better. That doesn't mean you can't contribute.
They're doing this as a PR stunt to distract people from the mistakes they're making today.
Copernicus is known in almost every science class today. Who cares what The Church does with whatever-is-left-of-his-body now? 500 years later?
Q: What's the definition of infallible?
A: Get it completely wrong, persecute people who used actual science to get it right - I mean REALLY persecute them - put your political agenda and your authority ahead of truth - threaten them with torcher, put them under house arrest, deny them medical aid, make them fear for their lives, threaten them with eternal damnation - then 400-500 years later admit that your predecessors made a mistake and make use of the very science you tried to bury to shout from the rooftops how good and holy you are to be able to admit the error at all - really put on a show - set up an observatory, rebury people. Turn the whole thing into a 3 ring circus.
Yeah I wonder why I'm not sold. I wonder why your numbers are dwindling.
You know what REALLY pisses me off? When people who wish to excuse the bad behaviour of the church point out that Galileo was politcally unwise to ridicule the pope as if it makes the treatment he received okay just because he spoke out of turn and made an ass of himself. As if it's okay to bury scientific truth and torcher/imprision someone for speaking out of turn.
Do you actually think that all IT and PC security companies have a giant cartel going, where they all secretly agree to suck?
They are called security conferences and 'best practice; documents
Seriously? If there were some magic bullet, the temptation for one cartel member to make a giant pile of cash on it would be overwhelming.
They appear to have found the magic bullet. it is called "the principle of least privellege". Basically they take away your ability to do anything but log on. Then when you shout loudly enough that you can no longer do your job, they make you fill out so much paperwork that you'll never want to ask for access again. Finally when you have just enough access to do enough of your job that you don't get fired (ineffectively and poorly) they continue to make you justify the access you gained in endless meetings, emails, reports etc.
Spoken like a true outsider to any religious view.
Why thank you! That was meant to be a compliment, right?
I grew up in a religious household. Thankfully I've been cured of that disease. I use my brain and weigh things up when formulating my beliefs and my moral code.
The tiresome argument of equating faith to lack of rationalization demonstrates ignorance.
No it doesn't. I cannot use my mind and have any "faith" that the son of god born of a virgin manifests bread and wine, or that the creator of the universe speaks to chosen people using magic burning bushes. It's mindless and irrational.
Slashdot Mirror
You get emotional about software you didn't even write? Honestly, take a good hard look at your life.
When your business or hobby relies on it, what do you expect|? And honestly if the same people are in charge, how can anyone let it go? There's every chance they'll do something equally daft in the near future.
Never mind didn't multiply by 3 in the end. So my math at 1am is as bad as yours. Point is still that the figures aren't impressive. That doesn't change.
I love how this was modded up. Slashdot has gone to the fucking dogs.
You're telling me to add things up for 24x7x365. Right there you fucked up because there aren't 7x365 days in a year. There are just 365 (and a quarter to be more exact).
So it's 365.26*24....now multiply by 3 and that's the number of kilowatt hours you're talking about. 8766 kilowatt hours.
Now have a look at the average household usage here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_use_kwh_per_customer_2000-05.PNG
Most of the households averages here exceed the figure calculated. So tell me again how the GP was right.
The moderators who modded you up and you yourself are lazy and stupid.
As for 2TB drives in datacenters I wasn't suggesting he go pick up a drive at his local Walmart and you know you're misrepresenting that too. What I was saying is that this also isn't a particularly large figure the average user doesn't have any idea how to grasp as the GP suggested.
Sorry -- I'll correct my own error. Copernicus was probably not a priest (even though many historians still claim he was, even Steven Hawking), though he held official positions in the church.
Once again just taking something and asserting it to be true because it suits you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
"It is uncertain whether he was ordained a priest; he may only have taken minor orders, which sufficed for assuming a chapter canonry."
You do realize that papal infallibility was only officially asserted as a doctrine by the First Vatican Council in 1870?
Do I care? It's a childish piece of stupidity that stands today. There is no other suitable description for "I'm right if I say I am because God is on my side".
It's hardly something that pertains to Galileo's trial centuries before.
Of course it does so stop trying to weasel out of it. It stands today. It stood when the church admitted that it had "erred" and whether or not it formally stood it is clearly the same basis of arrogance that allowed for insanity like the imprisonment of scientists because their views did not agree with that of the church.
Since 1870, some historical documents have since been classified "infallible," but those are quite rare
So what if insanity that should never happen is rare? What kind of defence is that?
-- certainly nothing as mundane as the whole Galileo business.
