No examples of advocating violence come to mind from the New Testament. Care to share any?
So, a bit of context might be fun here. The writers of the Gospels had to be a bit careful about incitements to violence; they were writing for a largely Roman audience, on behalf of (at that time) essentially a Jewish sect, shortly after a violent, religiously motivated, Jewish uprising in Iudaea was brutally quashed by Rome.
So they are fairly easy going overall, though a few choice bits famously slip through, here and there, eg: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). A lot is made about the proper understanding of the context surrounding that quote from Jesus (it's at the end of a parable, but the protagonist is meant to invoke Jesus), and how it's really not violent at all, but it seems unconvincing. Then again, I think of most pious exegesis as complete hogwash, so I am not the best judge.
As for the rest of the New Testament, no they don't directly call for violence much (except against the gays, you must, of course, murder all the gays), but they do seem to relish quite a bit the whole notion of the vengeful God wiping out the nonbelievers. As a random example, Acts 3:23 - "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." Etc, etc. Not a few people have taken such lines as a license to take matters into their own hands.
Also, lets not forget that the New Testament repeatedly states (I'm too lazy to look up references right now) that the divine law of the Hebrew Bible is still very much in effect, with all of its rules and punishments still intact. So, presumably, this also includes all the various incitements to cleanse the Earth of the various theologically differently-inclined peoples. Kind of at odds with some of the other stuff, but there you go.
Don't get me wrong, while I consider the scriptures of the two religions to be fairly similar in terms of their moral content (ie absolutely repugnant by today's standards), I do believe that one of the two has mellowed out quite a bit more than the other; though I think that has less to do with the source material and more with the proliferation of secular states in the West.
"It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
Ok, this is perhaps the most widely disseminated scientific concept among the laity, so to see an "evolutionary biologist" cock it up so readily is pretty disheartening.
All together now: correlation does not imply causation!
Having a large class library is a bad thing now? You don't like it when other people do work for you?
It's all properly namespaced (unlike some languages I could name), having a bunch of classes you don't need to use does not add to your mental footprint.
The closest thing to a gene is a method (an object that can be used, or not used, and which does something). The genome has 30,000 and.NET has 384,000.
Splice variants, miRNAs, etc - there are a hell of a lot more than 30,000 functional elements in the genome.
Plus, I would think that classes are a better analogy for genes: they get "instantiated" as proteins, which can combine into complexes or form interacting networks, that can perform different tasks based on context. Specific domains or active sites seem more akin to methods.
It seems kinda hard to gauge the total complexity of these things, though. In the end, the total information carried in a method is a couple hundred bytecode instructions, whereas for a protein it's the molecular properties of its constituent amino acids in a specific 3D conformation. Which, I dare say, is probably a bit more complex.
I'm probably thinking about this waaay too seriously...
Re:Chapter 10 - Large Projects
on
Advanced Rails
·
· Score: 1
increasingly realizing we could handle much larger and more complex applications than we could in our PHP days.
Well, sure, if we are comparing it to PHP. I don't think anyone's ever accused PHP of scaling well with complex projects. Yes, yes, it can be done, but PHP will fight you every step of the way.
"You can prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick." etc.
Re:Chapter 10 - Large Projects
on
Advanced Rails
·
· Score: 1
Just because most people writing PHP apps are sloppy armature coders does not mean that powerful well designed apps can not be written in PHP.
Sure. It's still patently ridiculous to claim that most large projects are written in PHP (even if we are just talking about web projects).
I also happen to think that PHP makes writing "powerful well-designed apps" a bit harder than necessary, but that's just me.
Re:Referencing? I smell a rat
on
Advanced Rails
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why is that spamming, really? I mean, he did make a detailed recommendation, if people choose to buy it based on that recommendation, isn't that the point of the system?
The price is the same for those buying it. I don't see what the problem is.
It's new and different from the J2EE frameworks the many web developers on Slashdot have been developing with for so many years.
Alternative theory: it's a nice framework, but its adherents insist that it's a marvel of engineering the likes of which have never been seen before, nor will ever grace us again, and that it completely obsoletes all other methods of developing web applications. They base this on the fact that you can pick up a Rails book and bang out a trivial application really quickly.
In short: its fan-boys, like all fan-boys, are annoying.
Re:Chapter 10 - Large Projects
on
Advanced Rails
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Rails actually makes the programmer's life better in large projects.
Is there any sort of evidence for this? All I'm hearing is that RoR is having a lot of trouble scaling with complexity.
Which makes sense, since it's designed to make really trivial applications really easy to write - nothing wrong with that, really, it's a useful niche.
Rails and its ilk really emphasize the start-up cost, those first couple of days that are essentially irrelevant in a large project.
Re:Chapter 10 - Large Projects
on
Advanced Rails
·
· Score: 1
I believe most large project are mostly written in PHP.
