Yes, I'm well aware of your genocidal cheerleading. And you know I know, so I don't know why you're bothering... other than the fact that your personality is like a social disease.
Actually, according to the Diagnostic and Statician's Manual (Revision IV) my personality IS a form of a "social disease". Or maybe a better description would be an "anti-social disease".
Having said that- your sig indicated to me that you might be changing your mind- as that is most certainly a genocidal outlook, of kill them all and let God sort them out.
Why would you think I would hate to hear this? Please do not assume I'm a zealot of some sort, that's very insulting.
And yet you prove yourself a scientific zealot by following it up with:
Anyhow, you said it yourself: "Theology has it's own method of logic, theories, and experimentation." Here you're mistaking rationalization for methodology.
Nope- other way around. Methodology is a form of rationalization. There are MANY methodologies out there for finding truth, some better than others, but none that actually achieve finding truth.
My point was though- we now have weapons that if we had the guts to use them, don't require any mopping up- because there's nothing left alive TO mop up. No enemy, no civilians, no bunny rabbits, nothing.
Of course, that would be setting up a kill zone that would last a thousand years or more- effectively cutting off Exxon/Mobil's profit margine....
I have a tendency to agree more with the tactics in your signature- in which case infantry tends to be a weakness in an equation that includes nuclear weapons (in that the best attack would actually be from orbit using spy sats for information- no need for infantry because there is NOTHING left alive for hundreds of miles around the target area- and better yet no chance for the enemy to shoot back at our troops). But given that we're still trying to fight CONVENTIONAL warfare battles and limit the collateral damage we do- nothing beats small arms for selective fire.
You really don't know what macroevolution is, do you?
Actually I do- there are three distinct definitions. I'm just pointing out the widest one, which deals with "kinds" rather than mere species- hard lines between bacteria, plants, mammals, birds, reptiles and the like. The only SOLID evidence I've seen so far with this is the birds/reptiles connection, which is almost obvious in hindsight. We don't have much *yet* towards proving that form of macroevolution exists. That doesn't mean we will never have such evidence- just that it's a current big gaping hole in the theory that you can drive a mack truck through.
Every hybridization out there retains the form of the parent kinds. Every minor speciation stays the same, you don't get birds hatching mice out of their eggs.
Oh, if that's what you're looking for, then you want an extention of X10 protocol called alternately A10 or two-way transmitter X10Pro. Either way, the modules are about twice as expensive, and only slightly improve things by retransmitting their status every time their status is changed- though I've seen Mr.House and Homseer scripts that claim to eliminate noise problems this way, they're rather slow- end up with the light blinking on and then off two seconds later.
Surely it should be obvious that the scientific method and religious dogma operate in opposite ways?
No, in fact, they don't. The only real difference is the definition of "objective evidence" which changes with your worldview.
There is a big difference between the view "our holy book says it started so and so" and observing from the measurable domain how evolutionary mechanisms work and then extrapolate back to "day 1".
No, in fact, there isn't- both are merely stories based on certain points of view that attempt to extrapolate the past based on the present. Both are highly susceptible to the worldviews that define what is "subjective" or "objective". And NEITHER approaches anything close to a universal, unalterable, truth, but instead is merely "truth by consensus" within a given community of people sharing the same worldview, one that is not held to be true by a group of people with a different worldview.
The only result of the "everything is religion" argument is that the concept of "false" is removed from the discussion, which in turn results in a lecture on the rules of logic.
The rules of logic change between religious worldviews, and are no judge of either truth or falsehood, but rather whether a concept fits a particular arbitrary set of rules of logic. What is "true" or "false" by a logical system says more about the arbitrary set of rules of logic than it does about the existance of reality or lack thereof. From that standpoint, the concept of "false" is a total non-starter to begin with outside of the community that shares your particular worldview and rules of logic. However, overlapping infinities do count- and since any given logic system can discover any number of "truths" there is bound to be some overlap, but usually only with child communities that evolved out of the parent or grandparent community.
The X10 outlets are so sucky that I only have one left in my house- it's used rarely enough that the plastic ratchet on the relay has yet to break in 6 years- but that's ONLY because it's used rarely (had one that I was using nightly with XMAS lights one year- it lasted less than a week- while the appliance module I replaced it with exposed to weather has lasted for 5 years).