You find attrocities "mundane". Here was a man of science - flawed as he was and politically inept - that had his life and scientific career ruined, was made to go blind without proper medical attention, was held under house arrest, was kept from seeing his daughter, was forced to recant his ideas not because he'd been proven wrong but because the church said so. Mundane to you maybe. To me it's an attrocity.
And many more "infallible" writings have come out of ecumenical councils than from popes.
I have news for you. No one and no group is infallible just because they claim to be. It is fantasy. It is insanity. It is the basis on which you do great acts of harm.
If you actually want an answer to your question, rather than just going on an ignorant self-righteous rant, you can easily find a lot of this information:
I quite frankly don't want to study your church or it's works of fantasy in more detail.
Okay, first off -- you're conflating a whole bunch of stuff between Copernicus and Galileo. Copernicus lived about a century before Galileo, was a priest, wrote his book, dedicated it to the pope, and nothing happened to it for about 75 years after his death. That hardly qualifies as trying to "bury" the science, and Copernicus was certainly never persecuted.
You've just finished telling me to check my facts and then launched into a tirade of misinformation.
First of all Galileo was born in 1564. Copernicus died in 1543. Now that's 21 years by my count, not 100. Even if you allow another 20 or 30 for Galileo to mature to adulthood your exaggeration of a century is preposterous.
Secondly, Copernicus did not publish his work, even when he was old and frail BECAUSE he feared retribution from the church (like taking away his lands even after his death). Yes he was never persecuted because he was more careful than Galilieo to hush up what he had discovered. That's a further indictment of the church.
Even in the early 1600s, Copernicus's book wasn't banned -- just a few short sections that asserted that heliocentrism was actually true as opposed to a mathematical model were censored.
Oh well that's alright then isn't it? That his most important discovery was censored. Just as long as the rest of the book was permitted. Idiot.
Galileo was free to read Copernicus's book, and I think we actually have his copy that just has a couple sentences edited out.
The important bit, you arrogant fool!!!!
They weren't trying to suppress the theory at that time
What? Are you mad? If they weren't trying to suppress the theory why do you think it was censored? Are you smoking dope??
. Oh, and by the way, Copernicus's theory still required lots of epicycles, and Copernicus really didn't hav
We're not talking 3,000 watts capacity, we're talking 3,000 watts 24x7 continuous draw, of redundant, backed-up power - the most expensive kind. Whole houses usually don't draw this much. And this is a *single* 42U rack.
This is feasible? That's a *lot* of power...
What are you on about? 3kW is nothing and many 2 story houses running an airconditioner run 5 times that! Sure it's not backed up and unless then owner is rich or insane it's not running 24x7 so you may have some point on expense, but to put things in perspective 1000W vacuum cleaners are relatively weak. Again I'm not suggesting these are run 24x7. But we're not talking the power out put of the sun at 30 paces when we're talking 3kW.
Similarly "many terabytes" is unimpressive when I can get 2TB drives for well under $200 and 200 cores ain't so impressive when a standard mid range desktop comes with 4 these days.
The web is only 3.0 !!?
This is confusing!
I've only been sold Web 2.0 by the nice guys from that consultancy we hired. Any chance of copying version 3 of the Internet onto this floppy for me??
How about some basic biology. Males are wired for sex and females are wired to be selective about sex. Its not opinion, it is biology.
Um it's an oversimplified version of biology born of fear. Male-as-sexual-aggressor, female-as-selective is a stereotype that isn't born out in nature. There are plenty of selective males. There are plenty of sexually promiscuous females. Both sexes are capable of a wide gamut of behaviour when it comes to sex and aggression.
I'd mod you down but you're already at -1. Just because you worry you can't control your urges, doesn't mean others can't. And i tend to agree that you're probably going to leave any girl you teach a distrust of a particular gender or that sex is bad emmotionally broken.
The people who pass the DMCA and the Sonny Bono copyright act lose the right to complain about g 'heavy-handed 19th century regulations'. Corruption in the US seems to have reached new lows.
What concerns me even more is that world-wide it seems like politicians are more willing than ever to act against the best interests of the people they are meant to be representing, or pass universally unpopular legislation that a well informed public would never vote for directly. Now THAT is corruption. And there seems to be nothing and no one anywhere with the will or ability to stop the landslide.
How much did people urinating cost?
In general or just on this story?
My wife and I are hobby photographers. One of the things that brought us together actually. We've got a young one and another on the way so we love prints. Here's the thing though. We long ago ran out of wall space, and no one likes being made to sit and look at an album. Digital picture frames have their place. I bought my wife one for her birthday this year. Hundreds of pics in a small space.
Also, he was a pretty big dick to everyone.
Then punish the man. Do not suppress what he had to say.
The fact that his evidence was extremely difficult to duplicate, and contained major flaws, were also strikes against him. For example, he was completely wrong about comets.
