No, it might be the difference between humanity surviving into the long term future and expanding into the galaxy, or going extinct in the next century or so. It's not just anything.
The trust God approach actually does not deny risk. It just says that "all things work together for good to them that love God" in the end.
That's great, but there's a non-zero chance that the God you believe in does not actually exist. In which case, this attitude could be positively dangerous.
Part of trusting God in this viewpoint is assuming that, barring deliberate or negligent self destruction, the next discovery won't destroy us.
Gah. One of the troubling things about religion is how it induces people to not worry about the future, and instead to happily assume that everything will happen as its supposed to in some cosmic plan.
I'm very much pro-science, but there can't be a blithe assumption that everything we do is risk-free.
Re:Excession and Look to Windward?
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
Mmm - but space is very big, and one would think any old point in space would do...
Re:Excession and Look to Windward?
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
I don't quite recall what you're referring to in Look to Windward
If I remember correctly, the alien bad guys were developing some kind of super-explosive, and they were doing it in this ancient artificial space habitat called the air-sphere, where huge sentient animals and other creatures lived, and there was no reason for the weapons development to be happening there.
I've read all of Banks' Culture novels and still find the novella The State of the Art to be the most enjoyable; a both funny and serious look at Earth from an alien perspective. As for Matter, my enjoyment of it followed a sort of U-shaped curve. It just seemed a bit slow in the middle. I'd still recommend it, mostly because I find descriptions of ultra-high-tech societies inherently fascinating, and Matter contains quite a bit of that, mixed in with the low-tech Feudalist bits.
More than once in his writings he made the claim that he was proud to be an atheist. Somehow I hope that he wasn't disappointed being wrong and instead was pleasantly surprised.
It's been my observation that the more popular religions depict their loving, just, and merciful God torturing non-believers in Hell for all eternity. So no, perhaps it would not be such a pleasant surprise.
You're only looking at the current path over land. Because the Earth rotates, every orbit travels over a different area of the Earth, because the Earth itself has turned. So it basically passes over most land at one point or another.
I find your post a little hard to follow, however with regard to space debris, the satellite is sufficiently low that all the debris is expected to deorbit relatively quickly (days or weeks).
Obviously competent governments should be able to do all this on their own, so the only real concern must be terrorists or other non-government actors using the data to avoid having their movements watched.
My question is: is such a strategy viable? Are there not enough spy satellites up there that every part of the Earth is constantly being watch, at least by the U.S.? How many are there, anyway?
You see that it refers to a specific group of "idolators" who had (we are told) broken a treaty with the early Muslims - and it's at least arguable that the infamous verse 9:5 is referring specifically to them. 9:13-14 is the same.
I feel 9:29 is more problematic. I don't really see a way out of that one. It does say that at least many non-Muslims are to be subjugated by force.
I see a couple of comments above naming the satellite as "USA 193" - is there some good source confirming this? I need a reliable source if I'm to write the Wikipedia article, damnit! Posts on Slashdot apparently aren't acceptable any more... and I don't want a whole bunch of {{dubious}} {{disputed}} {{citation needed}} tags appearing...
The problem with Assassin's Creed is that the civilians and guards don't really behave sensibly, which is essential for the illusion of a realistic, open environment to be explored.
To give two examples: in every city there are numerous guys on soapboxes speaking about the crusades and such: "South comes the English King and his infidel army!" etc. Go up to one of these guys and put your hidden blade in his back. What happens? Nothing. Nobody screams, the crowd just wanders off as if he's gone to sleep.
Second example: if someone sees you kill someone, he might run off shouting "that man is a murderer!" yet guards who are in a position to hear this don't seem to take any notice. Guards only react to what they see with their own eyes, as far as I can make out.
These sorts of problems make me suspect that making plausible and realistic AI is going to be THE major problem in games that feature open environments.
The Register has had a hate on for Wikipedia for quite some time. Don't ask me why, I have no idea. But when is Slashdot going to stop taking its pieces about Wikipedia at face value?
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation
I have absolutely no idea, but this is possibly the nicest-sounding phrase for "being fatally electrocuted" that they could have come up with. If you're careful with your language, painful and agonizing death doesn't have to sound entirely unpleasant...
Why is every destructive computer bug that happens tagged with "haha"?
Data Loss Bug In OS X 10.5 Leopard
bug, macosx, apple, haha
Symantec Updates Cause Chaos in China
haha, security, bug, windows, feature
Banner Ad on Myspace Serves Adware to 1 Million
haha, myspace, pwnd, security, adware
Ubuntu May Be Killing Your Laptop's Hard Drive
linux, haha, storage, bug, spam
Islamists exploit buffer overflow, hack U.S. nuclear command; world doomed
eschaton, religion, waronterror, haha
OK, I made one of those up. But it doesn't even matter what OS or company is responsible for the problem - whoever makes the tags seems to take great delight in all computer snafus. How does the tagging system work anyway? It's always been mysterious to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I think some people object to the existence of Wikipedia's article on [[suicide methods]].
In that case, it's just a matter of a few years.
No, it might be the difference between humanity surviving into the long term future and expanding into the galaxy, or going extinct in the next century or so. It's not just anything.
The trust God approach actually does not deny risk. It just says that "all things work together for good to them that love God" in the end.
That's great, but there's a non-zero chance that the God you believe in does not actually exist. In which case, this attitude could be positively dangerous.
