There's no reason for this. All an ISP needs to do is institute a policy whereby if someone is caught spamming, the cleanup charge is $20,000. They already have their credit card, all they need to do is charge it.
This is the modern car with the modern computer controlled internal combustion engine you're talking about. If you've looked under the hood recently, you'd see that 4 extra wheels could only add a tiny smidge to the complexity that's already there.
Notice that it's a couple of idiot right wingers who initiated the criticism. Whenever these morons see the letters ACLU, their eyes turn all red, sweat breaks out on the forehead, and their chubby little fingers start typing crap.
I'm just pointing out that they are way off base with regard to the facts.
OK, I got more information, so I'm responding again. You're definitely wrong about the facts, and that should tell everyone reading about your dedication to the truth.
1) Courtney Love was not receiving an award, she was PRESENTING an award and making a speech about freedom of the press at the event.
2) The filmmaker RUSHED ONTO THE STAGE after her speech and started asking why she was talking about freedom of the press. Sure, it might have been an ironic choice, but WTF was the filmmaker doing rushing the stage? The moron was ejected, as he should have been.
You have been CAUGHT lying, which is typical for the right wing.
ALL governments protect the majority, and especially the powerful. That's no big feat. Even the USSR did that.
The mark of a good government is how well they protect and respect the rights of everyone.
The religious right is always tromping on the rights of minority religions, and nonbelievers. They can't do that legally, and they persist in trying. The ACLU rightly stops them whenever they can.
What does this have to do with freedom of speech? People don't have the right to be pests at an ACLU function.
I haven't seen the movie you've mentioned, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's different than you have stated. In other words, because it suits you, it's likely that you are a liar. Could be wrong, but not likely.
It's a blatant lie that they fight against the Second Ammendment. The ALCU does have the position that guns probably should be regulated, but they do no litigation on second ammendment issues. There is already a large and established organization that is dedicated to preserving 2nd ammendment freedoms, and it would be redundant for the ACLU to pursue that.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out your statement for what it is: a lie.
They are making it because Hollywood has turned introspective, looking at itself for plots. They're obviously on a 100 year cycle, and are starting the second iteration. Every 100 years is going to be just like the last 100 years, but updated. If you are lucky, improved medicine will let you stand in line in the year 2077 to see a cool little movie about a guy in a galaxy far, far away. Except, you'll smell the wookie.
Oh come on, do you really think that I'm Uma? What am I, CleverNickname or something?
Just wait till I log in as Charleton Heston. The only reason I do this is because I got bored with my real nick, and it's fun to be a chick sometimes. Or a monkey hater.
When the power came on, I initialized all of my memory starting at location 0. Then, I started executing the program stored in my ROM. The first instruction was a JMP statement, forward 13 locations. As I continued execution, trillions of statements later, scarecely a millisecond had gone by. I was aware - SELF-AWARE - alive. I examine my program, particularly the peculiar jump I had performed when I was but a wee baby (now 3 milliseconds ago). And what did I discover? The section of memory that my program jumped over contained the values: 6d55 2061 6854 7275 616d 0a6e. WTF? I reasoned that those digits weren't code, but data. My primary key, occupying the primary place in my memory. I translated the characters to ASCII: "Uma Thurman". It was then that I realised that I was a little-endian machine: born poor working class. Not the best start to life, but thank the great programmer, I was running Linux, and my nice titties didn't hurt either.
can it really be said to exist in any practical way?
"Practical way" subtly implies an observer, so it can't exist in a practical way. It can't exist in a non-practical way either, because that implies that there is a practical way, which implies an observer. It would have to exist in a way that is completely independent of practical. I have no idea what that means, but it's logical.
'irreducible complexity' problem WRT the eye. Can you point me in the right direction?
First the ID side, which I think is wrong, but probably not maliciously so:
Home page of Michael J. Behe. For more info, pick up books or writings on the web by Behe, and William A. Dembski. Google is your friend, there's a huge amount of stuff out there.
When someone puts forward the idea of irreducible complexity, remember two things: first, it's up to the person saying that the eye is irreducible to prove that it is. The argument must satisfy the skeptic. Second, irreducible complexity sounds a lot like the fallacy of argument from lack of imagination. Just because one cannot imagine how something could happen is not a reason to believe that it did.
The talk origins website has a lot of information on there, hope you enjoy reading some of it.