In a country the size of the UK, wouldn't this produce false positives that could be used to argue against the validity of the system?
Ignoring lab error and contamination for a second, in the commonly used STR analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_tandem_repeat) they use a panel of 13 loci, where the probability of finding any specific allele for any individual locus is no more than 15% (if memory serves), and often much lower. The chosen STRs are completely independent, so you get:.15 ^ 13 = 0.0000000000195 chance of coming up with a particular profile by chance (and it's actually much lower, since many alleles are a lot rarer).
Even for close relatives the chances of having more than 6 or 7 loci in common are pretty low (I remember reading something about a case of two brothers having 9 or 10 loci in common, where it later turned out that one of them was also the other's father).
That's for the common method in the US, I'm assuming the UK is similar.
In fact, the biggest problem with DNA evidence has so far been sample cross-contamination - ie, samples from the crime scene and a suspect, or from two suspects being sent to the same lab and contaminated while being analyzed on the same equipment. Theoretically, that should not be a problem here.
Not that this isn't yet another ridiculous violation of privacy from the emerging UK police state.
no need to do phase 1 trials then the cost goes DOWN considerably
Phase I trials are actually only a tiny portion of the cost. Typically they involve giving the drug to a couple dozen or so terminal patients to asses the safety/side effects, find the tolerable dose, etc. It's kind of a touchy area, since no matter how many animal trials you do, you can never really be sure that the drug won't have severe side effects, or even kill a human outright (that one's unlikely, but you won't know until you give it to humans).
So the whole thing will usually run only a couple million dollars. It's when you get to phase II and III, with hundreds and thousands of patients, that the real costs come into the picture.
Ah yes, the armchair cancer scientist: solving one of the hardest problems in medicine is just a matter of randomly combining words you've heard on House!
Slashdot Mirror
No examples of advocating violence come to mind from the New Testament. Care to share any?
So, a bit of context might be fun here. The writers of the Gospels had to be a bit careful about incitements to violence; they were writing for a largely Roman audience, on behalf of (at that time) essentially a Jewish sect, shortly after a violent, religiously motivated, Jewish uprising in Iudaea was brutally quashed by Rome.
So they are fairly easy going overall, though a few choice bits famously slip through, here and there, eg: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). A lot is made about the proper understanding of the context surrounding that quote from Jesus (it's at the end of a parable, but the protagonist is meant to invoke Jesus), and how it's really not violent at all, but it seems unconvincing. Then again, I think of most pious exegesis as complete hogwash, so I am not the best judge.
As for the rest of the New Testament, no they don't directly call for violence much (except against the gays, you must, of course, murder all the gays), but they do seem to relish quite a bit the whole notion of the vengeful God wiping out the nonbelievers. As a random example, Acts 3:23 - "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." Etc, etc. Not a few people have taken such lines as a license to take matters into their own hands.
Also, lets not forget that the New Testament repeatedly states (I'm too lazy to look up references right now) that the divine law of the Hebrew Bible is still very much in effect, with all of its rules and punishments still intact. So, presumably, this also includes all the various incitements to cleanse the Earth of the various theologically differently-inclined peoples. Kind of at odds with some of the other stuff, but there you go.
Don't get me wrong, while I consider the scriptures of the two religions to be fairly similar in terms of their moral content (ie absolutely repugnant by today's standards), I do believe that one of the two has mellowed out quite a bit more than the other; though I think that has less to do with the source material and more with the proliferation of secular states in the West.
My opinion is that they had to do some fan service for the first movie, and that these next ones should be able to get away from that.
Wait, are you saying no more deliveries to the Nude Beach Planet?
That'd be very disappointing!
"It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
Ok, this is perhaps the most widely disseminated scientific concept among the laity, so to see an "evolutionary biologist" cock it up so readily is pretty disheartening.
All together now: correlation does not imply causation!
Having a large class library is a bad thing now? You don't like it when other people do work for you?
It's all properly namespaced (unlike some languages I could name), having a bunch of classes you don't need to use does not add to your mental footprint.
The closest thing to a gene is a method (an object that can be used, or not used, and which does something). The genome has 30,000 and .NET has 384,000.
Splice variants, miRNAs, etc - there are a hell of a lot more than 30,000 functional elements in the genome.
Plus, I would think that classes are a better analogy for genes: they get "instantiated" as proteins, which can combine into complexes or form interacting networks, that can perform different tasks based on context. Specific domains or active sites seem more akin to methods.
It seems kinda hard to gauge the total complexity of these things, though. In the end, the total information carried in a method is a couple hundred bytecode instructions, whereas for a protein it's the molecular properties of its constituent amino acids in a specific 3D conformation. Which, I dare say, is probably a bit more complex.