There is nothing in the scientific method that says a scientist should be ignored unless his or her work contains absolutely no flaws. There's certainly nothing that says the work should be suppressed or that he should be tortured, denied medical treatment and imprisoned.
Furthermore a lot of his work was trivial to duplicate. For example showing the crescent shape of venus, or the moons of Jupiter required only that a telescope be aimed at them.
They were justified to some extent.
No. They were not justified to any extent. If you adhere to the scientific method you present counter claims. You might deny publication in a referred journal. Howver you do not suppress what a scientist has to say. You don't torture them or threaten them with torture if they don't recant. You don't deny them medical treatment. You don't imprison them. You don't ruin them.
The geocentric theory based on epicycles had predictive power too: it could be used to predict eclipses to a reasonable accuracy.
No one suggests that it should have been supressed until the appropriate evidence emerged.
The heliocentric model explained the retrograde motion of planets, but also made predictions about parallax of heavenly bodies, which was not observed (since the measurements available at the time were not sensitive enough).
Again what's your point? How does this justify banning books describing the theory that eventually proved to be correct?
Bot theories had merit, and given the information available at the time, neither was perfect. That doesn't excuse the church from supressing the ideas, but it's naive to argue along the lines of "Galileo was right and the church was wrong". Galileo just didn't play the politics right.
That's your straw man, not my argument. My argument is that Galileo's work should not have been suppressed, nor should he have been subjected to the vile treatment he received. You've conceded at least the first point while you continue to try to justify the second.
I was talking about the scientific method if you bother to read what I actually wrote instead of launching into a tirade about how your pet relgious body did no wrong.
It amazes me that people CONTINUE to this day to try to justify medieval practices like torture, the banning of scientific books etc.
When people say "impossible" they generally mean "not possible given what I currently understand about XYZ"
People don't understand the scientific method, and many don't want to. I had a discussion on slashdot yesterday about Galileo (brought on by the story about Copernicus) and someone had the simple mindedness to suggest that since Galileo didn't know that the orbits of bodies were elliptical rather than circular, that the Roman Catholic church was justified in their treatment of him and suppression of his ideas. A clearer demonstration of misunderstanding of the scientific method I could not have thought up.
Well, then I guess I'll piss you off even further by pointing out that Galileo's views were discredited by actual DATA at the time.
Convenient of you to leave out all of the data regarding the earth centred view that had been discredited. Or thae fact that cycles and epi-cycles cannot fully and accurately explain the planetary motions obverved. At worst Galileo proposed a better model that had some bugs to be worked out. It's hard to work out those bugs when you're forced to recant and locked up for the rest of your life without medical treatment.
To be specific: orbits are elliptical, not circular as Galileo claimed. They brought a Jesuit against him, who had the data the astronomers gathered. The values predicted by Galileo's theory didn't hold up to the observations.
You are an idiot. NO ONE understood that the orbits were elliptical until Kepler. Cycles and epicycles - the standard explanation of the day endorsed by the church ALSO did not agree with the data.
Not to mention all the other data that had to be ignored - such as simple observation of ships masts appearing before the ship on the seas.
But what really pissed the Catholic hierarchy off was that Galileo wrote his explanation as a conversation between a learned master (himself) and a pupil (the Pope), and the giving the pupil quotes from the current Pope, which were then rebutted to make the "pupil" look foolish. These were written not in the traditional language of science (Latin, I believe), but in Italian, so the common person could read the dialog. Think of it as "populist" science.
The Pope apparently didn't mind that much - science wasn't a big deal to him - but with the Protestant Reformation pummeling away at papal authority, Galileo managed to smartass his was into trouble with the rest of the Vatican hierarchy, who demanded he be brought to task.
Yes we all know that Galileo was arrogant and foolish in his presentation. That doesn't make it okay to quash scientific enquiry, outlaw any book that suggests that the earth is not the center of the universe, or imprison and torture an old man and deny him medical treatment and force him to recant his ideas.
Apologists like you make me ill. No wonder you are posting as A/C.
Well, then I guess I'll piss you off even further by pointing out that Galileo's views were discredited by actual DATA at the time.
Well I guess that makes imprisoning him and withholding medical treatment okay then? The correct way to counter bad data is with an opposing work that shows the flaws in the first.
The most accurate data they had at his time did not support his interpretation. So no, scientific truth was not buried because of politics, scientific falsehoods (as judged by the scientific community of the day) were buried because of politics.
That's acutally complete horseshit, but even if it were true it at the very least makes a joke out of papal infallibility, or the fiction that the church is benevolent and good.
