> And when I post a misrepresentation, you may fairly call "strawman".
Your misrepresentation was claiming my belief in God is akin to a belief in unicorns - a much more easily defeated proposition.
When you said: "In other news, unicorns exist. They just choose to remain invisible,..."...you created a "strawman analogy". Read about it here (Valid attacks on analogies, #1)
> > No one believes your imaginary friend exists. > You've asked them? Everyone? No. I polled a large enough sample.
> > Millions believe that mine exists - why don't you walk into a church and ask them? > I'm sure that at some time, most people believed > the earth was flat.
No.
"No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat." Source
> Does that mean it was? Appeals to populism are meaningless. Appeals to personal testimony from witnesses are meaningful.
> I'm sure that large numbers of people believe in other skydaddies. > If they outnumber your club, then I asume they're right and you're wrong? People may believe in tradition -- but we who believe in Jesus *know* Him.
> > Nothing. I'll leave you to the consequences. What else do you expect me to do? > So much for "I am my brother's keeper". Hypocrite. You Hypocrite! How I can force myself upon a brother who wants nothing to do with me? You are responsible for your own soul.
> Hmmm, but can he do hyperlinks? He can, but you can do cut and paste
> Anyway, who told you that the can't lie? Him? Well neither can I, so ya boo. I'd rather believe an entity who's been proved right, than a liar like you.
> > Was I the one who said: "In other news, unicorns exist."? > That's not a strawman, it's an analogy. An easily defeated misrepresentation of my position is a strawman.
> you still haven't disproved the existence of my imaginary friends, > just as I haven't with yours. No one believes your imaginary friend exists. Millions believe that mine exists - why don't you walk into a church and ask them?
> > Don't romp around in your personal minefield of foolishness. > Or you'll do what? In any case, it's a lot safer than yours. Nothing. I'll leave you to the consequences. What else do you expect me to do?
> > No, God is not in the business of fooling around with > > logs after the fact (it's something God cannot do - lie).
> You'll burn in hell for denying his omnipotence.
I won't. And yes, he CANNOT lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php? name=R ead&itemid=2561&cat=3 http://www.grace-through-fa ith.com/godlie.html http://www.gotquestions.org/W hat-is-God-like.html
> > Rather God built the computer. At the atomic level. > Well done, you've come up with a comment sillier than mine. > Difference is, I know when I'm joking. Funny thing is even though I gave back in the same tone you dished out, that statement is correct by itself.
> Wrong. Strawman was set up (by you), and not ignored (by me). Was I the one who said: "In other news, unicorns exist."?
Don't romp around in your personal minefield of foolishness.
Diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. This means eating bad foods not eating too much food. Mainly due to corn syrup and refined sugars, coke, pepsi and starches.
You are wrong. - Not all diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. - Obesity contributes to insulin resistance. (See NIH article below)
Eating too much food IS harmful.
True, excess sugars, coke, pepsi etc are unheathy, especially when one does not excercise. The answer is eat less of those, cook at home, excercise more. Unfortunately, a lot of people are harming themselves by buying into the cult of "I'm being poisoned, and cannot help it"
From this NIH article: Type 2 diabetes is sometimes defined as the form of diabetes that develops when the body does not respond properly to insulin, as opposed to type 1 diabetes, in which the pancreas makes no insulin at all. At first, the pancreas keeps up with the added demand by producing more insulin. In time, however, it loses the ability to secrete enough insulin in response to meals.
Insulin resistance can also occur in people who have type 1 diabetes, especially if they are overweight.
What causes insulin resistance?
Because insulin resistance tends to run in families, we know that genes are partly responsible. Excess weight also contributes to insulin resistance because too much fat interferes with muscles' ability to use insulin. Lack of exercise further reduces muscles' ability to use insulin.
Many people with insulin resistance and high blood glucose have excess weight around the waist, high LDL (bad) blood cholesterol levels, low HDL (good) cholesterol levels, high levels of triglycerides (another fat in the blood), and high blood pressure, all conditions that also put the heart at risk. This combination of problems is referred to as the metabolic syndrome, or the insulin resistance syndrome (formerly called Syndrome X).
