I'll see about linking to those studies once I'm finished re-imaging my laptop.
I'm laughing quietly to myself now thinking about you re-imaging your laptop. Is that the special one you store all your atheist dogma and theology on? As Dr. Evil would say, is it an... evil... laptop? Semi-evil? Quasi-evil? The margarine of evil?
Where to start, given your failure to rebut my claims, your lack of self-awareness (not recognizing yourself in that particular XKCD with your own "rapid-fire" responses to me).... Sigh. In some ways, we are more alike, you and I.
One day you will be wiser, youngling, one day.... That will be a pleasing day for you:) Blessings.
If you can read and write standardized English, thank the King James Bible. Few people are aware of this now 400 years after its publication. Happy anniversary, KJV!
The KJV is freely (as in libre and beer) available in many formats (PDF, plain txt, MS Word DOC and RTF, to name a few) over this new-fangled communications and data exchange medium called the Internet, for use on your PC or data pad. Printing? Now that may cost for materials and time/labor.
According to numerous studies, while its not impossible to be intelligent and believe in god, it automatically deducts about 20 IQ points to have such a belief.
OK, formally calling shenanigans. This is just more "conventional wisdom" bullshit and it needs to be boldly refuted to one's face. See here. Comparing the quotes of Nyborg vs. Lynn (who have done similar research and worked together) is interesting:
Nyborg: "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical."
Lynn: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."
Some points:
1. The difference in IQ is 5 or 6, not 20. Oops. 2. Nyborg's statement is weaker, Lynn's stronger, for correlation between IQ and lack of belief. But in neither case do the researchers say that faith means a person "automatically" has a lower IQ. You take a claim that goes in one direction and turn it around, and then make a stronger claim than either of these researchers themselves. (So that I'm not misunderstood, the Gallop polls referred to find those with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, not that faith in God indicates a person has a lower IQ.) Oops II: Revenge of the Oops. 3. I'm not the biggest Wikipedia fan (unless one is quite naive, one understands that editors who are motivated enough to do a lot of work rarely have a NPOV; they work for some payoff which, more often than not, is supporting their own beliefs since, by and large, they aren't paid workers), but unless there are numerous-2 studies the article doesn't report on... well, the number of studies you claim falls a little short.
According to numerous studies, while its not impossible to be intelligent and believe in god, it automatically deducts about 20 IQ points to have such a belief.
Huh? Citations of numerous publications or it didn't happen. Making stuff up doesn't automatically get you positive karma, even on/..
More provacatively: Only stupid atheists think anyone who believes in God is much more likely to be less intelligent than they are.
Gotta love the usual religion bash. Let other people be, maybe? Maybe some of us are quite intelligent, is that at all possible?
What's funny to me isn't the religion bashing (which is a bit shop-worn by now, isn't it?). What's funny is the KJV bashing.
Breaking news: All translations of the original Hebrew and Koine Greek scriptures say the same thing, though one can argue some are expressed in the modern languages in a more liberal or more conservative way. The KJV is falling out of favor for its use of courtly or "Elizabethan" English, but is still the basic English bible of many Christian churches around the world. Its use (or abandonment) does not signify a "literal" interpretation, namely, one which ignores the understanding since before the Christian era that "Scripture should interpret Scripture."
Didn't know to whom to reply, so I replied to myself. So sue me.
specifically targeted at tracking down and persecuting and killing members of Falun Gong?
"Specifically targeted at... members of Falun Gong" is the nexus of this case. It may be morally wrong to sell arms. It may be morally wrong to sell censoring or 'net tracking equipment and technology. But this is not a case of moral law. It's one of law, as in court of law. If they can't prove they specifically targeted the plaintiffs, there is no case. Of course, this also addresses the voluminous holier-than-thou "arms dealer" expressions of moral outrage. Good for you!
Not saying what they did is right. Just saying the lawsuit is crapola. It doesn't stand a chance. As someone wrote below (and perhaps above), this is likely something akin to a publicity filing.
/. -- Proving the "wisdom of crowds" is often suspect since 19-whatever.
