For instance, one image can be of 3 people sitting around a table with a tree outside, the patient then can fill in what they believe to be occurring, what the characters are saying etc.
[...] when you hear somebody (for example) use "that violates the laws of conservations" as a reason to discount some claim out of hand, that person is taking it on faith that the laws are correct and that the claim isn't, essentially, a black swan.
Sorry, but conservation laws are, now, deduced from symmetries via Noether's Theorem and generalizations thereof (like Ward-Takahashi). There is not a single black swan when it comes to conservation of energy, momentum (angular or linear), charge, probability, and the like. If you *do* find a black swan in any of these, the Nobel Committee will be happy to reward you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_physics
There is no way that you can be absolutely sure that every atom always decays at the same rate.
Wow. The Poissonian nature of their decays is what gives a well-defined half-life for a given atomic species. It's precisely because they do not decay at the same rates that you get lots of clicks on a Geiger counter, and not one big "thump".
Please, whomever modded that Insightful should have his few brain cells revoked.
Perhaps not a *scientist* (though he's eminently conversant with its history and methods), and perhaps not a hero for tomorrow (I don't know of recent productions of his), but James Burke is a brilliant entertainer and expositor about science. Any of his earliest reports, up through The Day the Universe Changed (unmatched, in my opinion, by any TV series except Nova or Nature), through Connections^N, are unparalleled productions, equal parts one-man-play, documentary, and science history as it should be.
Amazon *finally* has The Day the Universe Changed on DVD for less than $200; one was hard-put to find it for less than $700 for a long time, and torrents were a fan's friend.
Look, I'm no fucking supporter of asshole militant Islamists but that doesn't mean that wikipedia doesn't have a pervasive Israel propaganda program problem. Everyone knows about CAMERA by now.
I didn't, but I looked it up. Thanks, Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Cyberinfrastructure_for_ Advanced_Marine_Microbial_Ecology_Research_and_Analysis
(by the way, slashdot: that "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there." is fucking twattish. Fix it.)
I'd say the first example, although it may be grammatically incorrect, is less ambiguous. The commas make the authors intention clear as to exactly whom he is talking about.
Bzzt. The author's use of the commas served to *unambiguously* mean that ALL people feel as the author does (while leaving ambiguity as to whether the author is a person). The same applies to your first example. Read the respective statements out-loud, with pauses inserted as indicated by the commas.
There are flexible rules to English grammar, and inflexible ones. This is a case of an inflexible rule, the breaking of which leads to exactly the ambiguity you decry. Perhaps in the future the language will adapt to encompass your examples as interchangeable ones; it's not there yet.
For small backups, every ten minutes, I use backintime (based on rsync). For larger, nightly or more rare backups, I use rdiff-backup. Both work over the LAN, or to locally-mounted hard drives.
If things really are not the way I believe, but turn out to be false, I will have lost nothing. On the other hand if reality is the way I believe and you do not prepare for that other eternal world, you will have lost everything.
So you're taking Pascal's Wager at face value, eh? All of the arguments to the contrary mean nothing to you? Good luck!
On the other hand, if after death there is only extinction, but those who have put their faith in Christ will not have really lost anything.
Except for a fulfilling life, cognizant of the wonders of nature and science, and unfettered by the worries of Bronze Age mythologies and the gaze of celestial Big Brother.
I wish the religious happiness, until they start spouting their claptrap, and expect thinking, reasoning humans to accept it based on their words only. Then I get grumpy and fearful for the future of the species.
He maintains that discrepancies in their accounts are evidence that the writers are not guilty of collusion, and that the discrepancies in their respective accounts can be resolved or harmonized upon careful cross-examination and comparison of the details (pp 32-35). Greenleaf argues against the scepticism of the Scottish empirical philosopher David Hume concerning reports of miracles. He finds fault with Hume's position about "immutable laws from the uniform course of human experience" (p. 36), and goes on to assert that it is a fallacy because "it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone" (pp. 37-38). Greenleaf takes as his own assumption that as God exists then such a being is capable of performing miracles.
I can't believe that you were able to answer those questions without turning into a blitheringly-enraged idiot (it's what I would have done), but you did. Bravo! (I'm serious.) The poster to whom you were responding needs to do a bit more research before he argues his points.
