That would be smart, but only if the SQL database is encrypted too. It's theoretically possible to read a registry with an editor, and we can't have that. Also, we need a checksum on the registry. If the checksum is bad, we have to overwrite the registry with zeroes. Registries are monolithic, and we have to make sure that either it's good data, or NONE of it is good data. Otherwise the user would get confused.
I am so excited about this that I'm going to start working on it just as soon as I get done rewriting all my userspace tools in TCL.
Seriously, the image of something moving fast until you hit it with a cold beam or a bucket of cold water and then it STOPS dead in its tracks is cartoon physics.
What is spraying water at satellites going to do to them? Nothing at all. That's because cartoon physics was invented by cartoon artists. Duh.
God damn I hate it when English majors try to do physics. It's almost as bad as when Journalists try to write Perl code, or when an Art History major tries to write a fast-paced book about computer hacking. Before you know it, you've got a kid hacking the space shuttle with an empty USB drive enclosure.
The washing machine, the birth control pill, and women's protective labor laws were ALL more effective in liberating half of humanity than the Vatican.
It's weird that you don't have any snow "artifacts" when the signal is perfect. When people talk about artifacts, even perfect signals display them. Artifacts are distortions as a consequence of the signal processing, not distortions as consequences of noise.
Noise is not a kind of artifact, and artifacts are not a kind of noise. Both are kinds of signal distortions.
I haven't forgotten anything. If you read other articles I've written, and what others have pointed out as well, you'll see that a God who can do whatever the fuck he wants blows a rational universe right out of the water. It makes the universe completely unpredictable, and I haven't seen any pots of petunias turn into sperm whales lately.
you cannot rule out that an all-powerful and all-knowing being could heal an amputee by preventing the amputation in the first place
You've got to be joking.
The point here is that given the ramifications of an omnipotent deity, any test you can envision to prove OR disprove the existence of such a being is going to be inherently flawed and therefore inconclusive.
You're arguing that the universe is random and that nothing at all can be known. You're arguing that you don't know if 2+2 is 4, or if it is something else.
If you want to argue that, then I'm safe in calling you an idiot.
Inconclusive? Bullshit. Here's an experiment that's pretty easy to do.
They say that God heals the sick. OK then, let's find some amputees that have had their bodies healed. Documented new arms and legs.
There are some outcomes of this experiment that we can expect. We will either find healed amputees, or we won't. If we find them, it means that we still have to rule out other possibilities before we decide that it's God doing it. If we don't find healed amputees, it means that either God doesn't heal the sick, or it means that God is a cocksucking prick who hates amputees enough to make an exception for them in his sick-healing program.
Either way, we've learned something and narrowed down the possibilities here, and further study is warranted.
And if we continue testing, hundreds, thousands, millions of times, and still there is no god detected, that means something too. It means that god's existence is more and more unlikely based on the evidence.
Can't? We investigate the spin of electrons and particles on a daily basis. And if you're going to argue that God does a bunch of incoherent random shit that can't be replicated, then there's two problems with that. First, YOU don't have any basis to know random looking "God effects" better than science. So much for your proof. Second, there's another apologetic argument that God is the reason for all the order in the universe, that without God the universe would not be comprehensible. A God that randomly breaks rules and randomly acts completely destroys that apology.
A God that does what you claim he does would render the universe a random place to live. And I haven't seen any pots of petunias turn into sperm whales recently.
Inductive logic is not a fallacy, however any claim that Dawkins considers inductive logic to be a proof in a mathematical sense rather than a scientific sense IS a fallacy. As you noted, it's a strawman. Now stop claiming that Dawkins is using proof in a mathematical sense when he is quite clear in his writing not to.
That's not a fallacy at all. Science can most certainly investigate questions about the existence of supernatural entities.
Just as soon as you claim that this supernatural entity does stuff for you, affects the universe, changes reality, prevents a dude from dying in a plane crash, or any number of other things that religious people attribute to gods, then those things can be investigated and experimented with.
If you want to claim that your god doesn't touch any part of the world that science can investigate, then that makes you a Deist. And that's a useless sort of god to invent.
So, go ahead and try again to find a Dawkins fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Until someone explains it properly to me, that is indeed what it means. He must have gotten his degree from a Peruvian diploma mill. Prove me wrong.
That would be smart, but only if the SQL database is encrypted too. It's theoretically possible to read a registry with an editor, and we can't have that. Also, we need a checksum on the registry. If the checksum is bad, we have to overwrite the registry with zeroes. Registries are monolithic, and we have to make sure that either it's good data, or NONE of it is good data. Otherwise the user would get confused.
I am so excited about this that I'm going to start working on it just as soon as I get done rewriting all my userspace tools in TCL.
Except fsync on a Mac is a null operation. The fsync(), it does nothing!
Seriously, the image of something moving fast until you hit it with a cold beam or a bucket of cold water and then it STOPS dead in its tracks is cartoon physics.
