Oh, this is rich - a guy trying to advance Creationism as a reasonable alternative to Evolution demanding proof of someone else's gods. Like you can do the same.
You are right in saying non-scientific beliefs have no place in society.
They have a place. It's called religion.
You are wrong in saying creation is not a scientific belief.
Why should those who disagree with part of a class be thrown out? It doesn't sound like they want to change the school curriculum -- they simply want to be able to hold a personal belief that differs from that of the professor's.
My reading is that the prof refuses to recommend students who hold beliefs incompatible with Medicine. What's the big deal about that?
If I qualify for the course and can pay the fees then why should I be denied a place in the course just because I personally think medicince is a load of crock?
If you don't believe in medicine (after taking the course), what the hell are you doing trying to get into med school? Seems like an excessive effort to test your precious beliefs.
As far as "giving creationism equal treatment" goes: Should we teach it as fact in schools? No. School science classrooms are places for science, not religion. However, should the teachers tell the students that if they believe in creationism, that makes them ignorant? That's what Knightstalker is saying, and that's what I take issue with. The people who dismiss anyone else's beliefs as stupid, ignorant or otherwise worthless are the ones who really annoy me. A blanket statement of that nature is not part of any intelligent debate; it's just a cheap attempt to cut down those you see as your "opponents."
The point is that people who advocate Creationism do not belong in a biology program - they reject the basic tenets of Biology. They are ignorant. Furthermore, beliefs have no place in science; they are dismisssed because they are not theories, facts, or reliable methodologies, and therefore useless from a scientific standpoint. You can believe whatever you like, just keep the religion in church.
That's why parents want technology to help them. For instance, the ability to block certain channels or certain content (by rating) on TV. This prevents parents from having to sit in the room while their child is watching TV to make sure they don't change the channel to something inappropriate.
Speaking as a non-parent, I'll wager that your channel lockout feature does little to protect your kids against violent imagery. The reason is that violence in video games is fairly harmless, because kids are fairly good at seeing things in context. The thing that you have to watch out for is the news. It doesn't put violence in much context that a kid can understand, and it potrays things as real (they are, just not very common). This makes the kid think that the bad things he sees are happening somewhere close to him, instead of Iraq or Syria.
George Orwell got it right with newspeak - not that we should have it, but that limiting language limits how you think - and certianly law requires a particular pattern of thinking of it's own, which, if enforced in this manner, would naturally limit the complexity of laws.
First, limiting language does not limit how you think; that has already been debunked. It merely impedes communication until a new set of words is formulated. Second, artificial languages won't help, since there will always be novel circumstances, and the language, whatever it is, will evolve or die, jusst like this one. What we've got (narrowly defined jargon with specific meanings) works as well as anything is likely to.
you commit three felonies, and we lock you up and throw away the key. Nice idea, sadly our judges have neutered it. They will often reduce a previous conviction of a person, facing this sort of thing, to a misdemeanor, thus allowing them to avoid the life imprisonment.
I think it's a horrible idea, and I'm glad that judges are cutting it down. They're judges - that's their job. It's especially germaine when you consider wacky gun laws and the DMCA, where cracking encryption can get you a felony.
When you jump, you do a little amount of work to get the big project done. Mt. Fuji moves in reference to the static world of you, you've pushed the Earth down, you've moved Mt. Fuji.
You've moved it less than 1 Planck, so you haven't really moved it at all.
What is going to stop the UK government from, for example, adding another tax to electricity if it's used to recharge a car's batteries? and what about fuel cells?
That's kind of the point: fuel tax is supposed to pay for road maintenance.
If you have far more RAM than you are using for your processes, you could have saved some money. Also remember that quite often you are using a good bit more RAM than you have, due to virtual memory.
Not true. If you knock your processor down a notch and buy gobs of RAM (which you can), then you can get better performance for the same money.
It would be difficult to use RAM to cache disk writes, since dirty areas would have to be flushed when a process wanted more memory.
Well, yeah. Linux already does this, though I don't know if they even cache writes (much). In point of fact, linux caches a hell of a lot, and it isn't all easy. In practice, it works out rather well.
Re:Restatement of the obvious
on
Nuke-Lobbing
·
· Score: 1
Your not a very reasoned thinker are you? If we agree, by treaty, to disarm (nukes AND other arms) and agree to inspections for all - universally, and with no hinderance by any domestic government (who already signed the treaty) wouldnt we do away with war?
No, the other guys might hold back some nukes (and other arms) until we've finished destroying ours. Then they can say 'Oops, sorry. Guess we still have a military - shall we invdae, or will you just surrender?"
swords to plowshares are hardly the problem, just 'little thinkers' too busy cowering in their dark caves not ready to put effort into bigger problems.
No, the problem is that noone is that trustworthy or foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you, an idiot? That's not even a decent troll!
reliable + simple = damn good.
reliable + simple + inaccurate = bad idea.
Of course, I prefer either a glock .40 or a semi-automatic scoped rifle.
Unlikely; words, even as many as two, are very cheap.
Talk is cheap when you buy in bulk. To put it another way, never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
increase your dish size to 25 feet in radius. You're down to 5 watts per square foot.
By comparison, the sun puts out about 1kW/M^2, so that's about 100W/ft^2.
Tesla won because Marconi based his patents on Tesla's equipment.
One word: underground tunnels.
Well, that's two words, and won't that cost more than just burying wires?
whomever develops a working "warp drive" will probably have to be a Star Trek geek...
And get sued by Paramount for violating their trademarks.
At which point, he leverages the market potential of his warp drive and flat-out buys Paramount.
