You're correct; this is a possibility. I think the point of the article is that now that information is available about a large sample of people without so much as leaving your house.
Okay, this doesn't really make sense. What if your company runs on extremely tight deadlines? Where clients don't always double-check that their emailed order was received but expect a job to be done/shipped/delivered the same day?
It's not exactly feasible for most companies to offsite one or more employees just to maintain a constant internet presence.
Web hosting isn't the only vital internet service.
Generally speaking, it's acknowledged that their might be as much as a sum total.5 degrees celcius increase in global temperature in the past century. (Although this is debated, obviously, we'll assume for the moment that it's accurate.)
Can you provide any proof that it's man-caused warming? Can you provide any proof that it's CO2 related?
How could we have a 20 year cooling period in the middle of the century when the steady increases in CO2 should've been causing steady increases in warming?
An otherwise intelligent person who will swallow the most outlandish claims and entertain the most unlikely possibilities, all because it's got the word GOD attached to it.
And many otherwise intelligent people will reject any possibility if it has the word "God" attached to it.
I'm willing to acknowledge that there is some foundation for your beliefs because I've studied the opposing viewpoint. Your refusal to offer the same consideration is evidence that you have no idea whether or not I have empirical or scientific basis on my side because you would never consider studying or reading anything that argued against what you already take on faith.
You and I will seek to prove with the same evidence what we already believe. The difference is that I'm honest about it and am happy to inspect and consider new evidence, while you are unwilling to acknowledge anything that disagrees with your point of view as evidence at all.
What's wrong with giving students an opportunity to consider all the evidence and making an informed decision? Why the obsession with excluding facts from the discussion just because they don't agree with your conclusions?
To assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist...
My point was simply that until you know everything and are able to explain everything scientifically -- which if you're honest, you'll acknowledge you cannot -- that there is the possibility that God or a Prime Mover of some sort is responsible. An absolute denial of God is an indefensible position to take logically, as most people are unwilling to claim that they know everything.
You (apparently) disbelieve in invisible pink unicorns, but you believe that something came from nothing? You think that nothingness, by pure chance, turned into the universe we see today? Yet, the likelihood that there are invisible pink unicorns is higher than the idea that the laws of nature were violated in creating the laws of nature. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, how did nature progress from a less ordered to more ordered system, without outside influence?)
Explain that to me, since you have absolute knowledge of the non-existence of God, there shouldn't be anything you can't explain.
You're right: The vast majority of believers never question their faith, never apply the same rules of skepticism and requirements of proof that they do for everything else...
And you, just like any other believer, refuse to consider questioning your faith.
The reason outspoken atheists are rare is that the absolute denial of the existence of God is a difficult position to defend when one has to acknowledge that they do not know everything.
It's called 3.5 million voters deciding to vote for Bush -- and not for Kerry.
I know it's almost inconcievable that the people would choose Bush over Kerry, but look at the slashdot polls. Think about it, the people who are most likely to have hacking skills aren't the conservative republicans: they're the liberal, slashdot/techie crowd.
So, if there was any hacking going on, it's just as fair to assume that the liberals techs were fiddling with the count just as much as the conservative techs. Maybe it's time to call every past election that relied on this equipment into question.
That's a pretty common misconception. Almost all of the pro photographers I know have one (or two) main lenses that they carry around with them. It's the amateurs that horde lenses and equpiment.
I'm inclined to disagree with this based on reading books and comments by Jim Zuckerman and other professional photographers who regularly pack a number of lenses along on photo shoots since they never know what they might run across.
I currently only own a 20mm and a 28-105mm, but can definitely see that if I took more pictures I would like to a have an 80-400 or something with a lot more zoom.
A variety of lenses allows you to be more creative in specific situations. If you're shooting all one thing (e.g., studio, portrait, landscapes, etc.) then perhaps only one or two lenses would be sufficient.
People tend to forget that a Film SLR doesn't depreciate as rapidly as a Digital and with good hardware like a high resolution negative drum scanner, you will get a picture quality that far exceeds a Digital.
