You just have to look at the way the anti-terrorism snooping laws are being used in the UK:-
- Spying on a family to make sure they really do live the school catchment area
- Spying on people who drop litter
- Spying on people suspected of benefit fraud
As I understood it, you had to apply to some Gov. Org. to be allowed to use the anti-terror rules to spy on people, so how the hell were these let through!
Ever notice how rackmount servers and PCs have normal plugs (size doesn't matter for the plugs because the devices are big enough already and therefore not portable)...
But doesn't all that convertion from AC to DC create heat? Wouldn't a rack of servers (equipment) be far more efficient, power-wise, if they all just accepted the DC direct from the rack? Maybe have two power inputs for the kit that is rack-mountable - the usual AC power cord and some (sufficiently!) different socket to plug in the required DC, thereby not using the onboard AC/DC converter?
How about, the Queen refuses royal assent, Brown and his cronies try to end the monarchy, and Queenie flexes her muscle as leader of the Armed Forces and sends the SAS into Parliament and takes over. Think how much money we spend on all these damn MPs, and their families and nannys and mistresses and mortgages and new kitchens/bathroom for their second homes, and travel, meals - not to mention their salaries and index linked pensions.
We already pay the monarchy, and all the civil servants, and they sure as hell couldn't be doing a worse job!
Bring back the Monarchy, keep the House of Lords, and scrap all the gravy-train MPs in the commons!
The rumours that Brown fudged this vote by buying votes from the Norther Irish is, at the moment, just that - a rumour. If this is substantiated then Brown should be immediately removed from office, and probably tried for some corruption or other - as should the recipients of any such bung. It would be a disgrace - obscene even. How could we sit in judgement of people like Mugabe if we rig votes ourselves.
The fact that the NI MPs voted for the 42 day detention might just be them getting their own back of course, because we did have some sort of detention without charge in Northern Island for a while during the troubles.
Hopefully, the Lords will throw it out like the garbage it is! What next eh? 90 days? I sometimes worry for my country when the people at the top can throw away our freedoms under the guise of protecting us!
... and if Brown ever uses this debate to beat people around the head the next time there's some terrorist attrocity in the UK he will surely have sunk to Nu-Depths! I have nothing but scorn to pour on him, with maybe a sprinkling of derision. The man is a fat-head and should go!
15 mins Waterloo to St Pancras? In your dreams! Half an hour minimum platform to platform, and if you had an appointment (for example, if you were looking to catch a train) I'd give yourself at least 45 mins just in case!
It cost £5.2bn to build and reduced travel times to the continent by 40mins.
It was indeed expensive, but wasn't a lot of it underground? Did it go over or under the Thames - either way, that's not going to be cheap!
... and it doesn't save me any time as I live south of London so the time saved London to Paris is outwieghed by me having to schlep across London in the first place! That said, St Pancras is awesome! I'm not a train nut by any stretch of the imagination, but wandering around the new terminus - well worth it if you have the time and are at a lose end in London!
Largly true, at the moment, but remember the number plate recognition cameras placed to enforce/charge for The London Congestion Charge Zone and the promise (from Ken was it?) that they wouldn't be used by the Police - guess what? Yep, a few years down the line and the Police are hooked into the LCCZ good and proper. Now I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing (though I tend to think it is!), but just because systems aren't currently linked doesn't mean they won't be at some point in the future.
Seems it might have been a momumental waste of money, but of course it won't ever be pulled down as that would be an admission of yet another mistaken policy! So we pay (in council tax, etc) to run the system that spies on us for no real benefit. Marvellous.
The same mental mechanism that works to believe the scientific experiment A is correct so the conclusions must be correct is the same as saying Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo and that must be correct just as it is the same as a book that in some cases dates back 4000 years and it is correct.
Unfortunately not! You _can_ state that a theory is true based on an experiment that can be repeated to see if it is actually correct or not, but you can't say that a book must be correct just because it is old. Does a book get more correct as it ages? Obviously not, something is either correct or it isn't, so the age can't be a factor. The fact that (most?) religions are based on Dogma, ie tenets which are not to be challenged, reinforces that position. Also, ever played Chinese Whispers? For the first many thousands of years of existance of the stories in the bible they were passed down as an aural tradition. As and when necessary, some facets of the stories would be changed to meet the (then) current needs. New stories would be added. To claim any of the stories that survive to today as true is a leap of faith in itself, but they can't all be true as there are well documented inconsistencies that make it impossible.
