Star Trek fans may be happy to hear that the Air Force has paid to study psychic teleportation [...]
Please, this is an insult to Star Trek fans everywhere. The Star Trek vision, if anything, was about using science and technology to enhance people's lives. It was and is in no way about this pseudo-scientific nonsense. (BTW, "pseudo" in this context means "false, but masquerading as", NOT, "kinda" or "quasi".)
If anything, Star Trek fans would (and should) be appalled by this.
Ummm, I'm an atheist, but I live in the fundamentalist bible-belt of the world, so I think I can give you two pretty good reasons why biblical literalists cannot accept evolution:
1) The bible is the literal, breathed, inerrant Word of God. For this to be the case (so the argument goes), the stories of creation in Genesis cannot be mere alegory, they must be literally true. Otherwise, who's to say what else is not literally true. Yes, I realize that this is a weak argument.
The second, and IMHO, MUCH stronger argument is the following:
2) Fundamentalists believe in a literal heaven where you go to live after you die. That's not metaphorical. They also believe that non-believers literally go to a hell after they die, which is also not metaphorical. In fundamentalist Protestantism, the only thing that will get you into heaven is belief in Christ. That's it. End of story. But the fundamentalists have to explain WHY this is (in other words, if I live my life in a good way, why do I still go to hell if I'm not christian?). Here's why (again, so the argument goes):
- God is perfect. So perfect, in fact, that He must not allow imperfection in his sight. To avoid this, all those who are not perfect go to a place without God (Hell) and so will not be in His site.
- The fall introduced evil into the world. In so doing, God's creation (Mankind) was made evil. That's ALL of his creation, not just the original "evil doers" (that would be Adam and Eve). As the new testament says "All fall short of the glory of God." And "Man's best deeds are but dirty rags." So basically, since you are inherently imperfect (hence away from God, or "sinful" technically) there is nothing you could possibly do to earn your way to heaven. Woo hoo! We're all going to hell!
- But, what if God made a sacrifice to atone for the fall on behalf of all mankind? The argument is that Jesus did this. In so doing, whomever would accept that Christ did this for him would basically have their own sins atoned for by Christ Himself (who was also God), so that when that person stood before God in Heaven, God would see the atonement of Christ (himself) instead of that person's sins. Hence, heaven is possible, but only for believers.
There's protestant theology in a nutshell. Now, here's where creationism comes in (again, so the argument goes):
If there was no literal first man and woman, then there was no talking snake to tempt them into eating an apple. If that didn't happen, there was no literal fall (the fall had to be by CHOICE, protestants don't accept that God just made humans imperfect from the start). If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.
Usually this combined with the first argument about biblical literalism ensures that it will indeed be a cold day in Hell before protestants can reconcile their beliefs with mainstream science.
Just thought you'd like to know. Christians, feel free to correct me if any of the details are wrong.
Unit testing is essential, but it's not a panacea. In particular, beware of two pitfalls:
1) "The unit tests passed, so it works." This assumption is flawed on several levels. First, and most fundamentally, even if all unit tests pass, there is still the issue of whether your software works as a whole. Software often has "emergent logic" and UI scenarios that are difficult or impossible to test (after all, that's not what unit testing is for, but some people seem to think it is).
Second, just because a test passes, doesn't always mean the API works. This is especially important if you didn't write the tests yourself. Just because a unit test CLAIMS it tests X, doesn't mean it does. Is the test complete? Any false positives? Is the test just a skeleton that was intended to be implemented later but never was? I've had all these bite me in the past.
2) "That particular test has NEVER passed, so there's something wrong with the test. We just ignore it now." Bzzzt! Wrong! There's a REASON it never passed. It's either not implemented properly, just a stub that fails waiting for someone to write an implementation, or maybe you just think the feature it tests actually works. Look closer. The test might be trying to tell you something.
If you are careful with unit tests, they can be very rewarding and useful (especially for regression testing, where they are invaluable), but put too much confidence in them or depend on them to do the kind of overall testing they were never designed to do, and you will fail long before your first test does.
I've always had aproblem with this viewpoint. You say: look at how complex life is! It couldn't have arisen by natural processes.
So you posit a God, Intelligent Designer, whatever, to be the entity that solves this little problem. It's perfectly simple you see, God did it (TM).
So now let me turn the question back on you: You mean there is a being intelligent and powerful enough to create all the life as we know it (and then some)? You can't escape the next question:
HOW THE HELL DID THIS BEING COME INTO EXISTENCE???
Ahhh, but you say: "God doesn't need a creator, he/she/it is a self-existent entity." Well that's all fine and dandy, but now you have two little problems:
1) This is an ad-hoc response. You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this claim. That's it, argument over.
2) The very reason you have given for the need for God's existence is the complexity of life, but then you go and posit an even MORE complex entity to create life, yet refuse to apply your same argument to it. This is iconsistent.
Face it: you believe in God because you WANT TO, not because the evidence compels you. That's fine, but at least admit it.
Just because you give IT administrators the power to lock down the computer doesn't mean that Aunt Sallie isn't going to be able to use her iPod.