The motion detectors use RF Tranciever modules like the universal and keychain remotes, and the stick-a-switches. I've experienced the same problem with all four types of wireless remotes when batteries get low.
Well, at least halfway- the hardware has the localsense, but unless you spring for the two-way modules, does NOT report back status to the software. And I recommend the third party software (Mr. House or Homeseer) because it's just so much better (Homeseer even has this cool module that turns every phone in the house into a voice-activated remote), ActiveHome (X10's actual software) being a load of dingo's kidneys.
I've used X10 successfully for the last 8 years. Some things are better, some are worse. Mr.House (Linux Open Source) or Homeseer (Windows Closed Source but with an open API that uses VBScript of all things) are basic software that is needed to do anything useful. And you've got that backwards- local sense circuitry in alomost all X10 standard device controllers allow you to turn stuff ON from the device- but not OFF (or at least, not off and have it turn on by remote the next time).
Nothing worse that your bedroom light going on and off by itself in the middle of the night - no, whole house filtering didn't even work.
By any chance did you have their motion detectors elsewhere in the house, and your bedroom was on housecode A? I had this problem, and finally tracked it down to a weak battery in a motion detector. I now change the batteries fatithfully once a year, and haven't had the problem again in 6 years. (Reason- still a crappy product of a sort- the unit and house code are stored in RAM so a weak battery in remotes or motion detectors WILL reset to house/unit code A1).
The discussion STARTED in the domain of religion is what most people don't understand- the past is written and gone and at best we can have myths and theories about it that will never be proven because we can't travel backwards in time. For the most part, this is religion- regardless of the evidence for/against it.
Anyone who in this day and age still believes that humans did not evolve will never be convinced. They are incapable of realizing they are wrong if they havent already.
Exactly right- the only people who truly don't believe that human beings evolve are the same ones who still believe the mark of Cain to be black skin.
Anybody else can just compare their height to the recorded heights of ancestors less than 500 years ago- and to do this all you need to do is visit a museum with a reproduction of one of the Spanish Ships that Columbus used to discover the New World- human microevolution will be instantly obvious (and might even whack you in the head if you try to walk in the cabins built when human males were an average height of 4'9").
OTOH- this missing link does NOT neccessarily prove macroevolution- as the difference between the three "species" of Astralopithicus are rather minor- and are all as close to modern humans as chimpanzees are. Find the link between PIGS and APES and you'll have something.
The other thing Japan has a lot of is water. Since they have very few domestic natural gas reserves, I'd expect them to generate the hydrogen by water electrolysis, not by natural gas. There are some complications in using sea water for this, but it does work.
Well, actually, you'll probably hate to hear this, but the scientific method is merely a refinement of the Counciliar Method, which Christianity had used for 1800 years to decide theological questions (and still does- though the councils are down to one a century or so, depending on the denomination). Theology has it's own method of logic, theories, and experimentation in the form of liturgy. It has peer review; and a hierarchial structure that tries to keep some sembalance of reality in the whole mess.
The two systems of thought are not very dissimilar- there are differences of course (one of the basic ones being the circular argument, which means absolutely nothing to science, is considered a mark of truth in theology- theological things aren't true unless you can complete the circle), but in whole, they're very similar.
You know. I'd really like to see how these people would interpret quantum theory with their own special spin. We know that parts of the standard model are a bit iffy - wouldn't it be a better target for them?
Which people? However, if it's the group I think it is (theistic determinists) it all comes down to levels of infinity- and the size of the brain. What is chaotic to a finite human isn't neccessarily any more chaotic to a god than gunpowder exploding is chaotic to a caveman who had never seen it before.
Which of the two points made by the grandparent post is religious hogwash to you? The part questioning that mutation alone may not have been enough, or the part that a non-terrestrial intelligence was needed in certain places in our evolution? I ask because NEITHER of these look particularily religious to me, and I'm wondering why they do to you.
Note I'm not talking about ID as a whole, but just these two subtheories.
And you keep missing the point as well: HUMANS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS. What you call reality is merely YOUR PERSONAL worldview- and does not pertain to anybody else on the planet, let alone in the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm well aware of your genocidal cheerleading. And you know I know, so I don't know why you're bothering... other than the fact that your personality is like a social disease.
Actually, according to the Diagnostic and Statician's Manual (Revision IV) my personality IS a form of a "social disease". Or maybe a better description would be an "anti-social disease".