> Occam's razor: it's a simpler explanation than assuming that it does have a purpose, since the latter requires an extra entity.
I *know* this "extra entity" you speak about, God. (And you could come to know him if you searched for him) Ockham, a deeply religious man, would have been disappoined with how you use his razor.
> Of course cutting away large numbers of stars would affect the universe. You'd need a big knife, though.
Good, we both agree on this point then.
My point made to the other gentleman was that the absence of these invisible stars at the beginning of the universe may have had as catastrophic an effect as removing them now.
No, God is not in the business of fooling around with logs after the fact (it's something God cannot do - lie).
Rather God built the computer. At the atomic level. Your argument boils down to: "NO ONE should be able to signal in any other form except TTL logic. It's forbidden! Forbidden, I tell you!"
In other Slashdot discussion news, a strawman was setup and was ignored.
Ease out chump, no need to go postal. I forgot nothing. I just told him (and anyone else interested) about a *decent* option, and I told him the caveat to it as well.
Why would we use a Windows-based emulation of our favourite OS coLinux is NOT an emulation. From it's homepage:
Unlike in other Linux virtualization solutions such as User Mode Linux (or the forementioned VMware), special driver software on the host operating system is used to execute the coLinux kernel in a privileged mode (known as ring 0 or supervisor mode).
By constantly switching the machine's state between the host OS state and and the coLinux kernel state, coLinux is given full control of the physical machine's MMU (i.e, paging and protection) in its own specially allocated address space, and is able to act just like a native kernel, achieving almost the same performance and functionality that can be expected from a regular Linux which could have ran on the same machine standalone.
Linux is fine as long as it lets you focus on work. I run cygwin too at work. Before that I had a Linux desktop at work for more than 3 years. I switched completely to Windows when the application I support at work was no longer certified for Linux.
If he's consuming less food and drink in general, he's most likely cut his sugar consumption as well.
You may argue chicken-and-egg, but it's a futile debate: Diabetes and obesity are linked: "Overweight teens getting adult diabetes". Eat healthy (mostly by eating less) and both problems are addressed simultaneously.
> The earth's core doesn't have a purpose. Hmm. And you expect me to believe this article of faith... um, why?
> Some invisible stars cannot do that because they burned out No problem. See this on why impact-to-humans isn't the sun around which creationism revolves.
See this on why billion-year-old starlight doens't prove the age of the universe.
> No that IS the creationist viewpoint. > They state that the universe and everything in it was created...
I'm a creationist. Once again, this time with feeling...
A. Who said God created the entire universe for the benefit of humans?
Now for your parry question: > If that was true, how can stars be millions of light years away? > And what about supernovae? How can a star explode before it even existed? Can't you think for yourself? You believe in the big bang, yes? If cosmological constants could change then, why do you think God could not change them at will when he created the universe? The Bible says God "stretched out" the heavens, and the stretching would INCLUDE LIGHT from galaxies that are far off.
B. Stars and galaxies invisible to us may still have a _huge_ bearing on our existence. You didn't answer my question: Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?
> If you remove them somehow after their existence, of course they would.
Perhaps the next time God creates the universe, why don't you hang around and ensure God doesn't goof around creating wasteful galaxies? Or perhaps you appreciate that, like the core of the earth, hidden galaxies just may have a purpose (even though you can't visit or see either)? Perhaps the stability of the universe? Yes?
C. Yes, everything *has* a purpose. But can any human understand the purpose of *everything*?
> This is just more of "God works in mysterious ways" crap.
Astounding. *You* that claimed everything has a purpose. Do you also claim to *know* the purpose of everything, Mr. Super-intelligent? NO.
A. Who said God created the entire universe for the benefit of humans? That seems to be a caricature of a creationist viewpoint. This verse indicates the universe exists for God's pleasure, not only mine or yours: Bible reference
B. Stars and galaxies invisible to us may still have a _huge_ bearing on our existence. You didn't answer my question: Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?
C. Yes, everything *has* a purpose. But can any human understand the purpose of *everything*? Nope.
You've hit the nail on the head here re: testing having the capability of making documentation come alive.