If Bush was a "fascist," then you wouldn't have just posted that comment and would be jailed or killed.
To quote Ari Fleischer, "People ought to watch what they say."
How in blazes could anybody show you a better postal service?
There's this thing called other countries, see, and they send letters too.
using the post office as a model of efficiency just may get you into trouble someday
Show me a better postal service.
Can you provide any evidence for your gods??
Oh, this is rich - a guy trying to advance Creationism as a reasonable alternative to Evolution demanding proof of someone else's gods. Like you can do the same.
You are right in saying non-scientific beliefs have no place in society.
They have a place. It's called religion.
You are wrong in saying creation is not a scientific belief.
Creationism is a belief system, not a theory.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to put excessive effort into something?
Go right ahead. Just don't expect any help on your fool's errand.
Why should those who disagree with part of a class be thrown out? It doesn't sound like they want to change the school curriculum -- they simply want to be able to hold a personal belief that differs from that of the professor's.
My reading is that the prof refuses to recommend students who hold beliefs incompatible with Medicine. What's the big deal about that?
If I qualify for the course and can pay the fees then why should I be denied a place in the course just because I personally think medicince is a load of crock?
If you don't believe in medicine (after taking the course), what the hell are you doing trying to get into med school? Seems like an excessive effort to test your precious beliefs.
As far as "giving creationism equal treatment" goes: Should we teach it as fact in schools? No. School science classrooms are places for science, not religion. However, should the teachers tell the students that if they believe in creationism, that makes them ignorant? That's what Knightstalker is saying, and that's what I take issue with. The people who dismiss anyone else's beliefs as stupid, ignorant or otherwise worthless are the ones who really annoy me. A blanket statement of that nature is not part of any intelligent debate; it's just a cheap attempt to cut down those you see as your "opponents."
The point is that people who advocate Creationism do not belong in a biology program - they reject the basic tenets of Biology. They are ignorant. Furthermore, beliefs have no place in science; they are dismisssed because they are not theories, facts, or reliable methodologies, and therefore useless from a scientific standpoint. You can believe whatever you like, just keep the religion in church.
That's why parents want technology to help them. For instance, the ability to block certain channels or certain content (by rating) on TV. This prevents parents from having to sit in the room while their child is watching TV to make sure they don't change the channel to something inappropriate.
Speaking as a non-parent, I'll wager that your channel lockout feature does little to protect your kids against violent imagery. The reason is that violence in video games is fairly harmless, because kids are fairly good at seeing things in context. The thing that you have to watch out for is the news. It doesn't put violence in much context that a kid can understand, and it potrays things as real (they are, just not very common). This makes the kid think that the bad things he sees are happening somewhere close to him, instead of Iraq or Syria.
George Orwell got it right with newspeak - not that we should have it, but that limiting language limits how you think - and certianly law requires a particular pattern of thinking of it's own, which, if enforced in this manner, would naturally limit the complexity of laws.
First, limiting language does not limit how you think; that has already been debunked. It merely impedes communication until a new set of words is formulated. Second, artificial languages won't help, since there will always be novel circumstances, and the language, whatever it is, will evolve or die, jusst like this one. What we've got (narrowly defined jargon with specific meanings) works as well as anything is likely to.
you commit three felonies, and we lock you up and throw away the key. Nice idea, sadly our judges have neutered it. They will often reduce a previous conviction of a person, facing this sort of thing, to a misdemeanor, thus allowing them to avoid the life imprisonment.
I think it's a horrible idea, and I'm glad that judges are cutting it down. They're judges - that's their job. It's especially germaine when you consider wacky gun laws and the DMCA, where cracking encryption can get you a felony.
Paint it orange, SEP field.
Well, I prefer pink. Of course, my solution is just to lie about it until people believe me.
You think on-the-spot logic questions are hard? Try "performing" for strangers and potential co-workers at the same time!
I'd think a demonstrated ability to deal with assholes would be invaluable.
When you jump, you do a little amount of work to get the big project done. Mt. Fuji moves in reference to the static world of you, you've pushed the Earth down, you've moved Mt. Fuji.
You've moved it less than 1 Planck, so you haven't really moved it at all.
What is going to stop the UK government from, for example, adding another tax to electricity if it's used to recharge a car's batteries? and what about fuel cells?
That's kind of the point: fuel tax is supposed to pay for road maintenance.
If you have far more RAM than you are using for your processes, you could have saved some money. Also remember that quite often you are using a good bit more RAM than you have, due to virtual memory.
Not true. If you knock your processor down a notch and buy gobs of RAM (which you can), then you can get better performance for the same money.
It would be difficult to use RAM to cache disk writes, since dirty areas would have to be flushed when a process wanted more memory.
Well, yeah. Linux already does this, though I don't know if they even cache writes (much). In point of fact, linux caches a hell of a lot, and it isn't all easy. In practice, it works out rather well.
Your not a very reasoned thinker are you? If we agree, by treaty, to disarm (nukes AND other arms) and agree to inspections for all - universally, and with no hinderance by any domestic government (who already signed the treaty) wouldnt we do away with war?
No, the other guys might hold back some nukes (and other arms) until we've finished destroying ours. Then they can say 'Oops, sorry. Guess we still have a military - shall we invdae, or will you just surrender?"
swords to plowshares are hardly the problem, just 'little thinkers' too busy cowering in their dark caves not ready to put effort into bigger problems.
No, the problem is that noone is that trustworthy or foolish.
One number to find you.
One number for life.
Hey, isn't there a privacy thread about two stories back?