Rant much? I can't quite take you seriously... so if you have a point to make try again, if you just want to spew out ignorance... good luck with that.
Atheism is a doctrine that states 1) that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), 2) that thought is a property or function of matter, 3) and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units.
These are philosophical statements not scientific ones. They are not proven philosophically or scientifically.
Yes. Which is less than 1%. I wasn't trying to make a point about incorrect math... I was just stating exactly how much was being spent on taking pictures of stuff that no longer exists and that we have no real practical way of ever getting to and probably will never have any real impact on anyone on this planet ever.
The more we know about the universe, the more we can make use of it. Especially when it comes to the point that we *need* to get off this rock.
How is knowing about a something that doesn't exist any longer going to help us get off of the planet? How is seeing places that we cannot physically even come close to reaching actually helping?
But I'm sure that more primitive societys saw mucking around with plant extracts as pointless when it was more useful to gather food for the tribe. Of course some of those plant extracts are now medicines.
I'm not a doctor, but I'm trying to think of common modern medicines that can trace their existence back to primitive peoples mucking around with plants. Maybe ginsing?
Atheism operates with many of the same behaviors as a religion. It has a set of unproveable presuppositions that its followers take by faith, its followers evangelize, there are particular behaviors and patterns (Darwin fish and the FSM come to mind), there are "saints" (I'm lazy tonight... so I'll hit up Darwin again), their are people put up on high who are unquestionable (scientists, however speculative their research may be recieve this luxury today).
Note that atheism and true agnosticism are completely different. An athiest makes a statement. There is "no god/God/higher power outside of nature". An true agnostic would simply admit that they can't ever really know at all.
Do you really think that, if that money were not going to space, it would go to the programs that you want it to go to?
Well if the government can create a budget for NASA I'm sure they can create a budget for something else. Yeah they're wasteful... so let's pick a useful program that should have some money.
Do you not think that the exploration of our universe is a noble cause, worthy of public funding?
Noble? Feeding starving people is noble. Distributing basic medicines and AIDS vaccines in Africa is noble. Building wells and roads and other infrastructure in poorer nations to help them become self sustaining is noble. Developing technologies that eliminate or radically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is noble. Taking pictures and measuring waves from long dead space objects... not so much.
It seems like a massive waste of money. I get satellites. I get trips and research and projects that produce secondary benefits. I'm just asking what's the real value here?
1) More and more specialized databases will begin cropping up. 2) Mainstream database systems will modularize their engines so they can be optimized for different applications and they can incorporate the benefits of the specialized databases while still maintaining a single uniform database management system. 3) Someone will write a paper about how we've gone from specialized to monolithic... 4) Something else will trigger specialization... (repeat)
Dvorak if you steal this one from me I'm going to stop reading your writing... oh wait.
I like astronomy as much as the next guy who thinks it's neat and all... but how much taxpayer money was spent on this and what's the value. I know the initial space program produced all sorts of wonderful things we use today... is this type of work doing the same thing? Is the science needed to get these pictures usable in a practical way?
If not... let's stop wasting money on pretty pictures of long gone space stuff and try to figure out how to use clean renewable energy here.
Ah I love these posts because they bring out the most wonderful from of complete nutjob, the one who embraces science and at the same time embraces complete and unrealistic faith that against all probability there is life just like us on another planet.
This is a complete waste of money and is essentially a big grandiose "fuck you" to anyone who is starving or dying of a curable disease anywhere on the planet. Great job Mr. "Theorist"... sounds like a term that is completely replaceable by "jack off".
So you're right that individual sperm and invidual eggs don't have unique human value. They're just "the parts". But...
When a human sperm and a human egg join and begin reproducing you have a unique human life. It is unique in that it has its own unique DNA structure different than its parents, it reproduces itself, and it is genetically human. This sounds like a unique human life.
Yawn. Read the comment I responded to, or the other sub-thread of my post or the comment I copied into my post. The original post advocated giving power to a set of elites based on their status as being elite, not based on individuals choosing representatives. His point is that the masses should not have the capability to decide for themselves on certain subjects (no doubt of his choosing) and therefore should abdicate all authority for those decisions to elites.
- My first email client was pmail. On a non-Internet connected IPX network. - I got my first job using pmail... I wrote a stupid script to spam a friend of mine and got the sys-admin's attention. He hired me a couple months later.
It's sad to see it go... of course I wouldn't trade Gmail or Outlook for my child's right leg so it's not too sad.
