While we mainly-Microsoft devs were scratching out head at the "guidance" from MS to drop WPF, Silverlight,.Net, etc., and instead plan on coding everything in HTML5 and Javascript, wondering why they would proceed along what seemed to be a massive self-limiting move, now there seems there may be an unmentioned rationale...
What else does HTML5 offer? It's easily sandboxed and thus compatible with an enforced channel, a la Apple's App Store and their push to eliminate uncontrolled functionality possible via Flash.
I think the crux of the question here is capturing that while we can fairly say (and represent) that a movie "contains" actors, and a novel "contains" pages (the wrong answer, here), and a novel also "contains" characters (people in the novel, disambiguating from "characters" meaning "letters" as something "pages" contains just adds to the fun here...), to answer this correctly requires a notion of how to capture in rules that a novel contains characters -in a similar sense- as a movie contains actors.
It's the notion of "in a similar sense" that, to my view, is the major challenge to model and traverse by specific algorithm--and where humans still seem quite distinctly "ahead" of AI. That ability seems to be the defining characteristic of performing a "logical leap", but if discussions I've had in the past are any indicator, this would likely proceed into a very... semantic... argument, with different perspectives as to what would qualify as a general solution as opposed to "just" hard-coding another special-case handling of the issue at another level of pre-specified "abstraction" for particular content.
From what I've seen, inference engines still rely on algorithms applied to highly-specified domains.
But, it's been quite a while since I looked at it. Do you happen to have a broad description of an algorithm that can solve the form of problem common to IQ tests, "X is to Y as A is to B", say, this particular example?
movie : actors = novel : ?
1. pages 2. characters 3. magazines 4. singers
This, to me, would be the simplified test case of the general problem of a "logical leap joining two abstract concepts". You're saying this is solved for the general case?
...and man comes from God. I didn't think you could both commit a False Dichotomy Fallacy and fail to understand proximate and ultimate causation in a couple brief sentences, but you managed.
And yes, you are quite done here, objectively, whether you choose to be or not.
What's to "gloss over"? They come from "the exact same place"... well, so what? So does everything, in some sense, regardless of topic. Is that supposed to speak to what's true in some way?
"Put up or shut up"? Nice bluster, but maybe you should manage to come up with the merest beginning of a rational argument, first.
OEC "comes from" God. One particular effect of the existence of that God is the bible, which may also be referenced. Aquinas, among many others, has a laundry list of other sources of inferential support, and there are a number of approaches to seeking direct experience of God. Is the fact you personally haven't considered them or experienced them supposed to be in some way other than your personal subjective experience, and a remarkably narrow one?
Right, so precisely back to my previous objection--it isn't notable that there are now "two" (rather than the previous "one", presumably), if by definition according to the model "all" descendants of that branch are "equally related".
In my defense, though, I do see your sig's point on how you just accept one less political stance than I do. Glad your reasoning showed you why you shouldn't vote.
Without proven interventions of the nature of direct genetic manipulation, anyway. The issues of causality around the "selection" part of Natural Selection would be quite a broader question...
You already fully demonstrated your failure to understand what a Genetic Fallacy is, so no need to cut-and-paste regarding Dover.
Other than that, I'm not sure why the topic-switch. I never contended that "Creationism" isn't "Religion", nor would that in any way be relevant to it being correct.
I contended that usage of a single concept to indicate two distinct and independent premises, is invalid formation and/or use of a concept. This remains your issue, which, again, some introductory epistemology should cure you of.
I understand a broad range of the sciences just fine. The question remains, even if you couldn't avoid such pedantic hair-splitting as "TFA" versus "OP".
It is being noted that there are now a count of two "equally close" hominids. It remains my contention that this conceptually makes no sense on a literal level.
We need to be careful not to introduce a False Dichotomy here... my stance is that God both created everything, and "intervenes" in an ongoing fashion.
To tie it back to biology, we will ultimately determine that there are, or are not, "Irreducibly Complex" structures per Behe's et al notion. If there are, it would be a case of "intervention", if not, it would be from my stance a case of initial process design, of the Big-Bang/abiogenesis/evolution. Either are compatible with the notion of a "designing god".