Do you really think that Cisco is stupid enough or greedy enough to willingly develop technology for and in partnership with the Chinese government specifically targeted at tracking down and persecuting and killing members of Falun Gong? Hey, you might be right, but I doubt it.
The 12th century called. They'd like their Crusades back, please.
Related lawsuit filed against second U.S. corp.
on
Falun Gong Sues Cisco
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
The Chinese group, through further assistance of the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Law Foundation, has filed a multi-billion dollar US lawsuit against Ford Motor Corporation. They have documented the use of numerous models of Ford vehicles by Chinese government officers in the arrest of members of the religious group, leading to their false imprisonment, torture, and wrongful death.
Farnsworth: And this is my universal translator. Unfortunately so far it only translates into an incomprehensible dead language. Cubert: Hello. Universal Translator: Bonjour! Farnsworth: Crazy gibberish!
You didn't read the whole article. Turns out there is global evidence:
"Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67S, 172.43E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75C warmer than the Current Warm Period."[40] The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record.
Seems the experts disagree. Seems you're quoting a particular disputed opinion that supports your point of view. Just like so many other deniers of the truth, the truth that our planet's climate is bigger than we are, and is controlled by the sun. You know, that big, blindingly bright, glowing ball in the sky during the day?
Only a doofus leaves his wireless router open, unencrypted and not password protected in some way. When the one weirdo in my town accidentally stumbles onto my open AP and proceeds to download gigs of child porn while I'm asleep, it'll be impossible for me to prove I didn't download it. I may be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but in the news and my community I, like others, will be considered guilty until proven innocent.
A user who wants to share his connection (despite possible violation of his ISP's ToS) and is not a brain-dead, naive, trust-anyone, first-class moron will give his neighbors the SSID and encryption passphrase. But first, he'll have them sign a one paragraph permission form written in plain language, for his own legal protection.
So, are you stupid enough to do everything the EFF tells you to without thinking about it first?
Nice to see that Watts is taking his personal war on science to the next level.
How is that citation in any way a "war on science?" (Basic conclusion of the blog post to which the parent referred: "radiation is everywhere.") Please, no "ad hominem" attacks, not even on "Watts Up With That?", not even if you are a fervent believer in anthropic global warming. I myself found the little article in question interesting, in no way scare-mongering, and 100% factually and scientifically based. (FYI, M.S. in physics here.)
Now, if you think that this article represents a "war on science," I cannot fathom what you refer to as "science." This would tend to lead me to question any positions you hold which are based on what you consider to be "science." IMHO, of course.
The very first word in your "+5 Informative" diatribe is a derogatory term blanketing all administrators of Windows systems. Anything else you have to say should now be taken as extremely biased, if not plain ignorant. I've been an administrator of Unix systems for over 20 years, and an administrator of Linux and Windows servers since their early days. Being a Windows admin does not mean that one is uniformed or technically inept, any more than being a *nix admin makes one smarter.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. If it wasn't true for at least a statistically relevant number of samples, then the stereotype would not exist.
Yeah, those damn lazy black people, always raping our precious white women.
"What is, 'Hey, where the white women at?' I'll take Racist Movie Quotes for $600, please, Alex."
Perl as a language is designed to reflect the idiosyncrasies of the human brain.
I call shenanigans. Did a quick Google search. The only page I could find using words vaguely like these to refer to Perl is this one. (Isn't Google amazing? It's already indexed this article thread....)
So, you're telling us that as Perl grew from a simple string manipulating scripting language, Larry built into its design syntax and methods which mirror the way programmers' wetware minds work? That is... grandiose... to say the least.
He may say TMTOWTDI, but he (apparently) doesn't say Perl is designed to play off of the brain's foibles...?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll see about linking to those studies once I'm finished re-imaging my laptop.
I'm laughing quietly to myself now thinking about you re-imaging your laptop. Is that the special one you store all your atheist dogma and theology on? As Dr. Evil would say, is it an... evil... laptop? Semi-evil? Quasi-evil? The margarine of evil?