Ah, ok I get you, and I'm sure some people look at it that way... that providing counter-evidence for one theory proves the other. I wouldn't go that far at all. I would say if you have a theory and I provide strong counter evidence to undermine the credibility of your theory then you should consider your theory for what it is... a half-baked questionable thoery... it doesn't make my theory any more right... we may just have to raise our hands in the air and say... well we just don't have a clue now do we.
Read the thread before you post. The original post I responded to made the point that "the masses" should be ignored in favor of scientists. Representativ democracy is "the masses" choosing to give their authority to make decisions for their country to a few individuals. The parent post was advocating a priestly caste of scientists who would choose for us all.
I am in 100^ agrement hear. Far to often developer dont test and check they're code before they release it This resultsi n a poor edn-user experience. Tey wrok two fast always trying to git on to to the next thing.
I agree. We shouldn't be testing on any form of human life without their willing consent. I was stretching out a facicious argument far too long...
It would however make for great science fiction if in the future when AI and robotics were more advanced if we kept our celebrities alive using organ transplants, and a robotic shell. That way future generations could enjoy Paris Hilton as much as we do today:)
are when a person's true colors are shown and it's obvious they pine for fanciful stories and rampant speculation and leave the science for arguing with "religious nutcases".
All this guy said was IF there was this certain kind of life on Mars, we COULD NOT have detected it. That's it. It's just as easy to say that we landed in the wrong place, or came at the wrong time, etc.
I'd like to know what tangible benefits NASA and space travel are actually providing... if there are some then great... if not let's invest in developing clean renewable energy so we don't kill the life here on this planet. (through war, pollution, and killing off the trees in the forests I like to hike in... and maybe global warming to... the jury is still out on that one). Pretty pictures of far of galaxies and remote control cars on Mars are neat an all... but is "cool" really the priority right now?
Slashdot Mirror
Rant much? I can't quite take you seriously... so if you have a point to make try again, if you just want to spew out ignorance... good luck with that.
Name exactly ONE article of faith of atheism.
Here's a few straight from atheists.org
Atheism is a doctrine that states
1) that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter),
2) that thought is a property or function of matter,
3) and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units.
These are philosophical statements not scientific ones. They are not proven philosophically or scientifically.
Good answer... but I'm shocked to hear that there is no ether... next you're going to tell me Pluto is not a planet.
Yes. Which is less than 1%. I wasn't trying to make a point about incorrect math... I was just stating exactly how much was being spent on taking pictures of stuff that no longer exists and that we have no real practical way of ever getting to and probably will never have any real impact on anyone on this planet ever.
The more we know about the universe, the more we can make use of it. Especially when it comes to the point that we *need* to get off this rock.
How is knowing about a something that doesn't exist any longer going to help us get off of the planet? How is seeing places that we cannot physically even come close to reaching actually helping?
But I'm sure that more primitive societys saw mucking around with plant extracts as pointless when it was more useful to gather food for the tribe. Of course some of those plant extracts are now medicines.
I'm not a doctor, but I'm trying to think of common modern medicines that can trace their existence back to primitive peoples mucking around with plants. Maybe ginsing?
Good answer. I'll vote for an extension to NASA's budget :)
Atheism operates with many of the same behaviors as a religion. It has a set of unproveable presuppositions that its followers take by faith, its followers evangelize, there are particular behaviors and patterns (Darwin fish and the FSM come to mind), there are "saints" (I'm lazy tonight... so I'll hit up Darwin again), their are people put up on high who are unquestionable (scientists, however speculative their research may be recieve this luxury today).
Note that atheism and true agnosticism are completely different. An athiest makes a statement. There is "no god/God/higher power outside of nature". An true agnostic would simply admit that they can't ever really know at all.
Marshall Applewhite is that you?
Less than 1% of every US tax dollar goes to space.
NASA's budget is 16.8 billion (source)
Do you really think that, if that money were not going to space, it would go to the programs that you want it to go to?
Well if the government can create a budget for NASA I'm sure they can create a budget for something else. Yeah they're wasteful... so let's pick a useful program that should have some money.
Do you not think that the exploration of our universe is a noble cause, worthy of public funding?
Noble? Feeding starving people is noble. Distributing basic medicines and AIDS vaccines in Africa is noble. Building wells and roads and other infrastructure in poorer nations to help them become self sustaining is noble. Developing technologies that eliminate or radically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is noble. Taking pictures and measuring waves from long dead space objects... not so much.
