By not condemning murder, rape, and slavery because "what kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being" is condoning it.
My question would be what kind of idiot thinks they can please/gain-favor-with/enjoy-the-everlasting-company of an omnipotent, omnipresent being they can never understand?
Here is a recycled post from the last "light pollution is a stupid term and no one should care" discussion:
I know this is Slashdot and nothing should surprise me but the hostility towards dark sky preservation is kind of scary. I think it is important to understand that being able to see the Milky Way from Times Square is not the goal. Being able to see the Milky Way after a 2-3 hour drive from Times Square should be possible. Putting a little more thought and effort toward how we light our highly populated areas to reduce energy use and cost, improve visibility, and allow us to preserve our night sky seems obviously beneficial to me.
While I'm sure people in Central Park would enjoy the night sky, I empathize with their concern for safety and well lit areas certainly feel more secure. I am suggesting that they would need to travel for a bit in order to enjoy the night sky. Another words, the people who are trying to preserve the night sky aren't suggesting the cities turn out their lights, just shine their lights toward the ground instead of toward the sky. You can drive an hour or so from a small city to see a somewhat dark sky and still see a mighty glow from the cities direction. While I understand the glow can never be eliminated, it certainly can and should be reduced.
One final thought - even if there were no benefits like cost savings, energy savings, and better lighting, the idea of dark sky preservation is akin to other environmental concerns. Just because we don't all enjoy sloshing through wetlands or cutting our way through a rain forest doesn't mean those areas shouldn't be conserved. I say the same goes for the night sky. We may not all be awed by the glow of a full moon, a fiery meteor blazing through the sky, or just watching the twinkling of a million stars but we shouldn't take away the opportunity for all of us and future generations from seeing what many of us feel is the most amazing and spectacular thing imaginable: our universe.
I don't think this is true. There are probably more, but NASA's Galileo probe carried some plutonium. Galileo was the probe that was in Jupiter's orbit starting in 1995. It is my understanding that the type of plutonium used was more unstable that the kind used in bomb-making so the designers had to disperse the plutonium throughout the probe. The fear of contaminating Jupiter's moons, especially Europa, spurred NASA to decide to plunge the probe into Jupiter's atmosphere rendering it harmless. This occurred almost four years ago to the day (Sept. 21, 2003).
So while I don't know much about plutonium, satellites or vomit-inducing meteors, but after the fuss NASA made about the plutonium-carrying Galileo, it sounds like satellites (even satellites of distant planets) carrying plutonium are the exception rather than the rule.
I don't know what kind of job you have but luckily I can misspell many things without anyone being an ass and pointing out my mistakes - provided my message is clear. "Their"," there", and "they're" mistakes are easily overlooked and often go unnoticed.
I think what the grammar/spelling nit-pickers fail to realize is while most of us would like to spell perfectly and use grammar correctly, we all do not have access to copy editors to revise our posts to slashdot and make corrections for errors. And if the nit-picker would truly help with a "I think you meant" or even a "I believe you misspelled...", most of us would acknowledge our mistakes and in the future, attempt to correct our spelling and use correct grammar. Unfortunately, it appears to take a "special" someone to correct other peoples spelling and grammar and politeness does not seem to be their strong suit.
So to all those who correct grammar/spelling, please try to be polite and you may see your pet peeve of bad grammar and incorrect spelling reduced. And to all those whose grammar and spelling are corrected, even though the delivery is poor or even rude, attempting to communicate more clearly and effectively is a noble goal so ignore the delivery but not the message.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic - what was it again?
I know this is Slashdot and nothing should surprise me but the hostility towards dark sky preservation is kind of scary. I think it is important to understand that being able to see the Milky Way from Times Square is not the goal. Being able to see the Milky Way after a 2-3 hour drive from Times Square should be possible. Putting a little more thought and effort toward how we light our highly populated areas to reduce energy use and cost, improve visibility, and allow us to preserve our night sky seems obviously beneficial to me.
While I'm sure people in Central Park would enjoy the night sky, I empathize with their concern for safety and well lit areas certainly feel more secure. I am suggesting that they would need to travel for a bit in order to enjoy the night sky. Another words, the people who are trying to preserve the night sky aren't suggesting the cities turn out their lights, just shine their lights toward the ground instead of toward the sky. You can drive an hour or so from a small city to see a somewhat dark sky and still see a mighty glow from the cities direction. While I understand the glow can never be eliminated, it certainly can and should be reduced.
