I've never said otherwise. there is a positive correlation between good science and atheism. fact. deal with.
Oh. I'm sorry what studies were done about that? Are we comparing scientists with scinetific PhDs who are athiests with scientists with PhDs who are not athiests or are we comparing scientists with PhDs against any crackpot who cares to toss out his or her opinion on a scientific topic?
don't get angry
I'm not... 'fuck' is a word. It's like a four letter exclamation point... but I'm not angry.
fortunately there are plenty of people in the world who can understand mechanisms other than "by will or random".
So educate me... what is the proper term? Then I'll rewrite my original statement with the proper term and come back to the point that you're suggesting that you deny facts because you don't agree with the unrelated beliefs of the person who proved the facts.
the rest of your post seems to all be about the fact that you don't seem to understand the phrase "statistically speaking".
No... statistics of the population of scientist have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the science presented is accurate or not. The measure of science is wether or not it's testable in the real world, not the % of scientists who believe one thing or another. If all of the scientists converted to FSMism and began to argue the world is flat it doens't make it true.
1. "macro-evolution" is a term used by fundamentalists, not scientists, and Oh I'm sorry... what terms do you use to differentiate between mutations that are caused due to genes that exist within a species genome and mutations that occur by creating new genes that did not exist in the species before?
2. no scientist would describe evolution as "randomly caused". Oh right... because the first protiens that formed life willed it. Give me a fucking break man.
Really your just picking apart semantics. The point stands. The science is good or it's not. If you have to rely on the source to validate the science then you've stepped into the realm of belief and that's not scientific.
Who cares what "those creationist nutjobs" think. It's you who presumably cares about science right. So if good science is presented the findings should matter, not the source. Or does some person's own willingness to ignore scientific evidence give you justification to do the same?
I'm sick of this bullshit. You're bias against religious people is obvious. Have you not stuided science enough to realize how many crackpot theories there are out there... how many scientists who ase so certain they know they're right and others who contradict them with complete certainty. Just reading/. frequently it becomes obvious that many scientists report bogus data or overstate their findings. To be so arragoant and biased as to just assign this to religious people ignores the facts.
A big problem is idiots like you who make generalizations like "science" done by fundamentalists only tries to explain the "observations" found in the Bible. Again... if the science stands up it's science... it doesn't matter if it was done by a brilliant genious or a druged-out bum who happens to think the FSM is real... if the science is good it's good, period. Just because someone is an athiest doesn't make their science good. Just because someone is a Christian doesn't make their science bad. The science stands on it's own!
Dump the stupid agendas. If the science can't stand up then it can't stand up. If the science does stand up then it does... unless you're saying "I want to believe in randomly caused macro-evolution so much that I want to ignore scientific evidence from anyone who doesn't agree with me."
Yeah cause it would suck if "some religious" group used science to disprove a scientific theory. Science is science man... it doesn't matter if it's conducted by the most dedicated atheist or a devout Christian. It's the science that matters.
I hope you're not serious that a "shinny very fast dedicated computer" costs $10k. You can easily spend $100k on a good computer and of course science is driving these massive supercomputing clusters that probably cost $10k/day to operate. Anyways... back to your question.
where do the remaining 990 000 dollars go?
Salaries to pay the PhDs to process and analyze the data and tune the software and not go to China or Russia or someone else who'd like to know more about this stuff.
Yes, and oh my gosh... just think what would happen if they studied super viruses or biological agents that can be weaponized. Oh wait... they do that and it enables them to detect and work to protect against those things.
Ignorance is not security.
I'm also not blind to the risks here... it's dangerous stuff that needs to monitored and controlled.
scientists will have solved the riddle of extending life to 1000 years and will sequence all of our genes so we die at age 72 because it's too expensive to offer state run healthcare to people over the age of 72.
Huh? You'd have to find life on Mars and Titan to determine those paramters because the paramters are used to plug into a probability formulas for the likelihood of life existing under certain conditions. If you can't prove life exists or existed there how the hell are you supposed to know the conditions can produce life?
Why did it take them 6 months to release the images?
2 answers
Timing really doesn't matter How would this information have helped you in July of 2006? It's an interesting fact, but is it really need-to now so much that 6 months... 18 months... 5 years... really matters for 99.9% of the population?