Your attempting to assert on over the other as if you can't distinguish between them anymore.
It may seem as though I'm trying to assert Science over Religion, but actually I'm (just) trying to get people to use the Scientific Method to examine Religion. I guess this is perhaps the inverse of the case of religious figures using their religion to examine science in cases such as genetic research, IVF, abortion, etc. They can see that various things are obviously wrong, as judged by their religion - I can see things are obviously wrong, as judged by my science. Of course, it isn't just my science - LOL - and we return to the difference of opinion;-)
What it means is that evolution isn't a natural occurring though(t) process.
How do you determine what is a naturally occuring thought process and what isn't? Darwin saw a number of variations of animals/plants on his travels around the globe, but mostly on pacific islands if my memory serves me well, and concluded that they must have somehow adapted to meet the environments. The somehow turns out to be natural selection. Would it have been a natural thought if perhaps a priest had come up with the idea?
It is a very specific concept that was tested with the science being wrapped around it instead of it wrapping around science.
Hmmmm. Are you saying that the concept was concieved first, and science applied to see if it matches? If so, then - yes indeed - that's how it's supposed to work. Come up with a hypothesis ("I think it might work like this"), devise some tests and see if you can predict the outcome. In this case, the wealth of fossil evidence supports the theory. The DNA evidence supports the theory - indeed, it is precariously balanced with the whole weight of ALL evidence so far found on one side and no evidence to the contrary. I say precarious because just one piece of evidence to the contrary would blow it out of the water, but so far there has been none, so we stick with the most likely option - evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection.
I says it is - you says it isn't - I have a huge amount of evidence to say it is, you refuse to accept the evidence as presented, and say it isn't.
That's the bit I can't understand, as from where I'm standing there's an elephant in the room, and you don't see it, or (worse still!) refuse to see it. Why do you refuse to see it? Religion - well, I assume it's religion, but I guess you might just like the arguement;-)
Now you're an adult (well, if yer not, you do a very good impression of one!) and if you want to believe something then that's all fi
You are convinced that your way is the one true way but you also admit that some of the science you don't understand.
Again, I don't think science is the one true anything. Science isn't a religion, however much the religious might like to think it is. Science, the Scientific Method, is a way of looking at the world, nay the universe, around us and trying to fathom out how it might work. Whilst I might not be able to reproduce experiments because of lack of equipment there are others who can, and do, repeat experiments in isolation of the originator of the experiment. If the experiment works for others it gains acceptance, and if it fails (see Cold Fusion!) it falls by the way-side. So I can be reasonably confident about the cannon of knowledge so produced because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Something like evolution just isn't a natural occurring thought or we would have a record of it long before we did.
I'm not even sure what that means! So all natural thought must be something that is known since the dawn of time? Sorry, but that is a nonesense! That discounts a number of things like the wheel, that all men (and women) are equal, gravity - to name but a few. All thoughts have to have a time when they haven't been thought yet and a first person to think them.
FYI: One of the great things about the theory of evolution is how such a simple setup can create life's complexities. All, and I do mean ALL, of the evidence so far gathered points to evolution being true. I can say ALL with some confidence because if there was one scrap of evidence to the contrary then various religious groups would be publicising it far and wide. The interesting point is, that once the one piece of evidence that breaks evolution is found the scientist will accept it and move on. Scientists are happy to be proved wrong.
... scientific indoctrination...
Again, science isn't a religion. Sure, science has got stuff wrong in the past and taught those wrong things as being true, but as soon as science discovers the error it puts it's hands up and says so!
... self proclaimed atheist...
So you'd rather atheists didn't say they were atheists? On the child abuse front - what if all kids in Texas were forced to learn to be Muslims. Would you call that child abuse (I guess only for the non-Muslim kids?)? Now I'm not picking on Muslims specifically here, just assuming that most kids in Texas are likely to be of other religions, so to make the point by forcing them to become members of some other religion. Is that child abuse?
Religious Universities...
Religion did indeed encompass a large part of society back in the day, and it was the start of what became the modern educational system. That science has long since left the cloisters is in no small part down to the fact that when scientists 'discovered' something new that the Church didn't like they prevented the new discoveries from being disseminated. Was this the first censorship perhaps?
Do you really think they don't know anything about the subjects at hand?