Agreed that digital hardware depreciates rapidly, but the availability of relatively low-cost advanced digital hardware is also accelerating the depreciation of analog cameras.
But "far exceeds"? Our Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED will scan at 4000 ppi from a 35mm negative or slide. This equates to roughly 23/24 megapixels. My Kodak DCS 14n will take pictures at 13.5 megapixels. I can easily do 24" prints on our inkjet from that size.
I think it's no longer realistic to use "higher quality" as a reason not to buy a digital camera. Higher quality for less money? Maybe. But, how many people want to go buy a slide/film scanner or pay someone to scan them at high-quality? We were the only company in our area that offered hi-res slide scanning for quite some time. I'm still not sure if anyone else provides scans at this resolution.
...provided you don't print most of your pictures (could get expensive printing).
Take your camera or card to Wal-Mart or any other one-hour camera shop and they'll do prints for you for the same cost or less than analog.
The money saved by knowing immediately that the pictures you're taking are what you actually want far outweighs (to me) any advantages of analog.
Which is why my Nikon N90s will be on Ebay shortly...
Slashdot Mirror
Ssh! Stop giving them ideas...
That's what so many people fail to realize: the US investment
in the military and defense is an investment in peace.
If you have left off your second paragraph and included
a source link about this happening, this would've been
a helpful and up-mod worthy post.
A cake.
(A cheesecake, actually.)
I'm aware that he's a statistician, but he still provides
an environmental evaluation in economic terms.
The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist.
Oh? Before Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist where he arrives at nearly the opposite conclusion?
You're correct; this is a possibility. I think the point of the article is that
now that information is available about a large sample of people without
so much as leaving your house.
-~
Okay, this doesn't really make sense. What if your company
runs on extremely tight deadlines? Where clients don't
always double-check that their emailed order was received
but expect a job to be done/shipped/delivered the same day?
It's not exactly feasible for most companies to offsite
one or more employees just to maintain a constant internet
presence.
Web hosting isn't the only vital internet service.
They'd just refuse to accept the mail, most likely.
Translation: "The facts are stupid."
Yes, I'm happy that you admit your true point of view.
It is so much easier to attack the person than the idea.
This black list was nothing to joke about. People lost their lives, lost their businesses, lost their homes, and were falsely jailed.
Give one example?
Generally speaking, it's acknowledged that their might be .5 degrees celcius increase in global
as much as a sum total
temperature in the past century. (Although this is debated,
obviously, we'll assume for the moment that it's accurate.)
Can you provide any proof that it's man-caused warming?
Can you provide any proof that it's CO2 related?
How could we have a 20 year cooling period in the middle
of the century when the steady increases in CO2 should've
been causing steady increases in warming?
The man is a racist homophobic bigot...
Have you read his Memory of Earth series...? I thought
he treated homosexual characters well -- in fact, I was
surprised to even see them mentioned.
An otherwise intelligent person who will swallow the most outlandish claims and entertain the most unlikely possibilities, all because it's got the word GOD attached to it.
And many otherwise intelligent people will reject any possibility if it has the word "God" attached to it.
I'm willing to acknowledge that there is some foundation for your beliefs because I've studied the opposing viewpoint. Your refusal to offer the same consideration is evidence that you have no idea whether or not I have empirical or scientific basis on my side because you would never consider studying or reading anything that argued against what you already take on faith.
You and I will seek to prove with the same evidence what we already believe. The difference is that I'm honest about it and am happy to inspect and consider new evidence, while you are unwilling to acknowledge anything that disagrees with your point of view as evidence at all.
What's wrong with giving students an opportunity to consider all the evidence and making an informed decision? Why the obsession with excluding facts from the discussion just because they don't agree with your conclusions?
To assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist...
My point was simply that until you know everything and are able to explain everything scientifically -- which if you're honest, you'll acknowledge you cannot -- that there is the possibility that God or a Prime Mover of some sort is responsible. An absolute denial of God is an indefensible position to take logically, as most people are unwilling to claim that they know everything.
