[they] didn't tell their victims what they had in store for em
Ah, poor Canadians. Is that why the world is seeing such massive waves of immigrants from Canada flying the catastrophe?
Did your parents use to tell you that the socialist would take you if you didn't finnish your vegetables or something? You sound that scared, you know...
Your first two examples are simply examples of hardware manufacturers actively refusing to have their hardware supported. And you somehow see this as a problem on the OSS side?
So in your world view, demanding proof for abio-genesis is ignorance, and anyone who doesn't believe that man is the highest form of life is 'sad'.
If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I never wrote that. I hinted that concluding that the existence of a higher being from the absence of evidence of abiogenesis is sad.
Deciding that anyone who doesn't believe as you do as 'ignorance' is so clueless and ironic I can't even comment on it.
Clearly, you did not understand my post. `Reasoning from ignorance', in my post refers to a well known fallacy, in which one deduces something from ones ignorance of something, as in
"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true" or "I (currently) cannot understand how this can be so complicated, so the only possible explanation is this".
Let me rewrite your last sentence for you: I do not know how to prove it in a lab, therefore X doesn't exist.
It works the other way, really: If I can see (in a general sense) something in a lab, then I know it exists. I do not believe in what cannot be observed, measured, weighed, or deduced from its effects on other things that can be observed, measured and weighed.
Do you believe in things that are unobservable?
Believing in the Bible and Christ isn't ignorance, its faith in things which exist outside our ability to comprehend. Its pure ego and hubris to declare that nothing exists outside your ability to comprehend it.
This again is unrelated to my post, as you read `ignorance' in a way completely unrelated to what I wrote.
I am curious, have you made your presence known to the E Coli which inhabit our world? Until you do we don't exist, you know.
This is absurd. I really do not have any problem with the existence of a god, in so far as it is assumed to have absolutely no influence in anything---a completely ineffectual God. Now, if you want to switch to a God on whose whims things occur, then it is a different matter, because now that could be observed, and so far no one has ever, ever, ever, ever, observed it.
Hm. So you think that nothing has changed since those colonists departed from England? I wonder what source of news (and history!) you consume regularly...
I agree to a point, but why not allow the debate in public schools if both are not proven?
The fact that is is not proven (neither can be proven, so that's sort of a truism, but anyways...) is not enough to justify spending time and money on them. There are lots of other things that are not `proven': are you proposing the FSM be incorporated to the science curriculum?
The criterion for inclusion in the science curriculum is not `it has to be proven' (if it were, the science curriculum would be empty).
The statement `it occurred through the will of God' does not mean anything. It is absolutely impossible to check its validity not its falsity. It states something about a being whose existence we have no way of confirming, much less verifying that it has a will. There is no indication of the way in which `ocurring' works, and it provides absolutely no hint on how to tell what will `occur through God's will' or, really, on how to tell anything.
It is simply the kind of statements one expects the Church to emit, in view of their pride not allowing them to say they are wrong.
Of course no.t. But people started accepting the fact that it was round when evidence was gathered on that fact. We are all still waiting for the slightiest, tiniest, smallest, most insignifcant piece of evidence for the existence of, say, God...
I actually think the fact that you believe that the existence of a higher being `is much more logical' than anything is what is funny, in a sad way. In the end, your line of thought is nothing more than reasoning from ignorance: I do not know, therefore X exists.
Are you seriously saying there has been a risk, at any time in recent history, that the US somehow come under the dominion of whoever-you-seem-to-regard-as-the-evil-enemy-right-now?
In your mind you see this war and, in particular, waterboarding as a way to avoid being forced to convert and having your daughters become property?
Maybe you should consider looking at alternative sources of information...
I do not accept that waterboarding anyone at all is acceptable. But, in your view: how do you know that the person you are waterboarding is willing to kill or aid in killing thousands of civilians? If you can be so, so wrong that your intelligence can make you invade a whole country in search of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist, in howany ways can you be wrong about the intentions of a person?
The only chance we have of any free will at all is in quantum weirdness which is not much free will to speak of Here's a thought experiment I've had in the past - I'd be interested in more mathematically inclined folks chiming in on whether it is valid or not. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states that any sufficiently complex formal system cannot be both consistant and complete. Now if we were to assume a deterministic world, like Einstein and Newton believed in, then our universe is a consistant formal system, where the state of the universe is a statement in system, and the laws of physics are the rules for deriving other valid statements.
Where did you get this "the universe is a consistent formal system" from? Do you know what a formal system is, in the context of GÃdel's theorem?
[quote]The wave-particle duality question has been answered *very* satisfactorily.[/quote]
Only quantitatively. But we cannot truly see beyond the equations to get any sort of insight into what is really going on there.
"What is really going on there" is something physics, or science in general, is not about.
While looking at electromagnetic "stuff" as either a particle or a wave may work out mathematically, it does little to explain what it "is" per se.
Can you provide an example of any explanation of what something "is"? Does the fact that there are in fact no examples tell you something?
The human brain just cannot really imagine such a non-thing. There is no picture for something that can be simultaneously both a particle and a wave. That does not invalidate the math or the concept. But to say that the question has been answered seems the height of hubris.
I would say that it only shows that the question was ill-posed. In general, the question "what is that?" means nothing: what you can answer is "how does that behave?", which needs to be made precise into "how does that behave when I do this?", and there this inimaginable situation in which you picture the brain dissolves into irrelevance.
Slashdot Mirror
People! This is slashdot... Stop with the cards and come up with a decent car analogy so that we can follow!