Often, yes! LOL: Cloning doesn't mean killing a fetus! The whole point of cloning is to get a copy, so if you kill the original you're still left with just one - oh, you mean the single cell (egg) into which the genetic material is placed. Is a single cell a fetus? Yet another argument I guess. I'd say it isn't, any more than any other single cell is a fetus. It has the capability to become one perhaps - though countless millions of such single cells die daily - hourly even - as most eggs don't get fertilized.
Also, not quite sure you have Kyoto right their either, but whatever.
They can decide whenever they pick up the book and determine for themselves or they somehow otherwise figure it out.
Hmmmm. OK, I guess my standpoint here is that I believe the wealth of scientific evidence, indeed more than believe - I understand a great deal of it - so I am comfortable with the concept that there is no divine, omnipotent being who created, or indeed controls, the universe. To try and counter this by asking whether or not I believe or understand the wealth of religious evidence would be somewhat self-defeating as there is no such evidence because, almost by definition, religion expects you to simply believe.
I have talked to otherwise sane, rational, people who have such a deep conviction that their particular flavour of religion is true that nothing I, or anyone else, can say will be able to convince them otherwise. That said, I don't go around trying to break people of religion - in general I say live and let live and if that makes them happy (and doesn't interfere with my life!) that's pretty much fine by me.
But I see it, much as Dawkins does, as a mind virus. Sure, mostly harmless like a verruca, but you don't want to give it to your kids if you can avoid it, and the strength of conviction displayed by the infected adults simply shows how successful the infection can become if not treated early enough!
Those are two separate positions and separate fields.
Now if they could keep the religious from spouting forth on subjects they know nothing about I'd perhaps be happy for science to step away from the fray, but they continue to wheel out religious figures in fancy dress to talk about science issues - global warming, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.
But as we know, in science, one more then one occasion, we have thought we understood something just to have something else happen that was different and needed studying.
As a scientist I do understand that my conviction is evidence-based, and whilst the current understanding is that religion is bunkum, there's no reason why some new evidence shouldn't be discovered and appear to lend weight to the religion theory, but I suspect it won't! My problem is that religion and the religious seem to be able to ignore the weight of evidence against religion at a whim.
I would like to suggest that if the evidence could be wieghed in a non-partisan way that the conclusion would be that religion is (OK... probably, but with a V. high probability!) bunkum.
If you agree with that statement then you may also agree that anyone who is still a follower of any religion is probably delusional.
If you don't agree then I guess this conversation/argument may go on for some time;-)
I'm questioning the motivation of so call science minded people. It is as if they feel the need to push science into everything as if it is the one true way.
LOL - so call(ed) science minded people
I would suggest that science minded people are pushing the one most probable way, and to suggest the scientists are exhibiting some kind of religious zeal is, I guess, doing the opposite of what I've been advocating:-
I've been advocating that the religious should use science and the scientific method to help sway their opinion away from religion based on the wealth of evidence, and you just tried to imply scientists are pushing a message, almost as if science is another religion - convert you from Catholic to Muslim, from Jew to Hindu. Maybe that's why science has such a hard time winning over the religious - because once infected with Belief your only template for a replacement is another Belief.
Scientists don't want you to Believe in Science, they want you to understand it! As you said, the current scientific thinking on almost all subjects is different from what it was at some point in the past as new knowledge has come to
I think your stretching the child abuse thing though.
OK... stretching things a bit, but to try and raise awareness of the issue. I just don't think it is right to fill kids heads with supernatural hogwash. By all means say something like "some people believe...", but counter with the scientific facts - as I said, let the children decide!
The belief in a religion isn't a bad thing.
OK, I'll agree that everything religion does/says/teaches isn't bad. It IS good to be nice to each other, for example, but this isn't something that _only_ comes from religion. BUT, believing something that isn't true is, almost by definition, _bad_. I will also agree that mild forms of religion are less bad than the extremist versions, but one doesn't become an extremist without first encountering the religion in it's milder forms - think drugs and thing of the mild religions as a gateway to extremism.
It carries answers to philosophical questions...
Assuming we can agree that religion is all hot air, any answers so derived must also be hot air.
... also speaks of the mortality and immortality aspects of the human soul...
The soul is another invention from religion, so, as with the philosophical answers, you can't really use it in an argument to support religion.
... it would be wise to pass this information down to others...