While we do know how gravity behaves and can model it, we can NOT produce it as yet.
Speak for yourself. I'm American. I guarantee that I drag frames.
How is it that you're expecting us to "create" gravity? Maybe you mean something that's a bit stronger than 10^-40 times the electromagnetic forces. Well, I'm sorry, but the coupling constants don't allow that.
Scientists know that there are many parameters and constants, including the earth's magnetic field, which have to be exactly right in order to have life as we know it upon the earth.
The operative phrase there is as we know it. Change the constants a little, and other forms of life are perfectly capable of living. You're giving the fine-tuning argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe), which is interesting, but it's a tired canard trotted out by creationists time and again, and proves nothing.
And, yes, I'm a physicist interested in the question. Your quote is disingenuous.
On another note, I don't believe he said he believed that god did anything, he said that it was just as valuable as the current explanation.
You may be right about the first point. However, reading some of his other postings on slashdot, he seems to take every opportunity to get some mention of a creator shoved into his comments, and I'd be willing to bet that this time is no different.
As to the second point, if he really was saying that, it's a big Logic: Ur doin it rong failure on his part.
I'd wager you would also get some people to kick in $5 extra a month for, say, 40-and-older servers, and for people who still remember how to spell O.K..
For that 80% to be strictly true, one would have to have at least 125 finalists. This is because f*(8/10)^3 = n must have f (the total number of finalists) return an integer number (n) of Indian award-winners. Technically, if there are non-Indian award-winners, then (2/10)*n must also be an integer, leading to the first number of finalists which satisfies the criteria as being 625.
No, I'm not Chinese, Russian, or Indian. At least not *technically*.:)
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, one image can be of 3 people sitting around a table with a tree outside, the patient then can fill in what they believe to be occurring, what the characters are saying etc.
Ubuntu!
[...] when you hear somebody (for example) use "that violates the laws of conservations" as a reason to discount some claim out of hand, that person is taking it on faith that the laws are correct and that the claim isn't, essentially, a black swan.
Sorry, but conservation laws are, now, deduced from symmetries via Noether's Theorem and generalizations thereof (like Ward-Takahashi). There is not a single black swan when it comes to conservation of energy, momentum (angular or linear), charge, probability, and the like. If you *do* find a black swan in any of these, the Nobel Committee will be happy to reward you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_physics
There is no way that you can be absolutely sure that every atom always decays at the same rate.
Wow. The Poissonian nature of their decays is what gives a well-defined half-life for a given atomic species. It's precisely because they do not decay at the same rates that you get lots of clicks on a Geiger counter, and not one big "thump".
Please, whomever modded that Insightful should have his few brain cells revoked.
Do you not know that many scientific discoveries were postulates before they could be proven? What about all the postulates that are proven wrong?
Bingo. I doubt you meant to, but you've just hit the nail on the head as to why science is self-correcting, and religious faith is not.
Perhaps not a *scientist* (though he's eminently conversant with its history and methods), and perhaps not a hero for tomorrow (I don't know of recent productions of his), but James Burke is a brilliant entertainer and expositor about science. Any of his earliest reports, up through The Day the Universe Changed (unmatched, in my opinion, by any TV series except Nova or Nature), through Connections^N, are unparalleled productions, equal parts one-man-play, documentary, and science history as it should be.
Amazon *finally* has The Day the Universe Changed on DVD for less than $200; one was hard-put to find it for less than $700 for a long time, and torrents were a fan's friend.
A trailer-park meth lab on fire takes in more air in a minute than you do in a week. That barely gives me a semi-woody.
Look, I'm no fucking supporter of asshole militant Islamists but that doesn't mean that wikipedia doesn't have a pervasive Israel propaganda program problem. Everyone knows about CAMERA by now.
I didn't, but I looked it up. Thanks, Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Cyberinfrastructure_for_ Advanced_Marine_Microbial_Ecology_Research_and_Analysis (by the way, slashdot: that "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there." is fucking twattish. Fix it.)
Fuck that Java shit.
I'd say the first example, although it may be grammatically incorrect, is less ambiguous. The commas make the authors intention clear as to exactly whom he is talking about.