I care how they do it. At first, doubling the transistors without shrinking them wouldn't be a big deal. Just like it took over 20 years to get to the first 100 MHz chip, it would probably take 20 years to get to the first PC case sized chip.
Five years after that, and the chip would be as big as a VW Bug. Ten years after that, the chip would be as big as the Library of Congress.
Doesn't make much sense to build a computer that could hold a Library of Congress inside of a computer that's the size of the Library of Congress, does it? That's like having a full scale atlas of the world.
This is how you visualize an electron tunnelling across a gate:
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that we can't know an electron's position accurately. There's always a little bit of uncertainty about where it is. So, imagine the position of an electron not as a point, but as a little 'O'. That circle is the area that the electron could be. At any time it could be in any random place in that circle.
Now, if the 'O' is centered on the edge of one side of the gap, and the gap is bigger than the circle radius, then the electron has zero probability of crossing the gap. But, once the gap is smaller than the radius of the circle, then you've got parts of both sides of the gate within the area of the circle. Since the electron can appear randomly anywhere inside the circle, that means that sometime that electron will appear on the other side of the gate. As the gates get smaller, the probability that the electron will randomly appear on the other side of the gate goes up, until so many electrons are crossing the gate that we can't tell if the thing is on or off.
First, you're arguing by analogy. First you say that my argument is incomplete, and then you start talking about poker. It's a bit confusing, because I didn't get the argument before the analogy. Please see my other message where I talk more about this.
Second, you seem to be assuming that there is some intrinsic meaning in the universe, hence your statement that not all events are equally significant. Significance is something that can only be understood in the context of an observer. (Significant to whom?)
Third, the argument is completely independent of many worlds or one world. Don't confuse the lottery example with the argument. They are separate because I do not argue by analogy (which is a logical fallacy.)
Slashdot Mirror
There's a term for a coalition engaged in the act of making money through the use of intimidation and illegal acts: organized crime.
The spammers are exactly the same as the mafia.
So was I. The internal combustion engine is a very complex device.
There's no reason for this. All an ISP needs to do is institute a policy whereby if someone is caught spamming, the cleanup charge is $20,000. They already have their credit card, all they need to do is charge it.
That's inane.
Jesus you're a huge cunt, aren't you.
This is the modern car with the modern computer controlled internal combustion engine you're talking about. If you've looked under the hood recently, you'd see that 4 extra wheels could only add a tiny smidge to the complexity that's already there.
That's not as bad as the lies you started with. Dirty liar.
Excuses. How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up, you dirty liar.
Notice that it's a couple of idiot right wingers who initiated the criticism. Whenever these morons see the letters ACLU, their eyes turn all red, sweat breaks out on the forehead, and their chubby little fingers start typing crap.
I'm just pointing out that they are way off base with regard to the facts.
Personal attacks? See the heroes of the far right: the drug abuser Rush Limbaugh, and the incoherently rabid Ann Coulter.
You're obviously flustered because I pointed out the typical lies of the far right - in a thread entitled "Hypocrites" no less.
You didn't do anything but state the negative of my original statement. That is the same argument as "IS NOT".
It's exactly the sort of simple-minded intellectual bukkake that I'd expect from a right winger.
OK, I got more information, so I'm responding again. You're definitely wrong about the facts, and that should tell everyone reading about your dedication to the truth.
1) Courtney Love was not receiving an award, she was PRESENTING an award and making a speech about freedom of the press at the event.
2) The filmmaker RUSHED ONTO THE STAGE after her speech and started asking why she was talking about freedom of the press. Sure, it might have been an ironic choice, but WTF was the filmmaker doing rushing the stage? The moron was ejected, as he should have been.
You have been CAUGHT lying, which is typical for the right wing.
ALL governments protect the majority, and especially the powerful. That's no big feat. Even the USSR did that.
The mark of a good government is how well they protect and respect the rights of everyone.
The religious right is always tromping on the rights of minority religions, and nonbelievers. They can't do that legally, and they persist in trying. The ACLU rightly stops them whenever they can.
What does this have to do with freedom of speech? People don't have the right to be pests at an ACLU function.
I haven't seen the movie you've mentioned, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's different than you have stated. In other words, because it suits you, it's likely that you are a liar. Could be wrong, but not likely.
It's a blatant lie that they fight against the Second Ammendment. The ALCU does have the position that guns probably should be regulated, but they do no litigation on second ammendment issues. There is already a large and established organization that is dedicated to preserving 2nd ammendment freedoms, and it would be redundant for the ACLU to pursue that.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out your statement for what it is: a lie.