Ah, poor Canadians. Is that why the world is seeing such massive waves of immigrants from Canada flying the catastrophe?
Did your parents use to tell you that the socialist would take you if you didn't finnish your vegetables or something? You sound that scared, you know...
From all the "In Canada you have to wait months" stories one reads here on /. one would deduce that the Canadians are in a serious risk of extintion...
Are you seriously saying that this is an innovation from MSFT?
Your first two examples are simply examples of hardware manufacturers actively refusing to have their hardware supported. And you somehow see this as a problem on the OSS side?
IETF's RFCs graduate to be Internet Standards, which are the actual specs.
If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I never wrote that. I hinted that concluding that the existence of a higher being from the absence of evidence of abiogenesis is sad.
Deciding that anyone who doesn't believe as you do as 'ignorance' is so clueless and ironic I can't even comment on it.Clearly, you did not understand my post. `Reasoning from ignorance', in my post refers to a well known fallacy, in which one deduces something from ones ignorance of something, as in "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true" or "I (currently) cannot understand how this can be so complicated, so the only possible explanation is this".
Let me rewrite your last sentence for you: I do not know how to prove it in a lab, therefore X doesn't exist.It works the other way, really: If I can see (in a general sense) something in a lab, then I know it exists. I do not believe in what cannot be observed, measured, weighed, or deduced from its effects on other things that can be observed, measured and weighed.
Do you believe in things that are unobservable?
Believing in the Bible and Christ isn't ignorance, its faith in things which exist outside our ability to comprehend. Its pure ego and hubris to declare that nothing exists outside your ability to comprehend it.This again is unrelated to my post, as you read `ignorance' in a way completely unrelated to what I wrote.
I am curious, have you made your presence known to the E Coli which inhabit our world? Until you do we don't exist, you know.This is absurd. I really do not have any problem with the existence of a god, in so far as it is assumed to have absolutely no influence in anything---a completely ineffectual God. Now, if you want to switch to a God on whose whims things occur, then it is a different matter, because now that could be observed, and so far no one has ever, ever, ever, ever, observed it.
If you think the next turn will be Britain's you have a lot of news catching-up to do!
Hm. So you think that nothing has changed since those colonists departed from England? I wonder what source of news (and history!) you consume regularly...
Do you understand that gravity is also just a theory?
I have yet to be shown that evolution can be explained by direct observation and demonstrated.
Until I am shown [that], my theory is as good as yours. My theory cannot be directly observed or demonstrated either.
Have you taken the time and effort to look up the direct observations? You are only displaying your ignorance.
The fact that is is not proven (neither can be proven, so that's sort of a truism, but anyways...) is not enough to justify spending time and money on them. There are lots of other things that are not `proven': are you proposing the FSM be incorporated to the science curriculum?
The criterion for inclusion in the science curriculum is not `it has to be proven' (if it were, the science curriculum would be empty).
The statement `it occurred through the will of God' does not mean anything. It is absolutely impossible to check its validity not its falsity. It states something about a being whose existence we have no way of confirming, much less verifying that it has a will. There is no indication of the way in which `ocurring' works, and it provides absolutely no hint on how to tell what will `occur through God's will' or, really, on how to tell anything.
It is simply the kind of statements one expects the Church to emit, in view of their pride not allowing them to say they are wrong.
Of course no.t. But people started accepting the fact that it was round when evidence was gathered on that fact. We are all still waiting for the slightiest, tiniest, smallest, most insignifcant piece of evidence for the existence of, say, God...
It is quite a stretch to equal the status of Marxism qua socio-political theory and Creationism!
I actually think the fact that you believe that the existence of a higher being `is much more logical' than anything is what is funny, in a sad way. In the end, your line of thought is nothing more than reasoning from ignorance: I do not know, therefore X exists.
Why do you worry? Why don't you simply find out whether what you want can still be done and, if the answer is no, then worry?...
Are you seriously saying there has been a risk, at any time in recent history, that the US somehow come under the dominion of whoever-you-seem-to-regard-as-the-evil-enemy-right-now?
In your mind you see this war and, in particular, waterboarding as a way to avoid being forced to convert and having your daughters become property?
Maybe you should consider looking at alternative sources of information...
I do not accept that waterboarding anyone at all is acceptable. But, in your view: how do you know that the person you are waterboarding is willing to kill or aid in killing thousands of civilians? If you can be so, so wrong that your intelligence can make you invade a whole country in search of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist, in howany ways can you be wrong about the intentions of a person?
That division is so eurocentric as to deserve little attention... That's one aspect of `silly'.
No, not really.
Where did you get this "the universe is a consistent formal system" from? Do you know what a formal system is, in the context of GÃdel's theorem?
"What is really going on there" is something physics, or science in general, is not about.
While looking at electromagnetic "stuff" as either a particle or a wave may work out mathematically, it does little to explain what it "is" per se.Can you provide an example of any explanation of what something "is"? Does the fact that there are in fact no examples tell you something?
The human brain just cannot really imagine such a non-thing. There is no picture for something that can be simultaneously both a particle and a wave. That does not invalidate the math or the concept. But to say that the question has been answered seems the height of hubris.I would say that it only shows that the question was ill-posed. In general, the question "what is that?" means nothing: what you can answer is "how does that behave?", which needs to be made precise into "how does that behave when I do this?", and there this inimaginable situation in which you picture the brain dissolves into irrelevance.
Unless you are a character in a James novel, saying `continental' is silly...
Just as badly programmed armed robots, landmines should also not be used. Isn't that obvious?