For eg, a typical requirement specification document is a bunch of unchanging bytes that says stuff like: "the system must do blah". There is no sync-ing of this dead document with the oft-shifting ground reality of the codebase it purports to document. The situation gets a bit better with API documentation, but it is still a problem.
Instead, if after saying "the system must do blah" , imagine a little button next to that said: "press here to run the system with input 'bla' - expect output 'lah'" . Now imagine all such "requirement tests" automatically being tested each night. This would directly verify high-level requirements of a system, with no need for a formal language.
I think these things are important:
(o) Higher level testing I favor integration or system level tests over unit tests because that's where the maximum bang for the buck is. I.e. "Proving an entire system" with a small set of complex integration tests is more important than running 100 times that number of unit tests, only to have the system crash on deployment. I've implemented something similar recently with high level integration and load tests run nightly.
(o) Automated requirements verification. These days, my formal specs have a section "Verification of Requiments fulfillment" where I manually document how the loop was closed and requirements met. An automated version of this process would pump in real test data, as part of regular test processes. The main benefit is such testing could be inspected and traced anytime by analysts to examine how a system _really_ works and where the problems _really_ are.
(o) Development issues in testing. Writing tests is just more development - the difference is this code has the property of self-testing itself against the system. Often tests and test data needs to be updated when system behavior changes. Writing tests that are highly parameterized is one way of doing this. Another way is tools that support refactoring of code and tests. Aspect oriented programming (AOP) / metaprogramming could be another solution.
Feeding data into a machine does not a species make.
Dr. Teuku Jacob first called the skull a pygmy with microcephaly. Other scientists recently disagree with this study's conclusions:
However, some scientists who examined the remains, contest the study's conclusions and argue that the Hobbit belongs to the Homo sapiens species.
Professor Maciej Henneberg, head of anatomy at Adelaide University, said he thought the bones were simply those of a normal human stunted by microcephaly.
Henneberg spent several days in Jakarta last month helping to document the bones.
Harry Widianto, a paleoanthropologist at Yogyakarta's Archeology Agency, said that the Hobbit was best regarded as a sub-species of Homo sapiens in its evolutionary stage between 18,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Harry said that the debates over the Hobbit's species were a consequence of theoretical differences over human evolution
There was a single (!) ancient skull discovered. It was in less than perfect condition (the bones "had the consistency of 'wet blotting paper'" as one article puts it)
The study quoted in this article compared that single skull with a single (!) microcephalic skull.
Dr. Dean Falk of Florida State University came to those conclusions by analyzing virtual endocasts of a variety of skulls, including a microcephalic, Homo erectus, modern human and Flores. ...
First, and most important, it is radically different from the microcephalic specimen she compared it to. This isn't a conclusive denial of Jacob's claim that Flores is nothing new -- one skull isn't enough -- but Flores and the microcephalic are so different it's hard to imagine how they could be one and the same.
The Wikipedia article indicates microcephaly can vary in effect:
Infants with microcephaly are born with either a normal or reduced head size. Subsequently the head fails to grow while the face continues to develop at a normal rate, producing a child with a small head, a large face, a receding forehead, and a loose, often wrinkled scalp. As the child grows older, the smallness of the skull becomes more obvious, although the entire body also is often underweight and dwarfed. Development of motor functions and speech may be delayed. Hyperactivity and mental retardation are common occurrences, although the degree of each varies. Convulsions may also occur. Motor ability varies, ranging from clumsiness in some to spastic quadriplegia in others.
This Answers in Genesis article points out pygmies (see picture) were exant in that general geographic region, while other articles (no links handy) reported of island legends of pygmy tribes in recent history.
In order for this study to conclusively disprove microcephaly, it would be useful to compare (a) multiple ancient skulls, (b) some in good, undistorted, condition, (c) with a realistic range of microcephalic skulls, (d) including pygmy microcephalic cases.
It seems that (a,b,c, and d) were not done.
This new article reports DNA was present in the bones, which have been sent for analysis. That should really help clarify this matter.