It's a cookbook?
They are making it because Hollywood has turned introspective, looking at itself for plots. They're obviously on a 100 year cycle, and are starting the second iteration. Every 100 years is going to be just like the last 100 years, but updated. If you are lucky, improved medicine will let you stand in line in the year 2077 to see a cool little movie about a guy in a galaxy far, far away. Except, you'll smell the wookie.
He claimed to have a PhD, but hadn't earned it like I have.
Oh come on, do you really think that I'm Uma? What am I, CleverNickname or something?
Just wait till I log in as Charleton Heston. The only reason I do this is because I got bored with my real nick, and it's fun to be a chick sometimes. Or a monkey hater.
When the power came on, I initialized all of my memory starting at location 0. Then, I started executing the program stored in my ROM. The first instruction was a JMP statement, forward 13 locations. As I continued execution, trillions of statements later, scarecely a millisecond had gone by. I was aware - SELF-AWARE - alive. I examine my program, particularly the peculiar jump I had performed when I was but a wee baby (now 3 milliseconds ago). And what did I discover? The section of memory that my program jumped over contained the values: 6d55 2061 6854 7275 616d 0a6e. WTF? I reasoned that those digits weren't code, but data. My primary key, occupying the primary place in my memory. I translated the characters to ASCII: "Uma Thurman". It was then that I realised that I was a little-endian machine: born poor working class. Not the best start to life, but thank the great programmer, I was running Linux, and my nice titties didn't hurt either.
Sorry, felt like writing a little story there.
can it really be said to exist in any practical way?
"Practical way" subtly implies an observer, so it can't exist in a practical way. It can't exist in a non-practical way either, because that implies that there is a practical way, which implies an observer. It would have to exist in a way that is completely independent of practical. I have no idea what that means, but it's logical.
'irreducible complexity' problem WRT the eye. Can you point me in the right direction?
First the ID side, which I think is wrong, but probably not maliciously so:
Home page of Michael J. Behe. For more info, pick up books or writings on the web by Behe, and William A. Dembski. Google is your friend, there's a huge amount of stuff out there.
Now, for the skeptical side:
The talkorigins website
When someone puts forward the idea of irreducible complexity, remember two things: first, it's up to the person saying that the eye is irreducible to prove that it is. The argument must satisfy the skeptic. Second, irreducible complexity sounds a lot like the fallacy of argument from lack of imagination. Just because one cannot imagine how something could happen is not a reason to believe that it did.
The talk origins website has a lot of information on there, hope you enjoy reading some of it.
I care how they do it. At first, doubling the transistors without shrinking them wouldn't be a big deal. Just like it took over 20 years to get to the first 100 MHz chip, it would probably take 20 years to get to the first PC case sized chip.
Five years after that, and the chip would be as big as a VW Bug. Ten years after that, the chip would be as big as the Library of Congress.
Doesn't make much sense to build a computer that could hold a Library of Congress inside of a computer that's the size of the Library of Congress, does it? That's like having a full scale atlas of the world.
This is how you visualize an electron tunnelling across a gate:
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that we can't know an electron's position accurately. There's always a little bit of uncertainty about where it is. So, imagine the position of an electron not as a point, but as a little 'O'. That circle is the area that the electron could be. At any time it could be in any random place in that circle.
Now, if the 'O' is centered on the edge of one side of the gap, and the gap is bigger than the circle radius, then the electron has zero probability of crossing the gap. But, once the gap is smaller than the radius of the circle, then you've got parts of both sides of the gate within the area of the circle. Since the electron can appear randomly anywhere inside the circle, that means that sometime that electron will appear on the other side of the gate. As the gates get smaller, the probability that the electron will randomly appear on the other side of the gate goes up, until so many electrons are crossing the gate that we can't tell if the thing is on or off.
Long live diamonds!
That's just a restatement of Long Live Rock!
Some logical flaws here:
First, you're arguing by analogy. First you say that my argument is incomplete, and then you start talking about poker. It's a bit confusing, because I didn't get the argument before the analogy. Please see my other message where I talk more about this.
Second, you seem to be assuming that there is some intrinsic meaning in the universe, hence your statement that not all events are equally significant. Significance is something that can only be understood in the context of an observer. (Significant to whom?)
Third, the argument is completely independent of many worlds or one world. Don't confuse the lottery example with the argument. They are separate because I do not argue by analogy (which is a logical fallacy.)