Where to start, given your failure to rebut my claims, your lack of self-awareness (not recognizing yourself in that particular XKCD with your own "rapid-fire" responses to me).... Sigh. In some ways, we are more alike, you and I.
One day you will be wiser, youngling, one day.... That will be a pleasing day for you :) Blessings.
If you can read and write standardized English, thank the King James Bible. Few people are aware of this now 400 years after its publication. Happy anniversary, KJV!
The KJV is freely (as in libre and beer) available in many formats (PDF, plain txt, MS Word DOC and RTF, to name a few) over this new-fangled communications and data exchange medium called the Internet, for use on your PC or data pad. Printing? Now that may cost for materials and time/labor.
According to numerous studies, while its not impossible to be intelligent and believe in god, it automatically deducts about 20 IQ points to have such a belief.
OK, formally calling shenanigans. This is just more "conventional wisdom" bullshit and it needs to be boldly refuted to one's face. See here. Comparing the quotes of Nyborg vs. Lynn (who have done similar research and worked together) is interesting:
Nyborg: "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical."
Lynn: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."
Some points:
1. The difference in IQ is 5 or 6, not 20. Oops.
2. Nyborg's statement is weaker, Lynn's stronger, for correlation between IQ and lack of belief. But in neither case do the researchers say that faith means a person "automatically" has a lower IQ. You take a claim that goes in one direction and turn it around, and then make a stronger claim than either of these researchers themselves. (So that I'm not misunderstood, the Gallop polls referred to find those with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, not that faith in God indicates a person has a lower IQ.) Oops II: Revenge of the Oops.
3. I'm not the biggest Wikipedia fan (unless one is quite naive, one understands that editors who are motivated enough to do a lot of work rarely have a NPOV; they work for some payoff which, more often than not, is supporting their own beliefs since, by and large, they aren't paid workers), but unless there are numerous-2 studies the article doesn't report on... well, the number of studies you claim falls a little short.
According to numerous studies, while its not impossible to be intelligent and believe in god, it automatically deducts about 20 IQ points to have such a belief.
Huh? Citations of numerous publications or it didn't happen. Making stuff up doesn't automatically get you positive karma, even on /..
More provacatively: Only stupid atheists think anyone who believes in God is much more likely to be less intelligent than they are.
I weep for you, sir or madame.
Gotta love the usual religion bash. Let other people be, maybe? Maybe some of us are quite intelligent, is that at all possible?
What's funny to me isn't the religion bashing (which is a bit shop-worn by now, isn't it?). What's funny is the KJV bashing.
Breaking news: All translations of the original Hebrew and Koine Greek scriptures say the same thing, though one can argue some are expressed in the modern languages in a more liberal or more conservative way. The KJV is falling out of favor for its use of courtly or "Elizabethan" English, but is still the basic English bible of many Christian churches around the world. Its use (or abandonment) does not signify a "literal" interpretation, namely, one which ignores the understanding since before the Christian era that "Scripture should interpret Scripture."
Ask that pillar over there that used to be Lot's wife....
Ha! /. mods are, more or less, developmentally challenged. Not fans of satire? Oh, sorry, IQ not high enough to comprehend satire. Sheesh.
Didn't know to whom to reply, so I replied to myself. So sue me.
specifically targeted at tracking down and persecuting and killing members of Falun Gong?
"Specifically targeted at... members of Falun Gong" is the nexus of this case. It may be morally wrong to sell arms. It may be morally wrong to sell censoring or 'net tracking equipment and technology. But this is not a case of moral law. It's one of law, as in court of law. If they can't prove they specifically targeted the plaintiffs, there is no case. Of course, this also addresses the voluminous holier-than-thou "arms dealer" expressions of moral outrage. Good for you!
Not saying what they did is right. Just saying the lawsuit is crapola. It doesn't stand a chance. As someone wrote below (and perhaps above), this is likely something akin to a publicity filing.
/. -- Proving the "wisdom of crowds" is often suspect since 19-whatever.
Do you really think that Cisco is stupid enough or greedy enough to willingly develop technology for and in partnership with the Chinese government specifically targeted at tracking down and persecuting and killing members of Falun Gong? Hey, you might be right, but I doubt it.
via forced violence like Christianity
The 12th century called. They'd like their Crusades back, please.