Imagine you administer a huge corporate network and you've standardized on Longhorn. Now imaging that the single biggest threats your network has seen in the past have originated from customer service reps bringing files from home on their iPods and Thumbdrives. If I were an administrator, I would have no problem locking down those machines to eliminate that threat.
Actually, this is not the argument given in the Request for Partial Summary Judgement (and yes, I read the whole thing, I was bored last night).
The argument given by IBM is that SCO cannot on the one hand sue IBM for breach of contract and damage done by said breach and on the other hand knowingly continue to offer (and through advertising, tout the benefits of) the "offending" code in question.
The key word here is knowingly. IBM claims (and I think claims correctly), that since the code (Kernel 2.4) is still available on their website after they knew about it, SCO waives their right to sue for breach of contract on the code in question.
Hmm, I'm reading it as PRB: You Cannot Use XML Serialization on a Class with Declaritive Security but maybe they have a problem with their database and you see things differently
That's funny, I'm reading it as "PRB: Sense of humor not found when posting as Anonymous Coward on Slashdot" but maybe they have a problem with their database and you see things differently.
I know you didn't RTFA (because that would be asking to much), but if you had, you would have seen that, unlike IMAX, which has to shoot the film distorted in order to project it "flat" onto a curved surface, this technology uses camera feedback and GPU pixel shaders to dynamically correct/distort the image in real time.
But you didn't know that, because you didn't RTFA...
If I have a 1955 Chevy that still gets me to work everyday without breaking down on the side of the road, what point would there be in buying a new car?
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you spouting? How can a prime number be a Mersenne composite?
Hello? Hello!!!??
He said this:
then the remaining 1.5 million or so primes up to 24,036,583 correspond to EXPONENTS OF, you guessed it, Mersenne composites.
Star Trek fans may be happy to hear that the Air Force has paid to study psychic teleportation [...]
Please, this is an insult to Star Trek fans everywhere. The Star Trek vision, if anything, was about using science and technology to enhance people's lives. It was and is in no way about this pseudo-scientific nonsense. (BTW, "pseudo" in this context means "false, but masquerading as", NOT, "kinda" or "quasi".)
If anything, Star Trek fans would (and should) be appalled by this.
End of rant.
Only a small percentage of people take it to be literal.
You must not live anywhere near the southern United States.
Ahh. Thanks, I didn't see that angle, but I think you're right.
Ummm, I'm an atheist, but I live in the fundamentalist bible-belt of the world, so I think I can give you two pretty good reasons why biblical literalists cannot accept evolution:
1) The bible is the literal, breathed, inerrant Word of God. For this to be the case (so the argument goes), the stories of creation in Genesis cannot be mere alegory, they must be literally true. Otherwise, who's to say what else is not literally true. Yes, I realize that this is a weak argument.
The second, and IMHO, MUCH stronger argument is the following:
2) Fundamentalists believe in a literal heaven where you go to live after you die. That's not metaphorical. They also believe that non-believers literally go to a hell after they die, which is also not metaphorical. In fundamentalist Protestantism, the only thing that will get you into heaven is belief in Christ. That's it. End of story. But the fundamentalists have to explain WHY this is (in other words, if I live my life in a good way, why do I still go to hell if I'm not christian?). Here's why (again, so the argument goes):
- God is perfect. So perfect, in fact, that He must not allow imperfection in his sight. To avoid this, all those who are not perfect go to a place without God (Hell) and so will not be in His site.
- The fall introduced evil into the world. In so doing, God's creation (Mankind) was made evil. That's ALL of his creation, not just the original "evil doers" (that would be Adam and Eve). As the new testament says "All fall short of the glory of God." And "Man's best deeds are but dirty rags." So basically, since you are inherently imperfect (hence away from God, or "sinful" technically) there is nothing you could possibly do to earn your way to heaven. Woo hoo! We're all going to hell!
- But, what if God made a sacrifice to atone for the fall on behalf of all mankind? The argument is that Jesus did this. In so doing, whomever would accept that Christ did this for him would basically have their own sins atoned for by Christ Himself (who was also God), so that when that person stood before God in Heaven, God would see the atonement of Christ (himself) instead of that person's sins. Hence, heaven is possible, but only for believers.
There's protestant theology in a nutshell. Now, here's where creationism comes in (again, so the argument goes):
If there was no literal first man and woman, then there was no talking snake to tempt them into eating an apple. If that didn't happen, there was no literal fall (the fall had to be by CHOICE, protestants don't accept that God just made humans imperfect from the start). If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.
Usually this combined with the first argument about biblical literalism ensures that it will indeed be a cold day in Hell before protestants can reconcile their beliefs with mainstream science.
Just thought you'd like to know. Christians, feel free to correct me if any of the details are wrong.
So, ummmm, does it?
Unit testing is essential, but it's not a panacea. In particular, beware of two pitfalls:
1) "The unit tests passed, so it works." This assumption is flawed on several levels. First, and most fundamentally, even if all unit tests pass, there is still the issue of whether your software works as a whole. Software often has "emergent logic" and UI scenarios that are difficult or impossible to test (after all, that's not what unit testing is for, but some people seem to think it is).