Condemning the house arrest of political dissidents in an era when those unpopular with the rulers were often killed out of hand is as silly as complaining that Attila the Hun failed to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Reductio ad absurdum is one of the weakest ways of countering any argument. It says that you can't counter the actual point but will resort to countering a parody of it in the hope that your opponent (not you) looks foolish.
As to the infallibility question, the doctrine you refer to only applies when the Pope makes a ruling that he declares infallible, not in everyday decisions. Think of this as the difference between Lehman Brothers putting out a stock prediction and claiming to have received information from the future that this will be the price.
So it only applies when the Pope (who is after all fallible) says it applies? Yeah that fucking makes sense. So if he's prone to error what the fuck prevents him from evoking his infallibility in a situation where he is wrong. That's right the magical holy spirit that flies around and tells him that he should use it. Give me a fucking break. The stupidity and logical fallacy so permeates the religion that recognising the stupidity requires that you are not religious.
That was hundreds of years ago, it was a very different time.
The church righting it's error may be tardy, but at least they did FINALLY do it. I'm guessing our contemporary politicians' various political parties will never stop denying any and all errors.
The church is suppose to be infallible. Or at least the pope is. At least they did right their mistake 400-500 years later has to the most piss weak excuse I've ever heard. You're admitting the doctrine of papal infallibility is a crock of shit. It wouldn't take much to prove the rest of the most basic and common church doctrines are absurd. It's time we got past imaginary friends and supernatural bullshit dictating our morality.
After about a year Hubble data is available online. So is data from a bunch of world class instruments. Learning to reduce and data mine that data will allow you to potentially contribute. You have to be good enough to pick up on something that the experts have missed or haven't had time to analyse. Even the basic reduction isn't an easy thing to learn, especially on your own and unsupported by an institution.
If you want to collect original data you can always get into variable star observing. Chances are you will not make a discovery (though again you can go data mining) but if you collect data points they may be used to make a discovery. I don't know how long this will be relevant until nightly whole sky surveys take over but for now it's a good way to get involved. Start here http://www.aavso.org/
I agree with others who've stated that if your motivation is to get famous you're probably barking up the wrong tree. You may get lucky but your chances of winning lotto are better. That doesn't mean you can't contribute.
They're doing this as a PR stunt to distract people from the mistakes they're making today.
Copernicus is known in almost every science class today. Who cares what The Church does with whatever-is-left-of-his-body now? 500 years later?
Q: What's the definition of infallible?
A: Get it completely wrong, persecute people who used actual science to get it right - I mean REALLY persecute them - put your political agenda and your authority ahead of truth - threaten them with torcher, put them under house arrest, deny them medical aid, make them fear for their lives, threaten them with eternal damnation - then 400-500 years later admit that your predecessors made a mistake and make use of the very science you tried to bury to shout from the rooftops how good and holy you are to be able to admit the error at all - really put on a show - set up an observatory, rebury people. Turn the whole thing into a 3 ring circus.
Yeah I wonder why I'm not sold. I wonder why your numbers are dwindling.
You know what REALLY pisses me off? When people who wish to excuse the bad behaviour of the church point out that Galileo was politcally unwise to ridicule the pope as if it makes the treatment he received okay just because he spoke out of turn and made an ass of himself. As if it's okay to bury scientific truth and torcher/imprision someone for speaking out of turn.
Welcome to 2010, if it's not encoded at 1080p nobody cares.
Speak for yourself. I care. A lot. Especially for older stuff that wasn't recorded at high res.
Texas Board of Education.
You transcribed that wrong. It's Texas: Bored of Education.
Or delicious like a dog turd
Do you actually think that all IT and PC security companies have a giant cartel going, where they all secretly agree to suck?
They are called security conferences and 'best practice; documents
Seriously? If there were some magic bullet, the temptation for one cartel member to make a giant pile of cash on it would be overwhelming.
They appear to have found the magic bullet. it is called "the principle of least privellege". Basically they take away your ability to do anything but log on. Then when you shout loudly enough that you can no longer do your job, they make you fill out so much paperwork that you'll never want to ask for access again. Finally when you have just enough access to do enough of your job that you don't get fired (ineffectively and poorly) they continue to make you justify the access you gained in endless meetings, emails, reports etc.
Spoken like a true outsider to any religious view.
Why thank you! That was meant to be a compliment, right?
I grew up in a religious household. Thankfully I've been cured of that disease. I use my brain and weigh things up when formulating my beliefs and my moral code.
The tiresome argument of equating faith to lack of rationalization demonstrates ignorance.
No it doesn't. I cannot use my mind and have any "faith" that the son of god born of a virgin manifests bread and wine, or that the creator of the universe speaks to chosen people using magic burning bushes. It's mindless and irrational.