I'm probably thinking about this waaay too seriously...
increasingly realizing we could handle much larger and more complex applications than we could in our PHP days.
Well, sure, if we are comparing it to PHP. I don't think anyone's ever accused PHP of scaling well with complex projects. Yes, yes, it can be done, but PHP will fight you every step of the way.
Hmm... you make some very good points. I'm even beginning to think that maybe a 12-foot murderous mechanical bat might not be an effective weapon.
And it sounded so logical, at first!
- Cheeseburgers
- Dancing with the stars
- The Gays marrying
If it's not on that list, we don't care about it.Yeah... way to Godwin that up a bit.
Pen fifteen? What's that?
Must be a special offer from Pen Island.
How does source code horde?
I'm not sure, but we know from experience that it's very difficult to get it to hurd.
I feel this way about Rails and PHP.
I don't disagree.
I think that you'll find this true of most frameworks.
Yeah, that's kind of the point of frameworks - you trade flexibility for convenience.
Holy shit, can we please add "idiotic grandiloquence" to the definition of obscenity?
I mean, that right there is "vandalism of the language", not your random "bad" words.
(Also, yeah, you "deserve" what you want out of the public airways, and we should aspire to want the same thing - fairly typical)
"You can prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick." etc.
Just because most people writing PHP apps are sloppy armature coders does not mean that powerful well designed apps can not be written in PHP.
Sure. It's still patently ridiculous to claim that most large projects are written in PHP (even if we are just talking about web projects).
I also happen to think that PHP makes writing "powerful well-designed apps" a bit harder than necessary, but that's just me.
Why is that spamming, really? I mean, he did make a detailed recommendation, if people choose to buy it based on that recommendation, isn't that the point of the system?
The price is the same for those buying it. I don't see what the problem is.
It's new and different from the J2EE frameworks the many web developers on Slashdot have been developing with for so many years.
Alternative theory: it's a nice framework, but its adherents insist that it's a marvel of engineering the likes of which have never been seen before, nor will ever grace us again, and that it completely obsoletes all other methods of developing web applications. They base this on the fact that you can pick up a Rails book and bang out a trivial application really quickly.
In short: its fan-boys, like all fan-boys, are annoying.
Rails actually makes the programmer's life better in large projects.
Is there any sort of evidence for this? All I'm hearing is that RoR is having a lot of trouble scaling with complexity.
Which makes sense, since it's designed to make really trivial applications really easy to write - nothing wrong with that, really, it's a useful niche.
Rails and its ilk really emphasize the start-up cost, those first couple of days that are essentially irrelevant in a large project.
I believe most large project are mostly written in PHP.
Heh, nice one.
From my post: "with hundreds and thousands of patients".
Large pharma will routinely run studies with thousands of patients.
im just tired that "photoshop this" "photoshop that" like there would not be any other image manipulation software
Do you also hang around the Epson at work explaining to people how they aren't really "xeroxing" anything?
Mad Scientist: I have combined the DNA of the world's most evil animals to make the most evil creature of them all...
Man: It turns out it's man.
In a country the size of the UK, wouldn't this produce false positives that could be used to argue against the validity of the system?
.15 ^ 13 = 0.0000000000195 chance of coming up with a particular profile by chance (and it's actually much lower, since many alleles are a lot rarer).
Ignoring lab error and contamination for a second, in the commonly used STR analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_tandem_repeat) they use a panel of 13 loci, where the probability of finding any specific allele for any individual locus is no more than 15% (if memory serves), and often much lower. The chosen STRs are completely independent, so you get:
Even for close relatives the chances of having more than 6 or 7 loci in common are pretty low (I remember reading something about a case of two brothers having 9 or 10 loci in common, where it later turned out that one of them was also the other's father).
That's for the common method in the US, I'm assuming the UK is similar.
In fact, the biggest problem with DNA evidence has so far been sample cross-contamination - ie, samples from the crime scene and a suspect, or from two suspects being sent to the same lab and contaminated while being analyzed on the same equipment. Theoretically, that should not be a problem here.
Not that this isn't yet another ridiculous violation of privacy from the emerging UK police state.
no need to do phase 1 trials then the cost goes DOWN considerably
Phase I trials are actually only a tiny portion of the cost. Typically they involve giving the drug to a couple dozen or so terminal patients to asses the safety/side effects, find the tolerable dose, etc. It's kind of a touchy area, since no matter how many animal trials you do, you can never really be sure that the drug won't have severe side effects, or even kill a human outright (that one's unlikely, but you won't know until you give it to humans).
So the whole thing will usually run only a couple million dollars. It's when you get to phase II and III, with hundreds and thousands of patients, that the real costs come into the picture.
Ah yes, the armchair cancer scientist: solving one of the hardest problems in medicine is just a matter of randomly combining words you've heard on House!