Part of trusting God in this viewpoint is assuming that, barring deliberate or negligent self destruction, the next discovery won't destroy us.
Gah. One of the troubling things about religion is how it induces people to not worry about the future, and instead to happily assume that everything will happen as its supposed to in some cosmic plan.
I'm very much pro-science, but there can't be a blithe assumption that everything we do is risk-free.
Mmm - but space is very big, and one would think any old point in space would do...
I don't quite recall what you're referring to in Look to Windward
If I remember correctly, the alien bad guys were developing some kind of super-explosive, and they were doing it in this ancient artificial space habitat called the air-sphere, where huge sentient animals and other creatures lived, and there was no reason for the weapons development to be happening there.
I've read all of Banks' Culture novels and still find the novella The State of the Art to be the most enjoyable; a both funny and serious look at Earth from an alien perspective. As for Matter, my enjoyment of it followed a sort of U-shaped curve. It just seemed a bit slow in the middle. I'd still recommend it, mostly because I find descriptions of ultra-high-tech societies inherently fascinating, and Matter contains quite a bit of that, mixed in with the low-tech Feudalist bits.
More than once in his writings he made the claim that he was proud to be an atheist. Somehow I hope that he wasn't disappointed being wrong and instead was pleasantly surprised.
It's been my observation that the more popular religions depict their loving, just, and merciful God torturing non-believers in Hell for all eternity. So no, perhaps it would not be such a pleasant surprise.
Jimmy Wales has an absolutely glowing wikipedia page, that is conveniently fully protected and uneditable.
So many lies, so little time. The page is semi-protected, not fully protected. The log reveals this has been the case since March 6.
Even when the founder turns out to be a hypocritical individual
It's regrettable that so many people just believe unsubstantiated allegations without question.
So why *wouldn't* they try to shoot it down??
Because it's costing in the region of $40-60 million.
You're only looking at the current path over land. Because the Earth rotates, every orbit travels over a different area of the Earth, because the Earth itself has turned. So it basically passes over most land at one point or another.
Actually, Iran apparently has a (Russian-launched) satellite. But the idea that the shot will hit the wrong target is of course just a joke.
It's the night of Wednesday 20 or the morning of Thursday 21, depending on where you are in the world.
I find your post a little hard to follow, however with regard to space debris, the satellite is sufficiently low that all the debris is expected to deorbit relatively quickly (days or weeks).
Obviously competent governments should be able to do all this on their own, so the only real concern must be terrorists or other non-government actors using the data to avoid having their movements watched.
My question is: is such a strategy viable? Are there not enough spy satellites up there that every part of the Earth is constantly being watch, at least by the U.S.? How many are there, anyway?
Mmm. Sura 9 is interesting: if you read the very start:
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
You see that it refers to a specific group of "idolators" who had (we are told) broken a treaty with the early Muslims - and it's at least arguable that the infamous verse 9:5 is referring specifically to them. 9:13-14 is the same.
I feel 9:29 is more problematic. I don't really see a way out of that one. It does say that at least many non-Muslims are to be subjugated by force.
I see a couple of comments above naming the satellite as "USA 193" - is there some good source confirming this? I need a reliable source if I'm to write the Wikipedia article, damnit! Posts on Slashdot apparently aren't acceptable any more... and I don't want a whole bunch of {{dubious}} {{disputed}} {{citation needed}} tags appearing...
The problem with Assassin's Creed is that the civilians and guards don't really behave sensibly, which is essential for the illusion of a realistic, open environment to be explored. To give two examples: in every city there are numerous guys on soapboxes speaking about the crusades and such: "South comes the English King and his infidel army!" etc. Go up to one of these guys and put your hidden blade in his back. What happens? Nothing. Nobody screams, the crowd just wanders off as if he's gone to sleep. Second example: if someone sees you kill someone, he might run off shouting "that man is a murderer!" yet guards who are in a position to hear this don't seem to take any notice. Guards only react to what they see with their own eyes, as far as I can make out. These sorts of problems make me suspect that making plausible and realistic AI is going to be THE major problem in games that feature open environments.
Which came first, The Register attacking Wikipedia regularly or Wikipedia seeing The Register as a poor quality source?
The Register has had a hate on for Wikipedia for quite some time. Don't ask me why, I have no idea. But when is Slashdot going to stop taking its pieces about Wikipedia at face value?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation
I think it's obvious how this is going to work.
Wtf is Excited Delirium?
I have absolutely no idea, but this is possibly the nicest-sounding phrase for "being fatally electrocuted" that they could have come up with. If you're careful with your language, painful and agonizing death doesn't have to sound entirely unpleasant...
Ah, Nelson. I hadn't realised that.
Why is every destructive computer bug that happens tagged with "haha"?
Data Loss Bug In OS X 10.5 Leopard
bug, macosx, apple, haha
Symantec Updates Cause Chaos in China
haha, security, bug, windows, feature
Banner Ad on Myspace Serves Adware to 1 Million
haha, myspace, pwnd, security, adware
Ubuntu May Be Killing Your Laptop's Hard Drive
linux, haha, storage, bug, spam
Islamists exploit buffer overflow, hack U.S. nuclear command; world doomed
eschaton, religion, waronterror, haha
OK, I made one of those up. But it doesn't even matter what OS or company is responsible for the problem - whoever makes the tags seems to take great delight in all computer snafus. How does the tagging system work anyway? It's always been mysterious to me.