One aside - I am familiar with the wind farm being erected in one of the few remaining dark sky sites in the eastern United States. A few changes (like moving them a short distance or using red "safe" lights) would have made them astronomy friendly. While this may not seem important to many, the area was obviously a haven for astronomers from all over the area especially since the park has been working hard to make it even more friendly - like installing astronomical domes with electricity and renting them for a nominal fee. so it goes. end aside.
One final thought - even if there were no benefits like cost savings, energy savings, and better lighting, the idea of dark sky preservation is akin to other environmental concerns. Just because we don't all enjoy sloshing through wetlands or cutting our way through a rain forest doesn't mean those areas shouldn't be conserved. I say the same goes for the night sky. We may not all be awed by the glow of a full moon, a fiery meteor blazing through the sky, or just watching the twinkling of a million stars but we shouldn't take away the opportunity for all of us and future generations from seeing what many of us feel is the most amazing and spectacular thing imaginable: our universe.
I apologize if this was not your meaning, but it sounds as if you have trouble relating to the speed in which some mutations spread while other organisms appear stagnant.
From my very limited understanding, I think once an organism reaches an evironmentally stable situation is when genetic changes appear to slow. Another words, cockroaches don't appear to change since they are very successful as they are now. The genetic mutations that do occur, like most mutations, are mostly negative so do not get any traction in the gene pool. And mutations that appear to us to be positive (bigger, faster, stronger, the ability to shoot fireballs out of their asses), may have unknown negative impacts on the cockroaches environment so would still be negative and not be spread through the species. So as long as an unstable environment exists, mutations could occur (relatively) rapidly but once a stable environment is available, mutations can't get a foothold to make a major impact on the species.
An aside on humans and cockroaches: maybe the cockroaches had to reach a stabilized evolutionary situation before humans were able to reach our current state. On the other hand, I recently heard (I can't recall where) that without humans, cockroaches' territories would (relatively) quickly retreat back to the tropics and their numbers would drop drastically because they rely on us for warmth and food.
So I don't think any kind of time-based clock has much impact on mutations getting a foothold but environment and reproductive success means everything. So a mutation that had tremodous reproductive success would quickly get traction and permeate the gene pool even though the mutation may have existed for millions of years but the "timing", that is, the environmental factors, were not right. So you the words "time" and "timing" appear to me to be used as shortcut language for mutations rapidly exploiting ripe evironmental conditions. The actual passage of time, other than allowing mutations to spread through the gene pool, has impact in the changing environments in which organisms survive or perish.
It does sound like a bad PR stunt. I don't think burning a book is the same as not reading it. I mean the book that is burned can not be read by anyone. Even though it is regarding the book by Tom Wolfe, I'm glad the article at least mentions the Bonfire of the Vanities - apparantly without humor - but no mention of Farenheit 451?
You're right - I forgot my sarcastic tags for my post (but should have probably used the lame-ass-pointless tag on my post for accuracy) but thank you for the link.
True. And now when I argue with ID'ers/Creationists, I can no longer use the good old "you don't see people clamoring to hear both sides of the Holocaust". Drat!
The early manned space flights and especially the missions to the moon seemed to encourage a lot of kids to get interested in science generally and astronomy specifically. I don't know if another manned lunar mission or two would generate the same buzz with children today but this may be an argument in favor of manned space flight. An additional argument for space fight, manned or unmanned, would be that sooner or later (most likely much, much later) we are going to have to get off this rock in order to survive as a species. I realize we have more pressing survival issues but those issues do not negate the possibility of being smashed to bits by something hurtling our way or the eventual demise of our sun or an, as yet, unknown danger.
I think you are being too hard on Randi. And he did take down Popoff on Carson. I agree he focuses more on illusion but he does so because he is a magician and debunks what he knows - which ends up being a lot of paranormal claims (the million-dollar prize and all that). He is rightly revered for his selflessness and dedication and started an educational foundation. You can read all about it at www.randi.org. Unless I'm mistaken, you are looking for more political action from atheists and not all skeptics fall into that group.
I understand your point but pairing freedom and security seems odd. It has been my experience that with more freedom comes less security and vice versa, as supplied by government anyway.