> The problem I have with the literal bible version of creationism > is if God created the world for us, why the hell are there galaxies > of stars out there so far out that we can never possibly visit them?
For time keeping? For signs? For your viewing pleasure?
How can your line of argument support or oppose creationism?
As for another thing one can't "visit" that is much closer by, how about the core of the earth?
Your question really should be: Is being convicted of violence that put someone in hospital for two weeks reason enough to be stripped of your voting rights for the rest of your life?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not into sports either and like Shania Twain and John Denver songs.
It takes all sorts.
> So, which of the above categories...
The second - we know Him personally.
> I know that unicorns exist. I've seen them. How's that for a personal testimony?
Worthless - you moved from tearing down a strawman to "truthful testimony"!
> And when I post a misrepresentation, you may fairly call "strawman".
...you created a "strawman analogy". Read about it here (Valid attacks on analogies, #1)
Your misrepresentation was claiming my belief in God is akin to a belief in unicorns - a much more easily defeated proposition.
When you said: "In other news, unicorns exist. They just choose to remain invisible,..."
> > No one believes your imaginary friend exists.
> You've asked them? Everyone?
No. I polled a large enough sample.
> > Millions believe that mine exists - why don't you walk into a church and ask them?
> I'm sure that at some time, most people believed
> the earth was flat.
No.
"No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat."
Source
> Does that mean it was?
Appeals to populism are meaningless. Appeals to personal testimony from witnesses are meaningful.
> I'm sure that large numbers of people believe in other skydaddies.
> If they outnumber your club, then I asume they're right and you're wrong?
People may believe in tradition -- but we who believe in Jesus *know* Him.
> > Nothing. I'll leave you to the consequences. What else do you expect me to do?
> So much for "I am my brother's keeper". Hypocrite.
You Hypocrite! How I can force myself upon a brother who wants nothing to do with me?
You are responsible for your own soul.
You "got her". I pointed it out.
> Hmmm, but can he do hyperlinks?
He can, but you can do cut and paste
> Anyway, who told you that the can't lie? Him? Well neither can I, so ya boo.
I'd rather believe an entity who's been proved right, than a liar like you.
> > Was I the one who said: "In other news, unicorns exist."?
> That's not a strawman, it's an analogy.
An easily defeated misrepresentation of my position is a strawman.
> you still haven't disproved the existence of my imaginary friends,
> just as I haven't with yours.
No one believes your imaginary friend exists.
Millions believe that mine exists - why don't you walk into a church and ask them?
> > Don't romp around in your personal minefield of foolishness.
> Or you'll do what? In any case, it's a lot safer than yours.
Nothing. I'll leave you to the consequences. What else do you expect me to do?
Yup, it's her. I found out by clicking the link on her name in the story.
> > No, God is not in the business of fooling around with
? name=R ead&itemid=2561&cat=3a ith.com/godlie.htmlW hat-is-God-like.html
> > logs after the fact (it's something God cannot do - lie).
> You'll burn in hell for denying his omnipotence.
I won't.
And yes, he CANNOT lie. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php
http://www.grace-through-f
http://www.gotquestions.org/
> > Rather God built the computer. At the atomic level.
> Well done, you've come up with a comment sillier than mine.
> Difference is, I know when I'm joking.
Funny thing is even though I gave back in the same tone you dished out, that statement is correct by itself.
> Wrong. Strawman was set up (by you), and not ignored (by me).
Was I the one who said: "In other news, unicorns exist."?
Don't romp around in your personal minefield of foolishness.
> And I know lots of unicorns. You could see them too, if you really wanted to.
The problems with your statement:
- We both know you're lying
- I know Jesus and I am telling the truth
- Hundreds of millions of people will tell you what I told you
> > Good, we both agree on this point then.
> My point was that you can't spell "existing", dimmy.
No, you arrogant fool. I used it purposely to mean "remove" - as in "excise a tumor." Look it up (here) and learn humility.
Spelling doesn't mark anyone out as better or worse. Combining ignorance with pride does.
> Care to name one of those "pretty good songs"?
Here are some of my favorites:
"A new day has come."
Hmm, , perhaps not much else. But she's generally easy on the ears.