Unfortunately, here's where we really diverge. I am saying exactly the opposite. We are feeding a diet of, at best, myths and legends, and at worst fear, hate, misogeny and xenophobia to our children as TRUTHS and that is just wrong.
3) The group grants teachings that are not the Bible equal or greater standing than the Bible.
Do what now? So this berk's list of tests for whether or not you're in a cult uses the bible as some sort of yardstick?
Anyone else uncomfortable with that please raise your hands!
Here's my take on the whole religion affair:
There are multiple religions and they mostly don't like other religions, each saying they are the true religion and the others are false. From this I can conclude that the chances that your religion is the correct one (if indeed there is a correct one) is small, therefore it is tantamount to child abuse to brainwash^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hteach your religion to children, your own or anyone elses.
Let's not enforce any religion on children. Let's wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Anything else is religious grooming and should be frowned upon by a modern society.
There is a theory that religion gained a foothold in the human mind due to a side effect of something useful, and evolution did the rest.
The idea is that it is a useful trait for small children to believe, without question, things their parents, and other adults, tell them. This has all sorts of useful safety aspects (don't go near the edge - water/cliff), and obviously helps the young to learn other aspects of life far more quickly than the other method, and its inherent dangers (ie - trial and error!).
So if a parent, or other adult, tells a kid that the Tooth Fairy will replace their old teeth with money, or that Father Christmas/Santa Clause will leave them presents if they are good they will, and do, believe it is so. Similarly, if your parents are religious you are likely to have been brought up to believe in the same religion as them. The difference is that when you get a bit older they let go of the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, but continue to reinforce the idea of their particular brand of religion!
Interestingly, the same predisposition to believing adults is often what paedophiles use to groom kids. So, perhaps if we changed the name of "Sunday School" to "Religious Grooming" it might be more obvious what is going on!
... shockwave that travels from the object at the speed of sound. (may need to read it twice)
Riiiight. So, in essence, you are saying that the shockwave, which takes the form of a sound travels at (and I guess this must be the difficult bit?) the speed of sound. Yep... a tricky concept indeed.
... Look off 45 degrees in the direction of the sound and you will see the plane leaving...
LOL... see the plane leaving kinda suggests its passed? As in No Longer Approaching? No?
As the plane passes overhead, the shockwave reaches the ground at the same time the plane has moved forward the same distance as the distance from the plane to the ground.
I guess if the plane is travelling at the speed of sound - yes indeedy, and as you say, the sound is travelling down so you can hear it, and, traditionally, planes travel more, well, across. So, and you may want to read this a couple of times, the plane causes a boom whilst above you, and you hear it after the plane has moved the same distance as the distance from the plane to the ground. You will indeed... see the plane leaving.... So it's gone passed then?
Of course, if the plane is indeed travelling faster than the speed of sound then the departure may be more pronounced, but either way, this is much as I suggested, the sonic boom heralding the departure of the craft that caused it.
Sometimes I would see them arriving and wait for the boom.
OK... and when would that "boom" be heard? Before they were overhead, or sometime after... somewhat heralding the departure maybe?
Come on... admit it... you don't hear the boom until after the plane has passed (ie is no longer travelling towards) you - unless it is flying at (or V. near) ground level!... OK... You could be very tall, or standing on something very tall?
What I dislike about texts most is the assumption you will text them back! If you've got a question then call me and I'll try and answer it - if you text me the question it's going to cost _me_ money to text you back the answer!
That said, at least we don't pay to recieve text messages in the UK (Europe) - that's totally crazy!
LOL: Yer, sorry! I was under the impression that a sonic boom was caused by something travelling faster than sound, so by the time you heard the boom, whatever caused it had gone... my bad!
Mentioning the film Jackass brings up an interesting point: People get injured, so presumably having a copy of the film could get you 3 years in jail, and I guess a lifetime on the sex offenders register. Nice!
Who the hell let them pass this law?... oh yes... we did! [sigh]
I'd say that you might well invent a method for solving something, for example calculus, but you most definately discover relationships between numbers - you discover Pi, you discover the square on the hypotenuse....
Perhaps it enters a grey area with imaginary numbers though. Some one came up with the idea (invented) of being able to get a square root of a negative number because it then helped them solve some equations. Were these imaginary numbers always there to be discovered?