You (apparently) disbelieve in invisible pink unicorns, but you believe that something came from nothing? You think that nothingness, by pure chance, turned into the universe we see today? Yet, the likelihood that there are invisible pink unicorns is higher than the idea that the laws of nature were violated in creating the laws of nature. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, how did nature progress from a less ordered to more ordered system, without outside influence?)
Explain that to me, since you have absolute knowledge of the non-existence of God, there shouldn't be anything you can't explain.
You're right: The vast majority of believers never question their faith, never apply the same rules of skepticism and requirements of proof that they do for everything else...
And you, just like any other believer, refuse to consider questioning your faith.
From physics, and chemistry, we know that systems tend to remain in equilibrium, unless perturbed.
So in an evolutionary system, what does the "perturbing" that causes the evolving?
To assume that God does not exist because his existence cannot be proven is no less flawed.
Unless you have proven that he does not exist, in which case I'd be fascinated to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.
Agnosticism -- or an acknowledgement of ignorance -- is the most realistic position for the skeptic to adopt.
Perhaps there are those who believe that proponents of evolution are simply making up so much grap that the people debunking it can hardly keep up.
There are many brilliant people on both sides of this issue; unfortunately, not very many of them are posting on this discussion.
That's like saying people only die in car accidents because the cars weren't designed well enough.
Is there anything that is so well-designed that it can't be misused, or that damage can't be caused by its misuse?
The reason outspoken atheists are rare is that the absolute denial of the existence of God is a difficult position to defend when one has to acknowledge that they do not know everything.
...isn't it, but YES, the vote was hacked!
It's called 3.5 million voters deciding to vote for Bush -- and not for Kerry.
I know it's almost inconcievable that the people would choose Bush over Kerry, but look at the slashdot polls. Think about it, the people who are most likely to have hacking skills aren't the conservative republicans: they're the liberal, slashdot/techie crowd.
So, if there was any hacking going on, it's just as fair to assume that the liberals techs were fiddling with the count just as much as the conservative techs. Maybe it's time to call every past election that relied on this equipment into question.
That's a pretty common misconception. Almost all of the pro photographers I know have one (or two) main lenses that they carry around with them. It's the amateurs that horde lenses and equpiment.
I'm inclined to disagree with this based on reading books and comments by Jim Zuckerman and other professional photographers who regularly pack a number of lenses along on photo shoots since they never know what they might run across.
I currently only own a 20mm and a 28-105mm, but can definitely see that if I took more pictures I would like to a have an 80-400 or something with a lot more zoom.
A variety of lenses allows you to be more creative in specific situations. If you're shooting all one thing (e.g., studio, portrait, landscapes, etc.) then perhaps only one or two lenses would be sufficient.
People tend to forget that a Film SLR doesn't depreciate as rapidly as a Digital and with good hardware like a high resolution negative drum scanner, you will get a picture quality that far exceeds a Digital.
...provided you don't print most of your pictures (could get expensive printing).
Agreed that digital hardware depreciates rapidly, but the availability of relatively low-cost advanced digital hardware is also accelerating the depreciation of analog cameras.
But "far exceeds"? Our Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED will scan at 4000 ppi from a 35mm negative or slide. This equates to roughly 23/24 megapixels. My Kodak DCS 14n will take pictures at 13.5 megapixels. I can easily do 24" prints on our inkjet from that size.
I think it's no longer realistic to use "higher quality" as a reason not to buy a digital camera. Higher quality for less money? Maybe. But, how many people want to go buy a slide/film scanner or pay someone to scan them at high-quality? We were the only company in our area that offered hi-res slide scanning for quite some time. I'm still not sure if anyone else provides scans at this resolution.
Take your camera or card to Wal-Mart or any other one-hour camera shop and they'll do prints for you for the same cost or less than analog.
The money saved by knowing immediately that the pictures you're taking are what you actually want far outweighs (to me) any advantages of analog.
Which is why my Nikon N90s will be on Ebay shortly...
The end of our oil supply is near!
(Reality: if we're using up our oil, why aren't reserves decreasing?)
Actually you can buy them from Amazon.com or CDNow
Sorry.