Also, I would add thay religions want an advantage... they want equal status as science, without having to pass the same tests (evolution vs. creationsism comes to mind)
I could honestly give a damn what someone else believes. I am frustrated when their beliefs infringe on my freedoms (see FCC, 'creation science', special priveleges given to churches, etc).
That said, I recognize that I am in the minority, and this isn't likely to change.
I absolutely respect your right to believe whatever you want. This does NOT mean that I necessarily respect the belief itself.
Other than my.sig (which isn't an attack, just an observation), no. You did however reply to my post, so I kinda concluded that it was a response to me.
I _would_ be interested to hear your response to my arguments, if you like.
Alternately (instead of my long-winded answer), people who chose to ignore evidence in favor of preference are intentionally sheltering themselves from reality.
We DO deal with it. Most of us (non believers) aren't rabidly attacking churchy people.
But since you ask, it is ok to "speak out against religion" because it fails a basic test that all other areas in life have to pass to be regarded as truth.
I can explain why: the lights turn on (physics/electronics) fire burns (chemistry) the building stands (physics/engineering) medicine works (biology/chemistry) etc.
The list goes on forever. All of these things are testable, and (more importantly) self-correcting through study. This is the great advantage of science. As time goes on, we get a better understanding. Religion doesn't work that way, it sets certain unquestionable premises and expounds on those.
Look, I understand _why_ people are religious. It's traditional, and it's comforting. I'm not going to say that you don't have the right to believe whatever the hell you want. It's your mind. But the argument that religion stands a chance against science/rationality as an explanation of the world is incorrect.
Before we had means to examine the universe in detail, religion was a decent answer. But that time is long past, and yet people cling to old beliefs.
Some of us feel that it is important to move beyond ancient superstitions. Hopefully in a dignified manner that does NOT devolve into name-calling.
Assuming this wasn't just a random flame (in which case, sir, go fuck yourself), what indicated that I wasn't tolerant? I don't go around telling people that they are wrong (.sig excluded), yet most religions I know spend a LOT of time telling me that I am. Where's the tolerance there?
I wasn't even saying that the nastiness was acceptable, just suggesting an explanation. If THAT is enough to 'offend' you, then you are hardly in a position to be giving character advice to others.
I don't hate religion. Nor do I believe in it. I am sometimes an asshole...
If it helps, it IS frustrating to live in a society (nearly any western country will do) where most people claim to believe in an imaginary (to an atheist), so a lot of that nastiness is just venting frustration.
There's a difference between 'conservative' and 'wack job' christians. This guy isn't conservative, he's just a hate-spouting fool. His drawings remind me of the old WW2 cartoons, the ones where japanese people had fangs and pointy ears.
It's a kind of visual ad hominem attack, and it underscores the weakness of his position.
Don't worry, we godless heathens don't lump the intelligent Christians in with this nutjob and his ilk.
Sure, Perl 5 will remain relevant for a number of years... almost everything out there (millions of programs) is written in 5, and 6 isn't even completely written yet.
Just because newer languages are out, doesn't mean that C++ is a bad language to learn, for example.
While it IS true that books can go out of date quickly in this field, the fact that Larry works for O'Reilly and wrote/contributed to a number of very good Perl books for them gives the O'Reilly books an advantage.
Yeah, the Mechs were bigger, but generally less detailed.
Even farther off topic... but I used to like annoying clan playing wussies by taking the _tiny_ elemental figures, and adding them (or crushed _parts_ of them) under the feet/in the hands of my IS mechs.
A buddy started to make a Battletech board with similar figures. Problem is, he decided to paint the figures _correctly_, and after 2 pawns (Locusts, naturally) and 6 hours, he called it quits.
Plus. BT figures were like twice the price of D&D figures... must be inflation in 3050.
No, but neither are the turbine blades, really. A block wall will feel the most pressure for a given amount of wind, but it'd make a crappy windmill. The turbine blades need to be a compromise between having enough surface area to 'catch' the wind, and the right pitch, so the air can move past (and turn the blades).
Nah... the air as a mass may be measured in terms of viscosity, but it's the individual air molecules hitting the building (and each other) that burns off energy.
I did read an interesting story about proposed windmills off the coast of Ireland. The North Sea having reliably stron wind, they said that a chain of turbines something like 2 miles long would power the whole island.
These are monster (like 150' diameter) blades, however.
Not necessarily bad... just something we need to be wary of. Given the damage created by the exponential growth of technology (industrial revolution and on), and the fact that we are just barely beginning to understand ecology in any real way... we gotta be careful.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said, sir.
Also, I would add thay religions want an advantage... they want equal status as science, without having to pass the same tests (evolution vs. creationsism comes to mind)
I could honestly give a damn what someone else believes. I am frustrated when their beliefs infringe on my freedoms (see FCC, 'creation science', special priveleges given to churches, etc).
That said, I recognize that I am in the minority, and this isn't likely to change.
I absolutely respect your right to believe whatever you want. This does NOT mean that I necessarily respect the belief itself.
That difference is subtle but crucial.
Well, scientific principals (basically, prove it or it's not real) carried to the logical extreme do rather preclude a god.