They should continue, "unfortunately, there are a fair amount of countries that don't have access to the sun. "
I think it's quite interesting that a lot of the poorer, indeed third world [LOL - Australia;-)], countries of today could be the power suppliers of tomorrow. Of course that will depend to a large degree on them stopping killing each other long enough to allow the current rich nations to come in and setup the plants!
The problem then becomes one of supply - how do you get the Solar Thermal riches of the Sahara up to Europe without massive power losses. There was a Chinese scientist 5 or 10 years ago who put forward an idea for a "Super Grid" to allow us to move power around the globe more efficiently. Maybe this needs a bit more thought!
... First off, it's not actually a tax, it's a licence...
... whether you actually use the service or not...
If you own any equipement that can pick up the TV signals (TV, VCR/Video Recorder, TV Card for your PC, etc) then you need a licence for said equipement. If you decide not to use said equipement for watching BBC programs then you still pay, in much the same was as if you purchase a car and leave it parked on the road, but don't use it, you still have to pay the Road Fund Licence.
It is also arguable that the presence of the BBC in the UK is sufficient to raise the game of the other TV channels, so if you watch any UK TV you are potentialy benefitting from the BBC's presence.
Refering to it as a tax does you no favours either, because taxation has always been regardless of whether or not you use the facilities - childless people don't get a rebate because they don't use schools!
You can buy pretty reasonable projectors for £600 or so that will do a pretty good job of projecting a DVD onto a wall, and they typically don't contain a TV reciever and therefore would not require the TV Licence.
IMHO I would suggest that taking funds from the income tax monies would be the best alternative to the TV Licence, and that would be far better than making the BBC have to show adverts!
Slashdot Mirror
- Spying on a family to make sure they really do live the school catchment area
- Spying on people who drop litter
- Spying on people suspected of benefit fraud
As I understood it, you had to apply to some Gov. Org. to be allowed to use the anti-terror rules to spy on people, so how the hell were these let through!
But doesn't all that convertion from AC to DC create heat? Wouldn't a rack of servers (equipment) be far more efficient, power-wise, if they all just accepted the DC direct from the rack? Maybe have two power inputs for the kit that is rack-mountable - the usual AC power cord and some (sufficiently!) different socket to plug in the required DC, thereby not using the onboard AC/DC converter?
You know ... carbon footprint and all that?
We already pay the monarchy, and all the civil servants, and they sure as hell couldn't be doing a worse job!
Bring back the Monarchy, keep the House of Lords, and scrap all the gravy-train MPs in the commons!
The fact that the NI MPs voted for the 42 day detention might just be them getting their own back of course, because we did have some sort of detention without charge in Northern Island for a while during the troubles.
Hopefully, the Lords will throw it out like the garbage it is! What next eh? 90 days? I sometimes worry for my country when the people at the top can throw away our freedoms under the guise of protecting us!
It was indeed expensive, but wasn't a lot of it underground? Did it go over or under the Thames - either way, that's not going to be cheap!
Yer ... at least if Ms Clinton got into the White House she could moisten her own cigars!
Also perhaps worthy of note at this point is the story CCTV Does not stop crime.
Seems it might have been a momumental waste of money, but of course it won't ever be pulled down as that would be an admission of yet another mistaken policy! So we pay (in council tax, etc) to run the system that spies on us for no real benefit. Marvellous.
Of course, if you get waxed by armed police, it's called a Brazilian.
Unfortunately not! You _can_ state that a theory is true based on an experiment that can be repeated to see if it is actually correct or not, but you can't say that a book must be correct just because it is old. Does a book get more correct as it ages? Obviously not, something is either correct or it isn't, so the age can't be a factor. The fact that (most?) religions are based on Dogma, ie tenets which are not to be challenged, reinforces that position. Also, ever played Chinese Whispers? For the first many thousands of years of existance of the stories in the bible they were passed down as an aural tradition. As and when necessary, some facets of the stories would be changed to meet the (then) current needs. New stories would be added. To claim any of the stories that survive to today as true is a leap of faith in itself, but they can't all be true as there are well documented inconsistencies that make it impossible.
Your attempting to assert on over the other as if you can't distinguish between them anymore.
It may seem as though I'm trying to assert Science over Religion, but actually I'm (just) trying to get people to use the Scientific Method to examine Religion. I guess this is perhaps the inverse of the case of religious figures using their religion to examine science in cases such as genetic research, IVF, abortion, etc. They can see that various things are obviously wrong, as judged by their religion - I can see things are obviously wrong, as judged by my science. Of course, it isn't just my science - LOL - and we return to the difference of opinion ;-)
What it means is that evolution isn't a natural occurring though(t) process.
