I was addressing the specific phenomenon (mentioned in a post above mine) of professors cancelling way to many course. If the student chooses not to learn, of course it's not the professor's fault. If the prof doesn't show up, it is.
Now, I have had totally incompetent professors that I had to work extra to make up for _their_ lack of knowledge... this might also count against services rendered.
Yeah, but this guy told us he expected us to _finish_ the test in 2 hours, when he in fact knew this was impossible. I agree with you that it's OK to have a hard test, but this guy was just being a dick.
I had this real bastard of a professor... gave us a set of 50 problems for the midterm (worth 50% of the class). Now, we knew how to do them, but they took approx. 20 minutes each to do, and we got 2 hours to do all 50.
After the fact he announced that he didn't actually expect us to get more than 5 or 6 done, and would be grading on a curve. Several students had balked and walked out on the exam, straight to the dean. I think that't the only thing that saved our asses.
At home I run linux, but work in winderz. My most used apps (Firefox,Thunderbird, Komodo) run in both environments, so it's really convenient to be able to use the same apps at work as at home.
Besides, having good OSS alternatives at work lets me show others that there is more to software than MS Product 200x
Well (and I'm in the atheist camp with you, albeit not militantly), there's nothing wrong with having religious elements in a story... if the religion is real in the story, why not?
For example, LOTR had a number of references to the Middle Earth religion (in some cases, you had to have read the silmarillion, etc. to get the ref), and I thought it was cool.
My father works in construction, and the standard procedure is:
1) Receive plans in metric (per state law, apparently) 2) Convert plans to Imperial 3) Convert Imperial to decimal feet (yup, that's tenths of feet, or 1.2"), which most of the tools are marked in and makes the math easier.
Heh.
The truth is (as much fun as the world has mocking us), the US _is_ converting to metric, but there's a lot of damned infrastructure, and it'll take a century to do..
Yeah, I phrased that wrong. Science does not disprove god, nor does it disprove the easter bunny. However, neither is suggested by the evidence either. Luckily, people can make up any damned fool idea and say 'BUT, science doesn't PROVE it's wrong'.
Whatever. Believe whatever you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
And if 'preclude' was supposed to be fancy diction... you need to read more books, my friend:)
(As a side note, there ARE people who believe that god is demonstrably impossible. I'm not one of them)
A second answer: There is in fact good advice in The Bible, as there is in many holy books. All the mysticism aside, most of these books say "be decent to people, don't: steal, rape, murder, etc." which is all good advice.
There's a good reason these basic themes and taboos are nearly constant across the world (including in places that have never heard of the bible), they are rules that keep harmony within a community. For all its faults, religion does a decent job of keeping MOST people in line.
That it's been won a hundred times (by science) and that religious folks keep changing the name (I like 'Intelligent Design') and trying to start the debate again.
If you expect me to have the debate here on slashdot, you're gonna be disappointed.
Probably not. Depends on the test, and if it is repeatable. If you're talking about "It said to pray and I'd be happy, I did and I am", you're mistaking emotional reaction (and a possible placebo effect) for a result.
That said, the prayer might still be a useful tool, if indirectly. If you've got the time, I suggest you read Douglas Adams' (of the hitchhikers guide) speech "Is there an Artificial God?" http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
OK, but that wasn't the question... I was talking about any of the traditional creation myths.
ANYTHING could be treated as an action of an all powerful being, it's not tenable position. For example, I could believe the Easter Bunny created man... no one can disprove it, so it's a valid belief, right?
The basis of science is evidence and tests. The conclusions drawn can be overturned at any time, by (properly obtained) evidence and tests. We can also extrapolate nearly (we still have gaps) any complicated theory from base principles. The only real assumption is that the universe is not intentionally deceptive.
The basis of religion is ancient (usually) testimonials that cannot be tested. You may believe it, but you cannot prove Noah talked to god. These ancient stories and rules generally cannot be challenged or changed (Except apparently by the Roman Catholic Church). The assumption is that [insert religious book/scroll/tablet here] is correct. This is a fairly large assumption, given than many stories, rules, etc. are contained within a given book.