Having said that- your sig indicated to me that you might be changing your mind- as that is most certainly a genocidal outlook, of kill them all and let God sort them out.
Why would you think I would hate to hear this? Please do not assume I'm a zealot of some sort, that's very insulting.
And yet you prove yourself a scientific zealot by following it up with:
Anyhow, you said it yourself: "Theology has it's own method of logic, theories, and experimentation." Here you're mistaking rationalization for methodology.
Nope- other way around. Methodology is a form of rationalization. There are MANY methodologies out there for finding truth, some better than others, but none that actually achieve finding truth.
My point was though- we now have weapons that if we had the guts to use them, don't require any mopping up- because there's nothing left alive TO mop up. No enemy, no civilians, no bunny rabbits, nothing.
Of course, that would be setting up a kill zone that would last a thousand years or more- effectively cutting off Exxon/Mobil's profit margine....
I have a tendency to agree more with the tactics in your signature- in which case infantry tends to be a weakness in an equation that includes nuclear weapons (in that the best attack would actually be from orbit using spy sats for information- no need for infantry because there is NOTHING left alive for hundreds of miles around the target area- and better yet no chance for the enemy to shoot back at our troops). But given that we're still trying to fight CONVENTIONAL warfare battles and limit the collateral damage we do- nothing beats small arms for selective fire.
You really don't know what macroevolution is, do you?
Actually I do- there are three distinct definitions. I'm just pointing out the widest one, which deals with "kinds" rather than mere species- hard lines between bacteria, plants, mammals, birds, reptiles and the like. The only SOLID evidence I've seen so far with this is the birds/reptiles connection, which is almost obvious in hindsight. We don't have much *yet* towards proving that form of macroevolution exists. That doesn't mean we will never have such evidence- just that it's a current big gaping hole in the theory that you can drive a mack truck through.
Every hybridization out there retains the form of the parent kinds. Every minor speciation stays the same, you don't get birds hatching mice out of their eggs.
Back to the begining- when you can plant vegetable seeds and raise cows on stalks, we'll talk bout proof of macroevolution.
Oh, if that's what you're looking for, then you want an extention of X10 protocol called alternately A10 or two-way transmitter X10Pro. Either way, the modules are about twice as expensive, and only slightly improve things by retransmitting their status every time their status is changed- though I've seen Mr.House and Homseer scripts that claim to eliminate noise problems this way, they're rather slow- end up with the light blinking on and then off two seconds later.
Surely it should be obvious that the scientific method and religious dogma operate in opposite ways?
No, in fact, they don't. The only real difference is the definition of "objective evidence" which changes with your worldview.
There is a big difference between the view "our holy book says it started so and so" and observing from the measurable domain how evolutionary mechanisms work and then extrapolate back to "day 1".
No, in fact, there isn't- both are merely stories based on certain points of view that attempt to extrapolate the past based on the present. Both are highly susceptible to the worldviews that define what is "subjective" or "objective". And NEITHER approaches anything close to a universal, unalterable, truth, but instead is merely "truth by consensus" within a given community of people sharing the same worldview, one that is not held to be true by a group of people with a different worldview.
The only result of the "everything is religion" argument is that the concept of "false" is removed from the discussion, which in turn results in a lecture on the rules of logic.
The rules of logic change between religious worldviews, and are no judge of either truth or falsehood, but rather whether a concept fits a particular arbitrary set of rules of logic. What is "true" or "false" by a logical system says more about the arbitrary set of rules of logic than it does about the existance of reality or lack thereof. From that standpoint, the concept of "false" is a total non-starter to begin with outside of the community that shares your particular worldview and rules of logic. However, overlapping infinities do count- and since any given logic system can discover any number of "truths" there is bound to be some overlap, but usually only with child communities that evolved out of the parent or grandparent community.
The X10 outlets are so sucky that I only have one left in my house- it's used rarely enough that the plastic ratchet on the relay has yet to break in 6 years- but that's ONLY because it's used rarely (had one that I was using nightly with XMAS lights one year- it lasted less than a week- while the appliance module I replaced it with exposed to weather has lasted for 5 years).
The motion detectors use RF Tranciever modules like the universal and keychain remotes, and the stick-a-switches. I've experienced the same problem with all four types of wireless remotes when batteries get low.
I'll have to give that a try- it never would have occured to me! But yes, it's logical that would work.