How do you determine what is a naturally occuring thought process and what isn't? Darwin saw a number of variations of animals/plants on his travels around the globe, but mostly on pacific islands if my memory serves me well, and concluded that they must have somehow adapted to meet the environments. The somehow turns out to be natural selection. Would it have been a natural thought if perhaps a priest had come up with the idea?
It is a very specific concept that was tested with the science being wrapped around it instead of it wrapping around science.
Hmmmm. Are you saying that the concept was concieved first, and science applied to see if it matches? If so, then - yes indeed - that's how it's supposed to work. Come up with a hypothesis ("I think it might work like this"), devise some tests and see if you can predict the outcome. In this case, the wealth of fossil evidence supports the theory. The DNA evidence supports the theory - indeed, it is precariously balanced with the whole weight of ALL evidence so far found on one side and no evidence to the contrary. I say precarious because just one piece of evidence to the contrary would blow it out of the water, but so far there has been none, so we stick with the most likely option - evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection.
I says it is - you says it isn't - I have a huge amount of evidence to say it is, you refuse to accept the evidence as presented, and say it isn't.
That's the bit I can't understand, as from where I'm standing there's an elephant in the room, and you don't see it, or (worse still!) refuse to see it. Why do you refuse to see it? Religion - well, I assume it's religion, but I guess you might just like the arguement ;-)
Now you're an adult (well, if yer not, you do a very good impression of one!) and if you want to believe something then that's all fi
You are convinced that your way is the one true way but you also admit that some of the science you don't understand.
Again, I don't think science is the one true anything. Science isn't a religion, however much the religious might like to think it is. Science, the Scientific Method, is a way of looking at the world, nay the universe, around us and trying to fathom out how it might work. Whilst I might not be able to reproduce experiments because of lack of equipment there are others who can, and do, repeat experiments in isolation of the originator of the experiment. If the experiment works for others it gains acceptance, and if it fails (see Cold Fusion!) it falls by the way-side. So I can be reasonably confident about the cannon of knowledge so produced because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Something like evolution just isn't a natural occurring thought or we would have a record of it long before we did.
I'm not even sure what that means! So all natural thought must be something that is known since the dawn of time? Sorry, but that is a nonesense! That discounts a number of things like the wheel, that all men (and women) are equal, gravity - to name but a few. All thoughts have to have a time when they haven't been thought yet and a first person to think them.
FYI: One of the great things about the theory of evolution is how such a simple setup can create life's complexities. All, and I do mean ALL, of the evidence so far gathered points to evolution being true. I can say ALL with some confidence because if there was one scrap of evidence to the contrary then various religious groups would be publicising it far and wide. The interesting point is, that once the one piece of evidence that breaks evolution is found the scientist will accept it and move on. Scientists are happy to be proved wrong.
Again, science isn't a religion. Sure, science has got stuff wrong in the past and taught those wrong things as being true, but as soon as science discovers the error it puts it's hands up and says so!
So you'd rather atheists didn't say they were atheists? On the child abuse front - what if all kids in Texas were forced to learn to be Muslims. Would you call that child abuse (I guess only for the non-Muslim kids?)? Now I'm not picking on Muslims specifically here, just assuming that most kids in Texas are likely to be of other religions, so to make the point by forcing them to become members of some other religion. Is that child abuse?
Religious Universities ...
Religion did indeed encompass a large part of society back in the day, and it was the start of what became the modern educational system. That science has long since left the cloisters is in no small part down to the fact that when scientists 'discovered' something new that the Church didn't like they prevented the new discoveries from being disseminated. Was this the first censorship perhaps?
Do you really think they don't know anything about the subjects at hand?
Often, yes! LOL: Cloning doesn't mean killing a fetus! The whole point of cloning is to get a copy, so if you kill the original you're still left with just one - oh, you mean the single cell (egg) into which the genetic material is placed. Is a single cell a fetus? Yet another argument I guess. I'd say it isn't, any more than any other single cell is a fetus. It has the capability to become one perhaps - though countless millions of such single cells die daily - hourly even - as most eggs don't get fertilized.
Also, not quite sure you have Kyoto right their either, but whatever.