The Chinese group, through further assistance of the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Law Foundation, has filed a multi-billion dollar US lawsuit against Ford Motor Corporation. They have documented the use of numerous models of Ford vehicles by Chinese government officers in the arrest of members of the religious group, leading to their false imprisonment, torture, and wrongful death.
It's probably in French.
Farnsworth: And this is my universal translator. Unfortunately so far it only translates into an incomprehensible dead language.
Cubert: Hello.
Universal Translator: Bonjour!
Farnsworth: Crazy gibberish!
... I'm afraid I can't help you with your research on schizophrenia....
You didn't read the whole article. Turns out there is global evidence:
"Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67S, 172.43E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75C warmer than the Current Warm Period."[40] The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record.
Seems the experts disagree. Seems you're quoting a particular disputed opinion that supports your point of view. Just like so many other deniers of the truth, the truth that our planet's climate is bigger than we are, and is controlled by the sun. You know, that big, blindingly bright, glowing ball in the sky during the day?
Wow! So true! It's amazing that there were no major tornado outbreaks prior to the planet's current catastrophic global warming.
There. Two more lies debunked. Carry on.
Only a doofus leaves his wireless router open, unencrypted and not password protected in some way. When the one weirdo in my town accidentally stumbles onto my open AP and proceeds to download gigs of child porn while I'm asleep, it'll be impossible for me to prove I didn't download it. I may be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but in the news and my community I, like others, will be considered guilty until proven innocent.
A user who wants to share his connection (despite possible violation of his ISP's ToS) and is not a brain-dead, naive, trust-anyone, first-class moron will give his neighbors the SSID and encryption passphrase. But first, he'll have them sign a one paragraph permission form written in plain language, for his own legal protection.
So, are you stupid enough to do everything the EFF tells you to without thinking about it first?
+1, IN SPADES.
Someone with mod points, *please* mod parent up :)
Why has no one tagged this story "haha"???
HA-ha!
P.S.: And I don't mean the episode(s) about the Mormons. (If you're still clueless, think "Wii.")
Well over 1,000 comments and no one has made the expected, if not obligatory, reference to a well-known series of South Park episodes?!?!?!
Nice to see that Watts is taking his personal war on science to the next level.
How is that citation in any way a "war on science?" (Basic conclusion of the blog post to which the parent referred: "radiation is everywhere.") Please, no "ad hominem" attacks, not even on "Watts Up With That?", not even if you are a fervent believer in anthropic global warming. I myself found the little article in question interesting, in no way scare-mongering, and 100% factually and scientifically based. (FYI, M.S. in physics here.)
Now, if you think that this article represents a "war on science," I cannot fathom what you refer to as "science." This would tend to lead me to question any positions you hold which are based on what you consider to be "science." IMHO, of course.
Windoze admins...
The very first word in your "+5 Informative" diatribe is a derogatory term blanketing all administrators of Windows systems. Anything else you have to say should now be taken as extremely biased, if not plain ignorant. I've been an administrator of Unix systems for over 20 years, and an administrator of Linux and Windows servers since their early days. Being a Windows admin does not mean that one is uniformed or technically inept, any more than being a *nix admin makes one smarter.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. If it wasn't true for at least a statistically relevant number of samples, then the stereotype would not exist.
Yeah, those damn lazy black people, always raping our precious white women.
"What is, 'Hey, where the white women at?' I'll take Racist Movie Quotes for $600, please, Alex."
House, is that you?
Perl as a language is designed to reflect the idiosyncrasies of the human brain.
I call shenanigans. Did a quick Google search. The only page I could find using words vaguely like these to refer to Perl is this one. (Isn't Google amazing? It's already indexed this article thread....)
So, you're telling us that as Perl grew from a simple string manipulating scripting language, Larry built into its design syntax and methods which mirror the way programmers' wetware minds work? That is... grandiose... to say the least.
He may say TMTOWTDI, but he (apparently) doesn't say Perl is designed to play off of the brain's foibles...?