Well, at least halfway- the hardware has the localsense, but unless you spring for the two-way modules, does NOT report back status to the software. And I recommend the third party software (Mr. House or Homeseer) because it's just so much better (Homeseer even has this cool module that turns every phone in the house into a voice-activated remote), ActiveHome (X10's actual software) being a load of dingo's kidneys.
I've used X10 successfully for the last 8 years. Some things are better, some are worse. Mr.House (Linux Open Source) or Homeseer (Windows Closed Source but with an open API that uses VBScript of all things) are basic software that is needed to do anything useful. And you've got that backwards- local sense circuitry in alomost all X10 standard device controllers allow you to turn stuff ON from the device- but not OFF (or at least, not off and have it turn on by remote the next time).
Nothing worse that your bedroom light going on and off by itself in the middle of the night - no, whole house filtering didn't even work.
By any chance did you have their motion detectors elsewhere in the house, and your bedroom was on housecode A? I had this problem, and finally tracked it down to a weak battery in a motion detector. I now change the batteries fatithfully once a year, and haven't had the problem again in 6 years. (Reason- still a crappy product of a sort- the unit and house code are stored in RAM so a weak battery in remotes or motion detectors WILL reset to house/unit code A1).
the discussion ends up in the domain of religion
The discussion STARTED in the domain of religion is what most people don't understand- the past is written and gone and at best we can have myths and theories about it that will never be proven because we can't travel backwards in time. For the most part, this is religion- regardless of the evidence for/against it.
Pigs and apes share a common ancestor
Which would be a significant link between the species- if you could find it. This far back the fossil record gets rather spotty at best.
Anyone who in this day and age still believes that humans did not evolve will never be convinced. They are incapable of realizing they are wrong if they havent already.
Exactly right- the only people who truly don't believe that human beings evolve are the same ones who still believe the mark of Cain to be black skin.
Anybody else can just compare their height to the recorded heights of ancestors less than 500 years ago- and to do this all you need to do is visit a museum with a reproduction of one of the Spanish Ships that Columbus used to discover the New World- human microevolution will be instantly obvious (and might even whack you in the head if you try to walk in the cabins built when human males were an average height of 4'9").
OTOH- this missing link does NOT neccessarily prove macroevolution- as the difference between the three "species" of Astralopithicus are rather minor- and are all as close to modern humans as chimpanzees are. Find the link between PIGS and APES and you'll have something.
The other thing Japan has a lot of is water. Since they have very few domestic natural gas reserves, I'd expect them to generate the hydrogen by water electrolysis, not by natural gas. There are some complications in using sea water for this, but it does work.
How do you figure?
Well, actually, you'll probably hate to hear this, but the scientific method is merely a refinement of the Counciliar Method, which Christianity had used for 1800 years to decide theological questions (and still does- though the councils are down to one a century or so, depending on the denomination). Theology has it's own method of logic, theories, and experimentation in the form of liturgy. It has peer review; and a hierarchial structure that tries to keep some sembalance of reality in the whole mess.
The two systems of thought are not very dissimilar- there are differences of course (one of the basic ones being the circular argument, which means absolutely nothing to science, is considered a mark of truth in theology- theological things aren't true unless you can complete the circle), but in whole, they're very similar.
I didn't know we had any qualms to begin with- we actually still have foot troops going into battle alongside tanks at close range?!?!?!?
Yes, basically just a smart, ranged version of the reactive armor our tanks already possess.
You know. I'd really like to see how these people would interpret quantum theory with their own special spin. We know that parts of the standard model are a bit iffy - wouldn't it be a better target for them?
Which people? However, if it's the group I think it is (theistic determinists) it all comes down to levels of infinity- and the size of the brain. What is chaotic to a finite human isn't neccessarily any more chaotic to a god than gunpowder exploding is chaotic to a caveman who had never seen it before.
Which of the two points made by the grandparent post is religious hogwash to you? The part questioning that mutation alone may not have been enough, or the part that a non-terrestrial intelligence was needed in certain places in our evolution? I ask because NEITHER of these look particularily religious to me, and I'm wondering why they do to you.
Note I'm not talking about ID as a whole, but just these two subtheories.
Theology too, is a form of methodology- just one that most westerners aren't used to dealing with.
And you keep missing the point as well: HUMANS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS. What you call reality is merely YOUR PERSONAL worldview- and does not pertain to anybody else on the planet, let alone in the universe.