Hmmmm. OK, I guess my standpoint here is that I believe the wealth of scientific evidence, indeed more than believe - I understand a great deal of it - so I am comfortable with the concept that there is no divine, omnipotent being who created, or indeed controls, the universe. To try and counter this by asking whether or not I believe or understand the wealth of religious evidence would be somewhat self-defeating as there is no such evidence because, almost by definition, religion expects you to simply believe.
I have talked to otherwise sane, rational, people who have such a deep conviction that their particular flavour of religion is true that nothing I, or anyone else, can say will be able to convince them otherwise. That said, I don't go around trying to break people of religion - in general I say live and let live and if that makes them happy (and doesn't interfere with my life!) that's pretty much fine by me.
But I see it, much as Dawkins does, as a mind virus. Sure, mostly harmless like a verruca, but you don't want to give it to your kids if you can avoid it, and the strength of conviction displayed by the infected adults simply shows how successful the infection can become if not treated early enough!
Those are two separate positions and separate fields.
Now if they could keep the religious from spouting forth on subjects they know nothing about I'd perhaps be happy for science to step away from the fray, but they continue to wheel out religious figures in fancy dress to talk about science issues - global warming, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.
But as we know, in science, one more then one occasion, we have thought we understood something just to have something else happen that was different and needed studying.
As a scientist I do understand that my conviction is evidence-based, and whilst the current understanding is that religion is bunkum, there's no reason why some new evidence shouldn't be discovered and appear to lend weight to the religion theory, but I suspect it won't! My problem is that religion and the religious seem to be able to ignore the weight of evidence against religion at a whim. ... probably, but with a V. high probability!) bunkum. ;-)
I would like to suggest that if the evidence could be wieghed in a non-partisan way that the conclusion would be that religion is (OK
If you agree with that statement then you may also agree that anyone who is still a follower of any religion is probably delusional.
If you don't agree then I guess this conversation/argument may go on for some time
I'm questioning the motivation of so call science minded people. It is as if they feel the need to push science into everything as if it is the one true way.
LOL - so call(ed) science minded people :-
I would suggest that science minded people are pushing the one most probable way, and to suggest the scientists are exhibiting some kind of religious zeal is, I guess, doing the opposite of what I've been advocating
I've been advocating that the religious should use science and the scientific method to help sway their opinion away from religion based on the wealth of evidence, and you just tried to imply scientists are pushing a message, almost as if science is another religion - convert you from Catholic to Muslim, from Jew to Hindu. Maybe that's why science has such a hard time winning over the religious - because once infected with Belief your only template for a replacement is another Belief.
Scientists don't want you to Believe in Science, they want you to understand it! As you said, the current scientific thinking on almost all subjects is different from what it was at some point in the past as new knowledge has come to
OK ... stretching things a bit, but to try and raise awareness of the issue. I just don't think it is right to fill kids heads with supernatural hogwash. By all means say something like "some people believe ...", but counter with the scientific facts - as I said, let the children decide!
The belief in a religion isn't a bad thing.
OK, I'll agree that everything religion does/says/teaches isn't bad. It IS good to be nice to each other, for example, but this isn't something that _only_ comes from religion. BUT, believing something that isn't true is, almost by definition, _bad_. I will also agree that mild forms of religion are less bad than the extremist versions, but one doesn't become an extremist without first encountering the religion in it's milder forms - think drugs and thing of the mild religions as a gateway to extremism.
It carries answers to philosophical questions ...
Assuming we can agree that religion is all hot air, any answers so derived must also be hot air.
The soul is another invention from religion, so, as with the philosophical answers, you can't really use it in an argument to support religion.
Unfortunately, here's where we really diverge. I am saying exactly the opposite. We are feeding a diet of, at best, myths and legends, and at worst fear, hate, misogeny and xenophobia to our children as TRUTHS and that is just wrong.
Sorry ... are you trying to say that we might be the leaser of two weevils?
Do what now? So this berk's list of tests for whether or not you're in a cult uses the bible as some sort of yardstick?
Anyone else uncomfortable with that please raise your hands!
Here's my take on the whole religion affair:
There are multiple religions and they mostly don't like other religions, each saying they are the true religion and the others are false. From this I can conclude that the chances that your religion is the correct one (if indeed there is a correct one) is small, therefore it is tantamount to child abuse to brainwash^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hteach your religion to children, your own or anyone elses.