Second, just because a test passes, doesn't always mean the API works. This is especially important if you didn't write the tests yourself. Just because a unit test CLAIMS it tests X, doesn't mean it does. Is the test complete? Any false positives? Is the test just a skeleton that was intended to be implemented later but never was? I've had all these bite me in the past.
2) "That particular test has NEVER passed, so there's something wrong with the test. We just ignore it now." Bzzzt! Wrong! There's a REASON it never passed. It's either not implemented properly, just a stub that fails waiting for someone to write an implementation, or maybe you just think the feature it tests actually works. Look closer. The test might be trying to tell you something.
If you are careful with unit tests, they can be very rewarding and useful (especially for regression testing, where they are invaluable), but put too much confidence in them or depend on them to do the kind of overall testing they were never designed to do, and you will fail long before your first test does.
If you're looking for the Truth, I'm afraid you'll need to look elsewhere. Science doesn't pretend to offer that to you.
However, if you're looking for the latest developments in cosmology, including evidence for the most current theories, then you should tune in.
On the other hand, if you've been told that science is here to learn ya' the "Truth," I'm afraid you've been had.
I've always had aproblem with this viewpoint. You say: look at how complex life is! It couldn't have arisen by natural processes.
So you posit a God, Intelligent Designer, whatever, to be the entity that solves this little problem. It's perfectly simple you see, God did it (TM).
So now let me turn the question back on you: You mean there is a being intelligent and powerful enough to create all the life as we know it (and then some)? You can't escape the next question:
HOW THE HELL DID THIS BEING COME INTO EXISTENCE???
Ahhh, but you say: "God doesn't need a creator, he/she/it is a self-existent entity." Well that's all fine and dandy, but now you have two little problems:
1) This is an ad-hoc response. You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this claim. That's it, argument over.
2) The very reason you have given for the need for God's existence is the complexity of life, but then you go and posit an even MORE complex entity to create life, yet refuse to apply your same argument to it. This is iconsistent.
Face it: you believe in God because you WANT TO, not because the evidence compels you. That's fine, but at least admit it.
... is not whether such moves are useful. Arguably, almost all privacy-invading programs are in some way.
The question is: do you trust the government (and the people that work for it!) to use it responsibly?
Ahh, I stand corrected. Thanks!
Well, it is estimated that there are ~10^80 particles in the entire universe. Meanwhile there are ~2^128 addresses in IPv6.
So, since 2^128 > 10^80, then yes.
Error in AnonymousCoward.pl (line 42): Sense of humor not found. Please repost and try again.
Seriously,
Just because you give IT administrators the power to lock down the computer doesn't mean that Aunt Sallie isn't going to be able to use her iPod.
Imagine you administer a huge corporate network and you've standardized on Longhorn. Now imaging that the single biggest threats your network has seen in the past have originated from customer service reps bringing files from home on their iPods and Thumbdrives. If I were an administrator, I would have no problem locking down those machines to eliminate that threat.
Wow, who knew it was so easy and cheap, now I can get out of my Amish lifestyle for something more modern. (Posted on Slashdot)
Not very good at the ol' Amish lifestyle, eh?
Actually, this is not the argument given in the Request for Partial Summary Judgement (and yes, I read the whole thing, I was bored last night).
The argument given by IBM is that SCO cannot on the one hand sue IBM for breach of contract and damage done by said breach and on the other hand knowingly continue to offer (and through advertising, tout the benefits of) the "offending" code in question.
The key word here is knowingly. IBM claims (and I think claims correctly), that since the code (Kernel 2.4) is still available on their website after they knew about it, SCO waives their right to sue for breach of contract on the code in question.
If the judge agrees, then game over for SCO.
Hmm, I'm reading it as PRB: You Cannot Use XML Serialization on a Class with Declaritive Security but maybe they have a problem with their database and you see things differently
That's funny, I'm reading it as "PRB: Sense of humor not found when posting as Anonymous Coward on Slashdot" but maybe they have a problem with their database and you see things differently.
Ummm, because "FlibDarg" was already taken?
If you think that's what he said, then you obviously lack some critical thinking skills.
I know you didn't RTFA (because that would be asking to much), but if you had, you would have seen that, unlike IMAX, which has to shoot the film distorted in order to project it "flat" onto a curved surface, this technology uses camera feedback and GPU pixel shaders to dynamically correct/distort the image in real time.
But you didn't know that, because you didn't RTFA...
So I guess Coca-Cola was "on the way down" when they tried that crazy "Dasani" idea.
Pleeeze....
If I have a 1955 Chevy that still gets me to work everyday without breaking down on the side of the road, what point would there be in buying a new car?
...personally, I was just amazed that the word "attendees" was plural.
Methinks Crocodile Dundee was entirely American. Way too many stereotypes for it not to be :-/
Well I'm not an internist, or a researcher, and my dad was definitely not a heart surgeon.... ... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
So I think I'm qualified to say this is bad, and that you should initialize the hydrogen recombiners before even attempting this procedure.