I know there are a whole bunch of scientists who claim to be religious... I've never understood that myself.
Of course, I also know a biologist who believes in creationism... we're an intellectually lazy species sometimes.
Other than my .sig (which isn't an attack, just an observation), no. You did however reply to my post, so I kinda concluded that it was a response to me.
I _would_ be interested to hear your response to my arguments, if you like.
Alternately (instead of my long-winded answer), people who chose to ignore evidence in favor of preference are intentionally sheltering themselves from reality.
We DO deal with it. Most of us (non believers) aren't rabidly attacking churchy people.
But since you ask, it is ok to "speak out against religion" because it fails a basic test that all other areas in life have to pass to be regarded as truth.
I can explain why:
the lights turn on (physics/electronics)
fire burns (chemistry)
the building stands (physics/engineering)
medicine works (biology/chemistry)
etc.
The list goes on forever. All of these things are testable, and (more importantly) self-correcting through study. This is the great advantage of science. As time goes on, we get a better understanding. Religion doesn't work that way, it sets certain unquestionable premises and expounds on those.
Look, I understand _why_ people are religious. It's traditional, and it's comforting. I'm not going to say that you don't have the right to believe whatever the hell you want. It's your mind. But the argument that religion stands a chance against science/rationality as an explanation of the world is incorrect.
Before we had means to examine the universe in detail, religion was a decent answer. But that time is long past, and yet people cling to old beliefs.
Some of us feel that it is important to move beyond ancient superstitions. Hopefully in a dignified manner that does NOT devolve into name-calling.
Assuming this wasn't just a random flame (in which case, sir, go fuck yourself), what indicated that I wasn't tolerant? I don't go around telling people that they are wrong (.sig excluded), yet most religions I know spend a LOT of time telling me that I am. Where's the tolerance there?
I wasn't even saying that the nastiness was acceptable, just suggesting an explanation. If THAT is enough to 'offend' you, then you are hardly in a position to be giving character advice to others.
I don't hate religion. Nor do I believe in it. I am sometimes an asshole...
If it helps, it IS frustrating to live in a society (nearly any western country will do) where most people claim to believe in an imaginary (to an atheist), so a lot of that nastiness is just venting frustration.
There's a difference between 'conservative' and 'wack job' christians. This guy isn't conservative, he's just a hate-spouting fool. His drawings remind me of the old WW2 cartoons, the ones where japanese people had fangs and pointy ears.
It's a kind of visual ad hominem attack, and it underscores the weakness of his position.
Don't worry, we godless heathens don't lump the intelligent Christians in with this nutjob and his ilk.
Sure, Perl 5 will remain relevant for a number of years... almost everything out there (millions of programs) is written in 5, and 6 isn't even completely written yet.
Just because newer languages are out, doesn't mean that C++ is a bad language to learn, for example.
While it IS true that books can go out of date quickly in this field, the fact that Larry works for O'Reilly and wrote/contributed to a number of very good Perl books for them gives the O'Reilly books an advantage.
No no, PHP sucks the Family Jewels...
(Sorry, JAPH who tried and dislikes PHP)
Yeah, the Mechs were bigger, but generally less detailed.
:)
Even farther off topic... but I used to like annoying clan playing wussies by taking the _tiny_ elemental figures, and adding them (or crushed _parts_ of them) under the feet/in the hands of my IS mechs.
*sigh*, I miss playing that game
Nah man, I mean practically everyone kinda equivocates sometimes, usually. I think.
:) )
(I love adding a bunch of conditionals to an authoritative sounding statement and rendering it meaningless
A buddy started to make a Battletech board with similar figures. Problem is, he decided to paint the figures _correctly_, and after 2 pawns (Locusts, naturally) and 6 hours, he called it quits.
Plus. BT figures were like twice the price of D&D figures... must be inflation in 3050.
Yep.. the GOP is so full of shit, it's members burn better...
Also, firestorms are known to generate fierce winds... so maybe we can just burn the forests and replace the wind!
No, but neither are the turbine blades, really. A block wall will feel the most pressure for a given amount of wind, but it'd make a crappy windmill. The turbine blades need to be a compromise between having enough surface area to 'catch' the wind, and the right pitch, so the air can move past (and turn the blades).
Eh, the bigger problem with solar is that the process to produce the panels involves some uber-nasty solvents that are a mess to dispose of.
Nah... the air as a mass may be measured in terms of viscosity, but it's the individual air molecules hitting the building (and each other) that burns off energy.
I did read an interesting story about proposed windmills off the coast of Ireland. The North Sea having reliably stron wind, they said that a chain of turbines something like 2 miles long would power the whole island.
These are monster (like 150' diameter) blades, however.
Not necessarily bad... just something we need to be wary of. Given the damage created by the exponential growth of technology (industrial revolution and on), and the fact that we are just barely beginning to understand ecology in any real way... we gotta be careful.
Eeep. sorry for the long ass sentence.
I'm sorry Mr. Newton, but in THIS universe we have friction...
You think wind farms (which are, after all, designed to let most of the wind pass) are going to have more effect than cities full of blocky buildings?
I think not.
They are gonna cut up some preexisting money and GROW new money, duh....