Let's not enforce any religion on children. Let's wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Anything else is religious grooming and should be frowned upon by a modern society.
There is a theory that religion gained a foothold in the human mind due to a side effect of something useful, and evolution did the rest.
The idea is that it is a useful trait for small children to believe, without question, things their parents, and other adults, tell them. This has all sorts of useful safety aspects (don't go near the edge - water/cliff), and obviously helps the young to learn other aspects of life far more quickly than the other method, and its inherent dangers (ie - trial and error!).
So if a parent, or other adult, tells a kid that the Tooth Fairy will replace their old teeth with money, or that Father Christmas/Santa Clause will leave them presents if they are good they will, and do, believe it is so. Similarly, if your parents are religious you are likely to have been brought up to believe in the same religion as them. The difference is that when you get a bit older they let go of the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, but continue to reinforce the idea of their particular brand of religion!
Interestingly, the same predisposition to believing adults is often what paedophiles use to groom kids. So, perhaps if we changed the name of "Sunday School" to "Religious Grooming" it might be more obvious what is going on!
Riiiight. So, in essence, you are saying that the shockwave, which takes the form of a sound travels at (and I guess this must be the difficult bit?) the speed of sound. Yep ... a tricky concept indeed.
LOL ... see the plane leaving kinda suggests its passed? As in No Longer Approaching ? No?
As the plane passes overhead, the shockwave reaches the ground at the same time the plane has moved forward the same distance as the distance from the plane to the ground.
I guess if the plane is travelling at the speed of sound - yes indeedy, and as you say, the sound is travelling down so you can hear it, and, traditionally, planes travel more, well, across. So, and you may want to read this a couple of times, the plane causes a boom whilst above you, and you hear it after the plane has moved the same distance as the distance from the plane to the ground. You will indeed ... see the plane leaving .... So it's gone passed then?
Of course, if the plane is indeed travelling faster than the speed of sound then the departure may be more pronounced, but either way, this is much as I suggested, the sonic boom heralding the departure of the craft that caused it.
Sometimes I would see them arriving and wait for the boom.
OK ... and when would that "boom" be heard? Before they were overhead, or sometime after ... somewhat heralding the departure maybe?
Come on ... admit it ... you don't hear the boom until after the plane has passed (ie is no longer travelling towards) you - unless it is flying at (or V. near) ground level! ... OK ... You could be very tall, or standing on something very tall?
That said, at least we don't pay to recieve text messages in the UK (Europe) - that's totally crazy!
Does it now. Tell me, do you hear a lot of stupid? Well, I remember a wise man once saying stupid is as stupid does.
STEP AWAY FROM THE STUPID
Who the hell let them pass this law? ... oh yes ... we did! [sigh]
Perhaps it enters a grey area with imaginary numbers though. Some one came up with the idea (invented) of being able to get a square root of a negative number because it then helped them solve some equations. Were these imaginary numbers always there to be discovered?
I think it's quite interesting that a lot of the poorer, indeed third world [LOL - Australia ;-)], countries of today could be the power suppliers of tomorrow. Of course that will depend to a large degree on them stopping killing each other long enough to allow the current rich nations to come in and setup the plants!
The problem then becomes one of supply - how do you get the Solar Thermal riches of the Sahara up to Europe without massive power losses. There was a Chinese scientist 5 or 10 years ago who put forward an idea for a "Super Grid" to allow us to move power around the globe more efficiently. Maybe this needs a bit more thought!
If you own any equipement that can pick up the TV signals (TV, VCR/Video Recorder, TV Card for your PC, etc) then you need a licence for said equipement. If you decide not to use said equipement for watching BBC programs then you still pay, in much the same was as if you purchase a car and leave it parked on the road, but don't use it, you still have to pay the Road Fund Licence.
It is also arguable that the presence of the BBC in the UK is sufficient to raise the game of the other TV channels, so if you watch any UK TV you are potentialy benefitting from the BBC's presence.
Refering to it as a tax does you no favours either, because taxation has always been regardless of whether or not you use the facilities - childless people don't get a rebate because they don't use schools!
You can buy pretty reasonable projectors for £600 or so that will do a pretty good job of projecting a DVD onto a wall, and they typically don't contain a TV reciever and therefore would not require the TV Licence.
IMHO I would suggest that taking funds from the income tax monies would be the best alternative to the TV Licence, and that would be far better than making the BBC have to show adverts!