What is spraying water at satellites going to do to them? Nothing at all. That's because cartoon physics was invented by cartoon artists. Duh.
God damn I hate it when English majors try to do physics. It's almost as bad as when Journalists try to write Perl code, or when an Art History major tries to write a fast-paced book about computer hacking. Before you know it, you've got a kid hacking the space shuttle with an empty USB drive enclosure.
Maybe he's bashing the Vatican in acknowledgement of all the little children whom the Vatican has touched.
Are you an infant? I stopped believing in invisible friends when I was 5. Grow up.
Are you a fucking idiot? I'm just trying to tell you to read what I've already written in this thread so we can both avoid wasting our time.
What are you going on about "deep"? Are you a mental case?
The washing machine, the birth control pill, and women's protective labor laws were ALL more effective in liberating half of humanity than the Vatican.
I guess that my idea of a flash "take a dump on the sidewalk" mob isn't going to please these clean freaks in San Francisco either.
Use Linux, or I'll give you a QUICK BOOT
Facking Pudge what?
It's weird that you don't have any snow "artifacts" when the signal is perfect. When people talk about artifacts, even perfect signals display them. Artifacts are distortions as a consequence of the signal processing, not distortions as consequences of noise.
Noise is not a kind of artifact, and artifacts are not a kind of noise. Both are kinds of signal distortions.
I haven't forgotten anything. If you read other articles I've written, and what others have pointed out as well, you'll see that a God who can do whatever the fuck he wants blows a rational universe right out of the water. It makes the universe completely unpredictable, and I haven't seen any pots of petunias turn into sperm whales lately.
you cannot rule out that an all-powerful and all-knowing being could heal an amputee by preventing the amputation in the first place
You've got to be joking.
The point here is that given the ramifications of an omnipotent deity, any test you can envision to prove OR disprove the existence of such a being is going to be inherently flawed and therefore inconclusive.
You're arguing that the universe is random and that nothing at all can be known. You're arguing that you don't know if 2+2 is 4, or if it is something else.
If you want to argue that, then I'm safe in calling you an idiot.
Idiot.
It's not an artifact. It's snow, or static.
You say that each thing has its own place. I say that you're completely wrong about that.
I don't respect your ideas at all. I respect people because they are human beings. People's ideas are for arguing and debating.
There is no reason I should respect your idea just because you are fond of it.
Nobody's killing any babies here. They are blastocycts and embryos. Not babies.
Hey now, you can't talk shit about Oklahoma when you're British. They may be Okies, but the are OUR Okies.
That's nothing. No examples, just assertions. Fail.
So, go ahead, give me ONE place where Dawkins uses a fallacy. Be specific.
It was probably a religious person, who is SOOOO concerned that atheists look bad and cannot help giving us advice for our own good.
Inconclusive? Bullshit. Here's an experiment that's pretty easy to do.
They say that God heals the sick. OK then, let's find some amputees that have had their bodies healed. Documented new arms and legs.
There are some outcomes of this experiment that we can expect. We will either find healed amputees, or we won't. If we find them, it means that we still have to rule out other possibilities before we decide that it's God doing it. If we don't find healed amputees, it means that either God doesn't heal the sick, or it means that God is a cocksucking prick who hates amputees enough to make an exception for them in his sick-healing program.
Either way, we've learned something and narrowed down the possibilities here, and further study is warranted.
And if we continue testing, hundreds, thousands, millions of times, and still there is no god detected, that means something too. It means that god's existence is more and more unlikely based on the evidence.
Can't? We investigate the spin of electrons and particles on a daily basis. And if you're going to argue that God does a bunch of incoherent random shit that can't be replicated, then there's two problems with that. First, YOU don't have any basis to know random looking "God effects" better than science. So much for your proof. Second, there's another apologetic argument that God is the reason for all the order in the universe, that without God the universe would not be comprehensible. A God that randomly breaks rules and randomly acts completely destroys that apology.
A God that does what you claim he does would render the universe a random place to live. And I haven't seen any pots of petunias turn into sperm whales recently.
Inductive logic is not a fallacy, however any claim that Dawkins considers inductive logic to be a proof in a mathematical sense rather than a scientific sense IS a fallacy. As you noted, it's a strawman. Now stop claiming that Dawkins is using proof in a mathematical sense when he is quite clear in his writing not to.
That's not a fallacy at all. Science can most certainly investigate questions about the existence of supernatural entities.
Just as soon as you claim that this supernatural entity does stuff for you, affects the universe, changes reality, prevents a dude from dying in a plane crash, or any number of other things that religious people attribute to gods, then those things can be investigated and experimented with.
If you want to claim that your god doesn't touch any part of the world that science can investigate, then that makes you a Deist. And that's a useless sort of god to invent.
So, go ahead and try again to find a Dawkins fallacy.
Funny, since Dawkins never said such a thing.
It's easy to talk shit about people if you can just make things up.
Name one of Dawkin's "fallacies". Go ahead.