Bzzt. The author's use of the commas served to *unambiguously* mean that ALL people feel as the author does (while leaving ambiguity as to whether the author is a person). The same applies to your first example. Read the respective statements out-loud, with pauses inserted as indicated by the commas.
There are flexible rules to English grammar, and inflexible ones. This is a case of an inflexible rule, the breaking of which leads to exactly the ambiguity you decry. Perhaps in the future the language will adapt to encompass your examples as interchangeable ones; it's not there yet.
People, like me, are [...]
People like you can't seem to use commas.
It might be the same as the effects of catnip in humans (a mild sedative) vs. on cats (usually not a sedative).
For small backups, every ten minutes, I use backintime (based on rsync). For larger, nightly or more rare backups, I use rdiff-backup. Both work over the LAN, or to locally-mounted hard drives.
If things really are not the way I believe, but turn out to be false, I will have lost nothing. On the other hand if reality is the way I believe and you do not prepare for that other eternal world, you will have lost everything.
So you're taking Pascal's Wager at face value, eh? All of the arguments to the contrary mean nothing to you? Good luck!
You really have nothing to worry about because humans have been religious from the very beginning.
Oh, good. So every religion is equally rational and "good". Thanks for clearing that up.
Your atheism or whatever ism you hold to is a religion as well.
Ah. So I'm also religious because I don't believe in faeries in my garden, nor in Ra, nor in an animus in every bit of sand on the beach.
On the other hand, if after death there is only extinction, but those who have put their faith in Christ will not have really lost anything.
Except for a fulfilling life, cognizant of the wonders of nature and science, and unfettered by the worries of Bronze Age mythologies and the gaze of celestial Big Brother.
I wish the religious happiness, until they start spouting their claptrap, and expect thinking, reasoning humans to accept it based on their words only. Then I get grumpy and fearful for the future of the species.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelist (about the aforementioned Greenleaf):
He maintains that discrepancies in their accounts are evidence that the writers are not guilty of collusion, and that the discrepancies in their respective accounts can be resolved or harmonized upon careful cross-examination and comparison of the details (pp 32-35). Greenleaf argues against the scepticism of the Scottish empirical philosopher David Hume concerning reports of miracles. He finds fault with Hume's position about "immutable laws from the uniform course of human experience" (p. 36), and goes on to assert that it is a fallacy because "it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone" (pp. 37-38). Greenleaf takes as his own assumption that as God exists then such a being is capable of performing miracles.
Well, that settles that.
I can't believe that you were able to answer those questions without turning into a blitheringly-enraged idiot (it's what I would have done), but you did. Bravo! (I'm serious.) The poster to whom you were responding needs to do a bit more research before he argues his points.
We might also mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly .
While we do know how gravity behaves and can model it, we can NOT produce it as yet.
Speak for yourself. I'm American. I guarantee that I drag frames.
How is it that you're expecting us to "create" gravity? Maybe you mean something that's a bit stronger than 10^-40 times the electromagnetic forces. Well, I'm sorry, but the coupling constants don't allow that.
The operative phrase there is as we know it. Change the constants a little, and other forms of life are perfectly capable of living. You're giving the fine-tuning argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe), which is interesting, but it's a tired canard trotted out by creationists time and again, and proves nothing.
And, yes, I'm a physicist interested in the question. Your quote is disingenuous.
You may be right about the first point. However, reading some of his other postings on slashdot, he seems to take every opportunity to get some mention of a creator shoved into his comments, and I'd be willing to bet that this time is no different.
As to the second point, if he really was saying that, it's a big Logic: Ur doin it rong failure on his part.
I can pretty much guarantee that astrologers would have no idea what you're talking about :)
So you mean "be redundant".
I'd wager you would also get some people to kick in $5 extra a month for, say, 40-and-older servers, and for people who still remember how to spell O.K..
For that 80% to be strictly true, one would have to have at least 125 finalists. This is because f*(8/10)^3 = n must have f (the total number of finalists) return an integer number (n) of Indian award-winners. Technically, if there are non-Indian award-winners, then (2/10)*n must also be an integer, leading to the first number of finalists which satisfies the criteria as being 625.
No, I'm not Chinese, Russian, or Indian. At least not *technically*. :)
Cue rants (well-deserved!) about textbook monopolies, planned obsolescence, and so forth, in 3 ... 2 ...