I would love to see more games for the Mac since I think it would benefit everyone. So you know, Age of Empires II and III (and Age of Mythology) are available for the Mac. I'm not sure about the others you mentioned.
Your story is awesome! Remember that you can see all those stars (and other things) shining out any clear night when the moon is within a week or two of new from a non-light polluted area.
Your interpretation sounds reasonable to me and I agree that my opinion would have a much stronger argument without the "well regulated militia" clause. We are also in a agreement that the clause is there for a reason which as you say might be used for justification. And with rights comes responsibilities so a random guy that is known to have a few screws loose isn't guaranteed a gun. Although, for now, I still understand the "after-the-comma" part to trump any milita justification.
Well I'll be damned! Thankfully, I guess there really is always room for debate!
I understand what you're saying. There should always be debate. Heck, I know some people who oppose private firearm ownership that argue about what the framers meant by "people", "militia" and even "infringed". However i don't find it vague at all.
Regardless of what you believe their intent was, as I mentioned, read some more of what TJ, BF, GW, TP, JA, and others had to say, in their own words not that Wikipedia out-of-context crap, about the people being armed and I think you'll find the meaning becomes quite clear. If you really doubt what it says, try changing the wording up a bit:
The original:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
What I think it means:
We need to keep a standing army around to protect our country, but the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be outlawed especially since we just got done fighting a standing army with an armed citizenry.
or maybe...
Since we just got done fighting a war against a militia, we will keep our citizens well armed in case they need to fight again.
Notes on your sig:
I think you better re-read the second amendment. You may or may not agree with the second amendment but there should be little debate on what it actually says. The first part of the sentence is the reason for the second part. That is, since an armed militia is necessary to secure our country, the right of the people (the citizens) to keep guns (and yes that includes those "evil" assault rifles) shall not be restricted by the government. It becomes glaringly obvious if you read some other things the founding fathers wrote. And also, keep in mind the people who wrote the second amendment just finished fighting a militia with a citizen army who often brought their own guns to the fight.
Anyway, sorry to be off-topic but your sig prompted me to read your site. Also, labeling all southerners - no scratch that - labeling all anything is usually a mistake. For the record, I am not a southerner.
And the number one way to stop the RIAA is to stop buying music. Put your money where your mouth is and enjoy the music you already have or enjoy the music you or your friends make. If enough of us stop giving the RIAA our money they'll disappear. Of course, breaking out the weapons cache sounds exciting too but I'd rather fight over something more (much more) important.
Not that this has much to do with the article but I believe that the green part of potatotoes (both stems, leaves and tuber) can indicate the prescence of solanine which when ingested in large quantities can be deadly poisonous. I should mention the green is an indication of solanine and not the solanine itself or proof that solanine is present. Having said that, it is still best to avoid home-grown green potatoes. Commercially-grown potatoes are screened for high solanine levels.
Slashdot Mirror
My question would be what kind of idiot thinks they can please/gain-favor-with/enjoy-the-everlasting-company of an omnipotent, omnipresent being they can never understand?
I know this is Slashdot and nothing should surprise me but the hostility towards dark sky preservation is kind of scary. I think it is important to understand that being able to see the Milky Way from Times Square is not the goal. Being able to see the Milky Way after a 2-3 hour drive from Times Square should be possible. Putting a little more thought and effort toward how we light our highly populated areas to reduce energy use and cost, improve visibility, and allow us to preserve our night sky seems obviously beneficial to me.
While I'm sure people in Central Park would enjoy the night sky, I empathize with their concern for safety and well lit areas certainly feel more secure. I am suggesting that they would need to travel for a bit in order to enjoy the night sky. Another words, the people who are trying to preserve the night sky aren't suggesting the cities turn out their lights, just shine their lights toward the ground instead of toward the sky. You can drive an hour or so from a small city to see a somewhat dark sky and still see a mighty glow from the cities direction. While I understand the glow can never be eliminated, it certainly can and should be reduced.
One final thought - even if there were no benefits like cost savings, energy savings, and better lighting, the idea of dark sky preservation is akin to other environmental concerns. Just because we don't all enjoy sloshing through wetlands or cutting our way through a rain forest doesn't mean those areas shouldn't be conserved. I say the same goes for the night sky. We may not all be awed by the glow of a full moon, a fiery meteor blazing through the sky, or just watching the twinkling of a million stars but we shouldn't take away the opportunity for all of us and future generations from seeing what many of us feel is the most amazing and spectacular thing imaginable: our universe.