It seems like a massive waste of money. I get satellites. I get trips and research and projects that produce secondary benefits. I'm just asking what's the real value here?
How did Perl & CSV fare?
It failed the "relational" part of the test. But it failed very quickly.
1) More and more specialized databases will begin cropping up.
2) Mainstream database systems will modularize their engines so they can be optimized for different applications and they can incorporate the benefits of the specialized databases while still maintaining a single uniform database management system.
3) Someone will write a paper about how we've gone from specialized to monolithic...
4) Something else will trigger specialization... (repeat)
Dvorak if you steal this one from me I'm going to stop reading your writing... oh wait.
I like astronomy as much as the next guy who thinks it's neat and all... but how much taxpayer money was spent on this and what's the value. I know the initial space program produced all sorts of wonderful things we use today... is this type of work doing the same thing? Is the science needed to get these pictures usable in a practical way?
If not... let's stop wasting money on pretty pictures of long gone space stuff and try to figure out how to use clean renewable energy here.
Besides, atheism is not an organization
Sure it is... http://www.atheists.org/
By non-standard do you mean something like Brian Mitchell + Wanda Barzee + Elizabeth Smart?
The next heaven's gate will most likely include several /. members who believe in space elevators and life on other planets.
Ah I love these posts because they bring out the most wonderful from of complete nutjob, the one who embraces science and at the same time embraces complete and unrealistic faith that against all probability there is life just like us on another planet.
This is a complete waste of money and is essentially a big grandiose "fuck you" to anyone who is starving or dying of a curable disease anywhere on the planet. Great job Mr. "Theorist"... sounds like a term that is completely replaceable by "jack off".
Why? What do you define as "human" and how do you justify that definition?
So you're right that individual sperm and invidual eggs don't have unique human value. They're just "the parts". But...
When a human sperm and a human egg join and begin reproducing you have a unique human life. It is unique in that it has its own unique DNA structure different than its parents, it reproduces itself, and it is genetically human. This sounds like a unique human life.
Yawn. Read the comment I responded to, or the other sub-thread of my post or the comment I copied into my post. The original post advocated giving power to a set of elites based on their status as being elite, not based on individuals choosing representatives. His point is that the masses should not have the capability to decide for themselves on certain subjects (no doubt of his choosing) and therefore should abdicate all authority for those decisions to elites.
- My first email client was pmail. On a non-Internet connected IPX network.
- I got my first job using pmail... I wrote a stupid script to spam a friend of mine and got the sys-admin's attention. He hired me a couple months later.
It's sad to see it go... of course I wouldn't trade Gmail or Outlook for my child's right leg so it's not too sad.
Ah, ok I get you, and I'm sure some people look at it that way... that providing counter-evidence for one theory proves the other. I wouldn't go that far at all. I would say if you have a theory and I provide strong counter evidence to undermine the credibility of your theory then you should consider your theory for what it is... a half-baked questionable thoery... it doesn't make my theory any more right... we may just have to raise our hands in the air and say... well we just don't have a clue now do we.
Read the thread before you post. The original post I responded to made the point that "the masses" should be ignored in favor of scientists. Representativ democracy is "the masses" choosing to give their authority to make decisions for their country to a few individuals. The parent post was advocating a priestly caste of scientists who would choose for us all.
I am in 100^ agrement hear. Far to often developer dont test and check they're code before they release it This resultsi n a poor edn-user experience. Tey wrok two fast always trying to git on to to the next thing.
Test test tst!!$
I agree. We shouldn't be testing on any form of human life without their willing consent. I was stretching out a facicious argument far too long...
:)
It would however make for great science fiction if in the future when AI and robotics were more advanced if we kept our celebrities alive using organ transplants, and a robotic shell. That way future generations could enjoy Paris Hilton as much as we do today
are when a person's true colors are shown and it's obvious they pine for fanciful stories and rampant speculation and leave the science for arguing with "religious nutcases".
All this guy said was IF there was this certain kind of life on Mars, we COULD NOT have detected it. That's it. It's just as easy to say that we landed in the wrong place, or came at the wrong time, etc.
I'd like to know what tangible benefits NASA and space travel are actually providing... if there are some then great... if not let's invest in developing clean renewable energy so we don't kill the life here on this planet. (through war, pollution, and killing off the trees in the forests I like to hike in... and maybe global warming to... the jury is still out on that one). Pretty pictures of far of galaxies and remote control cars on Mars are neat an all... but is "cool" really the priority right now?