> You just might be gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Ah, that was a brave remark indeed. I'm not gay. Also, homosexuality is wrong.
- Not all diabetes is caused by insulin resistance.
- Obesity contributes to insulin resistance.
(See NIH article below)
Eating too much food IS harmful.
True, excess sugars, coke, pepsi etc are unheathy, especially when one does not excercise. The answer is eat less of those, cook at home, excercise more. Unfortunately, a lot of people are harming themselves by buying into the cult of "I'm being poisoned, and cannot help it"
From this NIH article:
Type 2 diabetes is sometimes defined as the form of diabetes that develops when the body does not respond properly to insulin, as opposed to type 1 diabetes, in which the pancreas makes no insulin at all. At first, the pancreas keeps up with the added demand by producing more insulin. In time, however, it loses the ability to secrete enough insulin in response to meals.
Insulin resistance can also occur in people who have type 1 diabetes, especially if they are overweight.
What causes insulin resistance?
Because insulin resistance tends to run in families, we know that genes are partly responsible. Excess weight also contributes to insulin resistance because too much fat interferes with muscles' ability to use insulin. Lack of exercise further reduces muscles' ability to use insulin.
Many people with insulin resistance and high blood glucose have excess weight around the waist, high LDL (bad) blood cholesterol levels, low HDL (good) cholesterol levels, high levels of triglycerides (another fat in the blood), and high blood pressure, all conditions that also put the heart at risk. This combination of problems is referred to as the metabolic syndrome, or the insulin resistance syndrome (formerly called Syndrome X).
I *know* this "extra entity" you speak about, God. (And you could come to know him if you searched for him)
Ockham, a deeply religious man, would have been disappoined with how you use his razor.
Good, we both agree on this point then.
My point made to the other gentleman was that the absence of these invisible stars at the beginning of the universe may have had as catastrophic an effect as removing them now.
No, God is not in the business of fooling around with logs after the fact (it's something God cannot do - lie).
Rather God built the computer. At the atomic level. Your argument boils down to: "NO ONE should be able to signal in any other form except TTL logic. It's forbidden! Forbidden, I tell you!"
In other Slashdot discussion news, a strawman was setup and was ignored.
Why would we use a Windows-based emulation of our favourite OS
coLinux is NOT an emulation. From it's homepage:Linux is fine as long as it lets you focus on work. I run cygwin too at work. Before that I had a Linux desktop at work for more than 3 years. I switched completely to Windows when the application I support at work was no longer certified for Linux.
If he's consuming less food and drink in general, he's most likely cut his sugar consumption as well.
You may argue chicken-and-egg, but it's a futile debate: Diabetes and obesity are linked: "Overweight teens getting adult diabetes". Eat healthy (mostly by eating less) and both problems are addressed simultaneously.
Being overweight is bad for you.
> The earth's core doesn't have a purpose.
Hmm. And you expect me to believe this article of faith... um, why?
> Some invisible stars cannot do that because they burned out
No problem.
See this on why impact-to-humans isn't the sun around which creationism revolves.
See this on why billion-year-old starlight doens't prove the age of the universe.
Your pride isn't subject to reason. Goodbye.
CoLinux gives decent Linux performance, but your primary desktop has to be Windows.
Celine has some pretty good songs :-D
> No that IS the creationist viewpoint. ...
> They state that the universe and everything in it was created
I'm a creationist. Once again, this time with feeling...
A. Who said God created the entire universe for the benefit of humans?
Now for your parry question:
> If that was true, how can stars be millions of light years away?
> And what about supernovae? How can a star explode before it even existed?
Can't you think for yourself? You believe in the big bang, yes? If cosmological constants could change then, why do you think God could not change them at will when he created the universe?
The Bible says God "stretched out" the heavens, and the stretching would INCLUDE LIGHT from galaxies that are far off.
B. Stars and galaxies invisible to us may still have a _huge_ bearing on our existence. You didn't answer my question: Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?
> If you remove them somehow after their existence, of course they would.