Science is a 'small pieced added together' approach, where skepticism is required. Religion is a more like 'here is the whole truth, nothing can change' approach, where skepticism is discouraged or not allowed.
Science is testable, religion isn't Science is reproducible, religion isn't Lacking evidence, Science doesn't attempt an explanation. Religion often does.
They are just different approaches. This has nothing to do with the recent election, it's been a conflict for hundreds of years. Death, the environment, the stars... these were all once explained by religion, but we've moved on.
You _could_ still explain the stars as a gigantic shell around the planet, but a man from the 1600's would laugh at your old beliefs.
Science hasn't disproven religion. True, you can't prove a negative. Moreover, 'proof' involves tests, something that religion disregards.
There IS a fundamental difference between the rational and faithful mindset. They have been in conflict for a long time. Science has been gaining ground for hundreds of years, religion's last bastion is the 'afterlife', something that has no evidence, and thus is immune from scientific inquiry. Since most of our non-mortality related experience is rooted in rationalism, it seems a wise way to go.
Whew.
Now, all that said... to dismiss any given religion's followers as stupid is a bad idea, and just plain rude. I know lots of decent faithful folks, I just disagree.
And, as Dennis Miller says (and history shows), I might be wrong...
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, of cancelling to many sessions of a course, I meant. My school did 10 week quarters, and missing 5 or 6 classes was a huge deal.
I was addressing the specific phenomenon (mentioned in a post above mine) of professors cancelling way to many course. If the student chooses not to learn, of course it's not the professor's fault. If the prof doesn't show up, it is.
Now, I have had totally incompetent professors that I had to work extra to make up for _their_ lack of knowledge... this might also count against services rendered.
Yeah, but this guy told us he expected us to _finish_ the test in 2 hours, when he in fact knew this was impossible. I agree with you that it's OK to have a hard test, but this guy was just being a dick.
If I pay for something, and then only 50% of the service is rendered, damn right I've been victimized...
I had this real bastard of a professor... gave us a set of 50 problems for the midterm (worth 50% of the class). Now, we knew how to do them, but they took approx. 20 minutes each to do, and we got 2 hours to do all 50.
After the fact he announced that he didn't actually expect us to get more than 5 or 6 done, and would be grading on a curve. Several students had balked and walked out on the exam, straight to the dean. I think that't the only thing that saved our asses.
At home I run linux, but work in winderz. My most used apps (Firefox,Thunderbird, Komodo) run in both environments, so it's really convenient to be able to use the same apps at work as at home.
Besides, having good OSS alternatives at work lets me show others that there is more to software than MS Product 200x
Well (and I'm in the atheist camp with you, albeit not militantly), there's nothing wrong with having religious elements in a story... if the religion is real in the story, why not?
:)
For example, LOTR had a number of references to the Middle Earth religion (in some cases, you had to have read the silmarillion, etc. to get the ref), and I thought it was cool.
I just figure it is another part of the fiction
Dude, I am SO going to steal that phrase. Very funny!
"What is, gogogo ?"
Well sure, but we've got a lot more cattle here... there's not much challenge in making a lot of shit.
My father works in construction, and the standard procedure is:
1) Receive plans in metric (per state law, apparently)
2) Convert plans to Imperial
3) Convert Imperial to decimal feet (yup, that's tenths of feet, or 1.2"), which most of the tools are marked in and makes the math easier.
Heh.
The truth is (as much fun as the world has mocking us), the US _is_ converting to metric, but there's a lot of damned infrastructure, and it'll take a century to do..
and repeateateat parts of words...
Unfortunately, you have to abandondon science at some point to fit preconceived faith-based notions...
Yeah, I phrased that wrong. Science does not disprove god, nor does it disprove the easter bunny. However, neither is suggested by the evidence either. Luckily, people can make up any damned fool idea and say 'BUT, science doesn't PROVE it's wrong'.