For Arizona - you could start your search here: http://starizona.com/acb/ clear skies!
They taste like chicken!
So while I don't know much about plutonium, satellites or vomit-inducing meteors, but after the fuss NASA made about the plutonium-carrying Galileo, it sounds like satellites (even satellites of distant planets) carrying plutonium are the exception rather than the rule.
I don't know what kind of job you have but luckily I can misspell many things without anyone being an ass and pointing out my mistakes - provided my message is clear. "Their"," there", and "they're" mistakes are easily overlooked and often go unnoticed.
I think what the grammar/spelling nit-pickers fail to realize is while most of us would like to spell perfectly and use grammar correctly, we all do not have access to copy editors to revise our posts to slashdot and make corrections for errors. And if the nit-picker would truly help with a "I think you meant" or even a "I believe you misspelled ...", most of us would acknowledge our mistakes and in the future, attempt to correct our spelling and use correct grammar. Unfortunately, it appears to take a "special" someone to correct other peoples spelling and grammar and politeness does not seem to be their strong suit.
So to all those who correct grammar/spelling, please try to be polite and you may see your pet peeve of bad grammar and incorrect spelling reduced. And to all those whose grammar and spelling are corrected, even though the delivery is poor or even rude, attempting to communicate more clearly and effectively is a noble goal so ignore the delivery but not the message.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic - what was it again?
While I'm sure people in Central Park would enjoy the night sky, I empathize with their concern for safety and well lit areas certainly feel more secure. I am suggesting that they would need to travel for a bit in order to enjoy the night sky. Another words, the people who are trying to preserve the night sky aren't suggesting the cities turn out their lights, just shine their lights toward the ground instead of toward the sky. You can drive an hour or so from a small city to see a somewhat dark sky and still see a mighty glow from the cities direction. While I understand the glow can never be eliminated, it certainly can and should be reduced.
One aside - I am familiar with the wind farm being erected in one of the few remaining dark sky sites in the eastern United States. A few changes (like moving them a short distance or using red "safe" lights) would have made them astronomy friendly. While this may not seem important to many, the area was obviously a haven for astronomers from all over the area especially since the park has been working hard to make it even more friendly - like installing astronomical domes with electricity and renting them for a nominal fee. so it goes. end aside.
One final thought - even if there were no benefits like cost savings, energy savings, and better lighting, the idea of dark sky preservation is akin to other environmental concerns. Just because we don't all enjoy sloshing through wetlands or cutting our way through a rain forest doesn't mean those areas shouldn't be conserved. I say the same goes for the night sky. We may not all be awed by the glow of a full moon, a fiery meteor blazing through the sky, or just watching the twinkling of a million stars but we shouldn't take away the opportunity for all of us and future generations from seeing what many of us feel is the most amazing and spectacular thing imaginable: our universe.
From my very limited understanding, I think once an organism reaches an evironmentally stable situation is when genetic changes appear to slow. Another words, cockroaches don't appear to change since they are very successful as they are now. The genetic mutations that do occur, like most mutations, are mostly negative so do not get any traction in the gene pool. And mutations that appear to us to be positive (bigger, faster, stronger, the ability to shoot fireballs out of their asses), may have unknown negative impacts on the cockroaches environment so would still be negative and not be spread through the species. So as long as an unstable environment exists, mutations could occur (relatively) rapidly but once a stable environment is available, mutations can't get a foothold to make a major impact on the species.
An aside on humans and cockroaches: maybe the cockroaches had to reach a stabilized evolutionary situation before humans were able to reach our current state. On the other hand, I recently heard (I can't recall where) that without humans, cockroaches' territories would (relatively) quickly retreat back to the tropics and their numbers would drop drastically because they rely on us for warmth and food.
So I don't think any kind of time-based clock has much impact on mutations getting a foothold but environment and reproductive success means everything. So a mutation that had tremodous reproductive success would quickly get traction and permeate the gene pool even though the mutation may have existed for millions of years but the "timing", that is, the environmental factors, were not right. So you the words "time" and "timing" appear to me to be used as shortcut language for mutations rapidly exploiting ripe evironmental conditions. The actual passage of time, other than allowing mutations to spread through the gene pool, has impact in the changing environments in which organisms survive or perish.