Perhaps the next time God creates the universe, why don't you hang around and ensure God doesn't goof around creating wasteful galaxies? Or perhaps you appreciate that, like the core of the earth, hidden galaxies just may have a purpose (even though you can't visit or see either)? Perhaps the stability of the universe? Yes?
C. Yes, everything *has* a purpose. But can any human understand the purpose of *everything*?
> This is just more of "God works in mysterious ways" crap.
Astounding. *You* that claimed everything has a purpose. Do you also claim to *know* the purpose of everything, Mr. Super-intelligent? NO.
A. Who said God created the entire universe for the benefit of humans? That seems to be a caricature of a creationist viewpoint.
This verse indicates the universe exists for God's pleasure, not only mine or yours: Bible reference
B. Stars and galaxies invisible to us may still have a _huge_ bearing on our existence. You didn't answer my question: Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?
C. Yes, everything *has* a purpose. But can any human understand the purpose of *everything*? Nope.
You've hit the nail on the head here re: testing having the capability of making documentation come alive.
For eg, a typical requirement specification document is a bunch of unchanging bytes that says stuff like: "the system must do blah". There is no sync-ing of this dead document with the oft-shifting ground reality of the codebase it purports to document. The situation gets a bit better with API documentation, but it is still a problem.
Instead, if after saying "the system must do blah" , imagine a little button next to that said: "press here to run the system with input 'bla' - expect output 'lah'" . Now imagine all such "requirement tests" automatically being tested each night. This would directly verify high-level requirements of a system, with no need for a formal language.
I think these things are important:
(o) Higher level testing
I favor integration or system level tests over unit tests because that's where the maximum bang for the buck is. I.e. "Proving an entire system" with a small set of complex integration tests is more important than running 100 times that number of unit tests, only to have the system crash on deployment. I've implemented something similar recently with high level integration and load tests run nightly.
(o) Automated requirements verification.
These days, my formal specs have a section "Verification of Requiments fulfillment" where I manually document how the loop was closed and requirements met. An automated version of this process would pump in real test data, as part of regular test processes. The main benefit is such testing could be inspected and traced anytime by analysts to examine how a system _really_ works and where the problems _really_ are.
(o) Development issues in testing.
Writing tests is just more development - the difference is this code has the property of self-testing itself against the system.
Often tests and test data needs to be updated when system behavior changes. Writing tests that are highly parameterized is one way of doing this. Another way is tools that support refactoring of code and tests. Aspect oriented programming (AOP) / metaprogramming could be another solution.
I answered only your first question without addressing your latter point.
To answer it: if the earth's core has a purpose, don't you think invisible stars have a purpose too?
Or do you think excising invisible stars and galaxies has no effect on the structure of the universe?
In others, aren't you saying:
"God: why did you even bother? I would've done it better."
Dr. Teuku Jacob first called the skull a pygmy with microcephaly. Other scientists recently disagree with this study's conclusions: Source
Lets see now...
There was a single (!) ancient skull discovered. It was in less than perfect condition (the bones "had the consistency of 'wet blotting paper'" as one article puts it)
The study quoted in this article compared that single skull with a single (!) microcephalic skull. Source
The Wikipedia article indicates microcephaly can vary in effect: Source
This Answers in Genesis article points out pygmies (see picture) were exant in that general geographic region, while other articles (no links handy) reported of island legends of pygmy tribes in recent history.
In order for this study to conclusively disprove microcephaly, it would be useful to compare (a) multiple ancient skulls, (b) some in good, undistorted, condition, (c) with a realistic range of microcephalic skulls, (d) including pygmy microcephalic cases.
It seems that (a,b,c, and d) were not done.
This new article reports DNA was present in the bones, which have been sent for analysis. That should really help clarify this matter.
> The problem I have with the literal bible version of creationism
> is if God created the world for us, why the hell are there galaxies
> of stars out there so far out that we can never possibly visit them?
For time keeping? For signs? For your viewing pleasure?
How can your line of argument support or oppose creationism?
As for another thing one can't "visit" that is much closer by, how about the core of the earth?
Your question really should be:
Is being convicted of violence that put someone in hospital for two weeks reason enough to be stripped of your voting rights for the rest of your life?