:)
Whatever. Believe whatever you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
And if 'preclude' was supposed to be fancy diction... you need to read more books, my friend
(As a side note, there ARE people who believe that god is demonstrably impossible. I'm not one of them)
Heh... and somewhere someone of the 'its better to be sure than right' camp is nodding :)
Yeah, uh huh. Ramblings without evidence do not an argument make, sparky. Nor does some perceived conspiracy.
See, this is exactly why they say not to talk to the crazy people...
A second answer: There is in fact good advice in The Bible, as there is in many holy books. All the mysticism aside, most of these books say "be decent to people, don't: steal, rape, murder, etc." which is all good advice.
There's a good reason these basic themes and taboos are nearly constant across the world (including in places that have never heard of the bible), they are rules that keep harmony within a community. For all its faults, religion does a decent job of keeping MOST people in line.
That it's been won a hundred times (by science) and that religious folks keep changing the name (I like 'Intelligent Design') and trying to start the debate again.
If you expect me to have the debate here on slashdot, you're gonna be disappointed.
Probably not. Depends on the test, and if it is repeatable. If you're talking about "It said to pray and I'd be happy, I did and I am", you're mistaking emotional reaction (and a possible placebo effect) for a result.
That said, the prayer might still be a useful tool, if indirectly. If you've got the time, I suggest you read Douglas Adams' (of the hitchhikers guide) speech "Is there an Artificial God?"
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
I don't ASSUME that they are tolerant, I am suggesting that we should be.
Human nature being what it is, I don't hold out a lot of hope.
OK, but that wasn't the question... I was talking about any of the traditional creation myths.
ANYTHING could be treated as an action of an all powerful being, it's not tenable position. For example, I could believe the Easter Bunny created man... no one can disprove it, so it's a valid belief, right?
No one is to say. One could equally say that gravity is 'god's will' and I can't refute it.
I was speaking of the more traditional 'man from dust' creation stories, actually.
There's no evidence for them, so why believe it? There is, however pretty good evidence for evolution, so it seems a more logical choice, no?
Here's where I see a conflict:
The basis of science is evidence and tests. The conclusions drawn can be overturned at any time, by (properly obtained) evidence and tests. We can also extrapolate nearly (we still have gaps) any complicated theory from base principles. The only real assumption is that the universe is not intentionally deceptive.
The basis of religion is ancient (usually) testimonials that cannot be tested. You may believe it, but you cannot prove Noah talked to god. These ancient stories and rules generally cannot be challenged or changed (Except apparently by the Roman Catholic Church). The assumption is that [insert religious book/scroll/tablet here] is correct. This is a fairly large assumption, given than many stories, rules, etc. are contained within a given book.
Science is a 'small pieced added together' approach, where skepticism is required. Religion is a more like 'here is the whole truth, nothing can change' approach, where skepticism is discouraged or not allowed.
Science is testable, religion isn't
Science is reproducible, religion isn't
Lacking evidence, Science doesn't attempt an explanation. Religion often does.
They are just different approaches. This has nothing to do with the recent election, it's been a conflict for hundreds of years. Death, the environment, the stars... these were all once explained by religion, but we've moved on.
You _could_ still explain the stars as a gigantic shell around the planet, but a man from the 1600's would laugh at your old beliefs.
Science hasn't disproven religion. True, you can't prove a negative. Moreover, 'proof' involves tests, something that religion disregards.
There IS a fundamental difference between the rational and faithful mindset. They have been in conflict for a long time. Science has been gaining ground for hundreds of years, religion's last bastion is the 'afterlife', something that has no evidence, and thus is immune from scientific inquiry. Since most of our non-mortality related experience is rooted in rationalism, it seems a wise way to go.
Whew.
Now, all that said... to dismiss any given religion's followers as stupid is a bad idea, and just plain rude. I know lots of decent faithful folks, I just disagree.
And, as Dennis Miller says (and history shows), I might be wrong...
Man is the most recent in a chain of evolving species
vs.
Man was created by [insert god name here]
One of my neighbors has a 'God, save me from your followers' bumper sticker :)