It does sound like a bad PR stunt. I don't think burning a book is the same as not reading it. I mean the book that is burned can not be read by anyone. Even though it is regarding the book by Tom Wolfe, I'm glad the article at least mentions the Bonfire of the Vanities - apparantly without humor - but no mention of Farenheit 451?
You're right - I forgot my sarcastic tags for my post (but should have probably used the lame-ass-pointless tag on my post for accuracy) but thank you for the link.
What is this moderation system of whence you speak?
True. And now when I argue with ID'ers/Creationists, I can no longer use the good old "you don't see people clamoring to hear both sides of the Holocaust". Drat!
The early manned space flights and especially the missions to the moon seemed to encourage a lot of kids to get interested in science generally and astronomy specifically. I don't know if another manned lunar mission or two would generate the same buzz with children today but this may be an argument in favor of manned space flight. An additional argument for space fight, manned or unmanned, would be that sooner or later (most likely much, much later) we are going to have to get off this rock in order to survive as a species. I realize we have more pressing survival issues but those issues do not negate the possibility of being smashed to bits by something hurtling our way or the eventual demise of our sun or an, as yet, unknown danger.
I think you are being too hard on Randi. And he did take down Popoff on Carson. I agree he focuses more on illusion but he does so because he is a magician and debunks what he knows - which ends up being a lot of paranormal claims (the million-dollar prize and all that). He is rightly revered for his selflessness and dedication and started an educational foundation. You can read all about it at www.randi.org. Unless I'm mistaken, you are looking for more political action from atheists and not all skeptics fall into that group.
May I have more space in my home directory now, please?
I understand your point but pairing freedom and security seems odd. It has been my experience that with more freedom comes less security and vice versa, as supplied by government anyway.
And the Iridium flares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_flare) are fun to watch!
I would love to see more games for the Mac since I think it would benefit everyone. So you know, Age of Empires II and III (and Age of Mythology) are available for the Mac. I'm not sure about the others you mentioned.
Your story is awesome! Remember that you can see all those stars (and other things) shining out any clear night when the moon is within a week or two of new from a non-light polluted area.
Well I'll be damned! Thankfully, I guess there really is always room for debate!
Regardless of what you believe their intent was, as I mentioned, read some more of what TJ, BF, GW, TP, JA, and others had to say, in their own words not that Wikipedia out-of-context crap, about the people being armed and I think you'll find the meaning becomes quite clear. If you really doubt what it says, try changing the wording up a bit:
The original: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
What I think it means: We need to keep a standing army around to protect our country, but the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be outlawed especially since we just got done fighting a standing army with an armed citizenry.
or maybe... Since we just got done fighting a war against a militia, we will keep our citizens well armed in case they need to fight again.
Well i guess that is pretty much the same thing.
What do you think it means?
Notes on your sig: I think you better re-read the second amendment. You may or may not agree with the second amendment but there should be little debate on what it actually says. The first part of the sentence is the reason for the second part. That is, since an armed militia is necessary to secure our country, the right of the people (the citizens) to keep guns (and yes that includes those "evil" assault rifles) shall not be restricted by the government. It becomes glaringly obvious if you read some other things the founding fathers wrote. And also, keep in mind the people who wrote the second amendment just finished fighting a militia with a citizen army who often brought their own guns to the fight. Anyway, sorry to be off-topic but your sig prompted me to read your site. Also, labeling all southerners - no scratch that - labeling all anything is usually a mistake. For the record, I am not a southerner.
And the number one way to stop the RIAA is to stop buying music. Put your money where your mouth is and enjoy the music you already have or enjoy the music you or your friends make. If enough of us stop giving the RIAA our money they'll disappear. Of course, breaking out the weapons cache sounds exciting too but I'd rather fight over something more (much more) important.
Not that this has much to do with the article but I believe that the green part of potatotoes (both stems, leaves and tuber) can indicate the prescence of solanine which when ingested in large quantities can be deadly poisonous. I should mention the green is an indication of solanine and not the solanine itself or proof that solanine is present. Having said that, it is still best to avoid home-grown green potatoes. Commercially-grown potatoes are screened for high solanine levels.