Verified science, not pre-released junk When Scientists release data before they can properly analyze and understand it they can create misunderstandings. The media poorly reports the data, typically just reporting that whatever conclusions MAY be determined by the data are indeed fact. Of course if after a standard analysis this is proven incorrect the media doesn't really care to publish retractions and corrections with the same force and publicity as their previous stories.
You said crime... crime isn't about what "gross". Stealing, lying under oath, slandering, attacking someone, speeding, these things are all crimes. Don't change the scope of your original comments because you don't like my tone.
Well I wouldn't want to meet a holier then thou ignorant fuck like you either then I guess.
Seriously man... do you think you pay your bills on time because you have a deep sense of fair play and the rightness of your a massive multi-billion dollar bank to have their extra few bucks? No... you know you'll get your credit report dinged... you know you'll get hassled on the phone... consequences shape our actions. I'm not saying most people would be out murdering and raping everyone if it wasn't for their fear of the police... most people have no real interest in murdering or raping someone, but given that... fear of consequences either by the police, society, or personal guilt people inhibit actions.
I do think crime that we have can be reduced. It just can't be completely eliminated. As you're implying, understanding the causes of crime would help in reducing the total amount of crime... but there will never be a day when you do not need police.
Why does crime happen. Because people want something and it's easier to take it from someone else then to get it themselves... because people are fucked up at their core. They're selfish beings. Evolutionists might say we're all still just animals... Christians/Jews/Muslims might say we're all sinners... etc. The point. We're fucked up.
I get where you're going... try to reduce the crime not just increase the response to it.
This was not the mass use of surveillance. This was careful police work using existing security cameras in place. This is not massive networks of online cameras connected to big government computers monitoring you at every turn. Repeat after me... this is not government surveillance.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just stay with GPLV2?
They did. They set their license to be GPLv2 only.
I've never said otherwise. there is a positive correlation between good science and atheism. fact. deal with.
Oh. I'm sorry what studies were done about that? Are we comparing scientists with scinetific PhDs who are athiests with scientists with PhDs who are not athiests or are we comparing scientists with PhDs against any crackpot who cares to toss out his or her opinion on a scientific topic?
don't get angry
I'm not... 'fuck' is a word. It's like a four letter exclamation point... but I'm not angry.
fortunately there are plenty of people in the world who can understand mechanisms other than "by will or random".
So educate me... what is the proper term? Then I'll rewrite my original statement with the proper term and come back to the point that you're suggesting that you deny facts because you don't agree with the unrelated beliefs of the person who proved the facts.
the rest of your post seems to all be about the fact that you don't seem to understand the phrase "statistically speaking".
No... statistics of the population of scientist have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the science presented is accurate or not. The measure of science is wether or not it's testable in the real world, not the % of scientists who believe one thing or another. If all of the scientists converted to FSMism and began to argue the world is flat it doens't make it true.
1. "macro-evolution" is a term used by fundamentalists, not scientists, and
Oh I'm sorry... what terms do you use to differentiate between mutations that are caused due to genes that exist within a species genome and mutations that occur by creating new genes that did not exist in the species before?
2. no scientist would describe evolution as "randomly caused".
Oh right... because the first protiens that formed life willed it. Give me a fucking break man.
Really your just picking apart semantics. The point stands. The science is good or it's not. If you have to rely on the source to validate the science then you've stepped into the realm of belief and that's not scientific.
Who cares what "those creationist nutjobs" think. It's you who presumably cares about science right. So if good science is presented the findings should matter, not the source. Or does some person's own willingness to ignore scientific evidence give you justification to do the same?
I'm sick of this bullshit. You're bias against religious people is obvious. Have you not stuided science enough to realize how many crackpot theories there are out there... how many scientists who ase so certain they know they're right and others who contradict them with complete certainty. Just reading /. frequently it becomes obvious that many scientists report bogus data or overstate their findings. To be so arragoant and biased as to just assign this to religious people ignores the facts.
A big problem is idiots like you who make generalizations like "science" done by fundamentalists only tries to explain the "observations" found in the Bible. Again... if the science stands up it's science... it doesn't matter if it was done by a brilliant genious or a druged-out bum who happens to think the FSM is real... if the science is good it's good, period. Just because someone is an athiest doesn't make their science good. Just because someone is a Christian doesn't make their science bad. The science stands on it's own!
Dump the stupid agendas. If the science can't stand up then it can't stand up. If the science does stand up then it does... unless you're saying "I want to believe in randomly caused macro-evolution so much that I want to ignore scientific evidence from anyone who doesn't agree with me."
You just killed Kenny!
You're just jealous because you didn't think of this idea to get a $1mil grant :)
Yeah cause it would suck if "some religious" group used science to disprove a scientific theory. Science is science man... it doesn't matter if it's conducted by the most dedicated atheist or a devout Christian. It's the science that matters.
A project run by the US DOD. "Bound to end in tears" doesn't even start to cover it.
You are so totally right because DoD funded projects are always massive failures or horrible weapons. Oh wait... there's the Internet and OpenBSD.
I hope you're not serious that a "shinny very fast dedicated computer" costs $10k. You can easily spend $100k on a good computer and of course science is driving these massive supercomputing clusters that probably cost $10k/day to operate. Anyways... back to your question.
where do the remaining 990 000 dollars go?
Salaries to pay the PhDs to process and analyze the data and tune the software and not go to China or Russia or someone else who'd like to know more about this stuff.
Yes, and oh my gosh... just think what would happen if they studied super viruses or biological agents that can be weaponized. Oh wait... they do that and it enables them to detect and work to protect against those things.
Ignorance is not security.
I'm also not blind to the risks here... it's dangerous stuff that needs to monitored and controlled.
scientists will have solved the riddle of extending life to 1000 years and will sequence all of our genes so we die at age 72 because it's too expensive to offer state run healthcare to people over the age of 72.
Huh? You'd have to find life on Mars and Titan to determine those paramters because the paramters are used to plug into a probability formulas for the likelihood of life existing under certain conditions. If you can't prove life exists or existed there how the hell are you supposed to know the conditions can produce life?
Why did it take them 6 months to release the images?
2 answers
Timing really doesn't matter
How would this information have helped you in July of 2006? It's an interesting fact, but is it really need-to now so much that 6 months... 18 months... 5 years... really matters for 99.9% of the population?
Verified science, not pre-released junk
When Scientists release data before they can properly analyze and understand it they can create misunderstandings. The media poorly reports the data, typically just reporting that whatever conclusions MAY be determined by the data are indeed fact. Of course if after a standard analysis this is proven incorrect the media doesn't really care to publish retractions and corrections with the same force and publicity as their previous stories.
I run Ubuntu w/ VLC, works fine.
I stand corrected... thansk for the thorough response.
You said crime... crime isn't about what "gross". Stealing, lying under oath, slandering, attacking someone, speeding, these things are all crimes. Don't change the scope of your original comments because you don't like my tone.
It seems like this is just a scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Fortunately Old Glory Insurance offers coverage for only $4 per month.
Well I wouldn't want to meet a holier then thou ignorant fuck like you either then I guess.
Seriously man... do you think you pay your bills on time because you have a deep sense of fair play and the rightness of your a massive multi-billion dollar bank to have their extra few bucks? No... you know you'll get your credit report dinged... you know you'll get hassled on the phone... consequences shape our actions. I'm not saying most people would be out murdering and raping everyone if it wasn't for their fear of the police... most people have no real interest in murdering or raping someone, but given that... fear of consequences either by the police, society, or personal guilt people inhibit actions.
I do think crime that we have can be reduced. It just can't be completely eliminated. As you're implying, understanding the causes of crime would help in reducing the total amount of crime... but there will never be a day when you do not need police.
Why does crime happen. Because people want something and it's easier to take it from someone else then to get it themselves... because people are fucked up at their core. They're selfish beings. Evolutionists might say we're all still just animals... Christians/Jews/Muslims might say we're all sinners... etc. The point. We're fucked up.
I get where you're going... try to reduce the crime not just increase the response to it.
This was not the mass use of surveillance. This was careful police work using existing security cameras in place. This is not massive networks of online cameras connected to big government computers monitoring you at every turn. Repeat after me... this is not government surveillance.
Think of the children now... because in 30-40 years they're going to be making decisions about how old is old enough.
Dear sir,
I am please to inform you that we already do. Rest assured your government is doing everything it can to protect you.
Sincerly,
Your Government