To add a bit to this, the "god of the gaps" argument depends on the notion that once we have a most-proximate cause, preceding causes cease to be valid possibilities.
What "caused" the atomic bomb explosion in Nagasaki? A nuclear chain reaction as describable via physics, or the President of the United States, ordering that it be dropped? The answer is, naturally, both. Specifying the former cause does not supersede or invalidate the latter cause.
Mainly because "god of the gaps" is a notion made up by atheists to reference something nobody means by the term "god"--a being that would be able to design particular biological entities, but unable to design evolution.
There is fallacious reasoning here, but it is introduced by the term referencing a meaningless definition, "god" as supposedly "of the gaps". The fallacious reasoning here is "owned" entirely by the person presenting the term.
My position would be that everything is designed, we simply don't have complete information as to "special case" design (creating a particular organism via a distinct act), and "process design" (creating particular organisms as a determined function of an designed process--evolution). I have no "gaps" at all, regardless of the scientific resolution of the particular method(s) used.
So then, how is the OP informative? By that standard, the number "equally close" would be arbitrary. For some reason, these particular two are noted. Why?
The situation most resembling "optimally close" would be a chimpanzee and bonobo mating, which would obviously be... causally problematic.
"Fairly close" I'd have no problem with. "Equally close", in the context of genetics, doesn't make much literal sense. Also, we are -descendants- in the OP's case, not predecessors. There's a reproductive causality problem the other way around, I think.
Well, no, "Creationism" as it's commonly-used is a deliberate invalid collapsing into one word two different and non-dependent notions, first that the universe was created, and second the entirely distinct notion that it is 6000 years old.
Though commonly-used this way (particularly by atheists), to attempt to sneak a False Dichotomy Fallacy into the discussion by offering only one word implying both, and thus demanding the listener either accept or reject both premises together, this is invalid usage of any word, going all the way back to Aristotle...
On behalf of the Old Earth Creationists, let me request that this is presented such it doesn't practically beg Young Earth Creationists to scoff at science here.
Now that maximizing shareholder value (or, compatibly, keeping your job) is serving as a no-thought-required stand-in for ethics, though, by acting in effect as a rubber-stamping arm of the government on issues like this, that seems to be less and less in the public consciousness...
Sorry, your post's phrasing seemed to have a certain... disturbing automaticness about it, and I haven't had my morning coffee yet.
I have several... many... sets of Skullcandy earbuds. Though I've experienced uncomfortable earbuds before, that isn't the case at all for me with these. The only contact with your ear is a very soft, squishy "mushroom" of silicone/rubber. I can't imagine any over-ear headphones that would be more comfortable, personally.
And, the bass and noise isolation is excellent. Their "base models" are cheap, with little discernable quality compromise from their higher-end. At the price, I'd suggest trying one--they may challenge your preconceptions of what you are looking for.
It would be interesting to see where earlier hominids would fall along the "uncanny valley" curve. Perhaps by VR simulation or even cloning if we found some viable DNA for that.
I'd like to see how this would play into conceptual, rather than perceptual, differentiation of "human", as, it seems most have no actual specifiable basis for this.
(Note to attentive mods: Yes, I am indeed going for the record for most-subtle troll today. The karma will be worth it, and such an experiment I actually would like to see...)
Your commitment to your self-importance aside, it does not undermine our faith. Particular theological notions, along with all notions about anything, are continually challenged. That one adjusts one's understanding based on new data, again, about anything, is unproblematic, and in the particular case of theism the majority have made adjustments to their understanding (be clear, -their understanding-, not the essential content of this or any other view) a long time ago. Note the official stance of the Catholic Church, among many others.
It doesn't "undermine" it. It merely trolls it, and this process will probably persist as such until Natural Selection systematically eliminates you and every single person holding your views, down to the very last troll in your mind the very last corresponding one in every single person you consider yourself "allied" with.
Slashdot Mirror
While we mainly-Microsoft devs were scratching out head at the "guidance" from MS to drop WPF, Silverlight, .Net, etc., and instead plan on coding everything in HTML5 and Javascript, wondering why they would proceed along what seemed to be a massive self-limiting move, now there seems there may be an unmentioned rationale...
What else does HTML5 offer? It's easily sandboxed and thus compatible with an enforced channel, a la Apple's App Store and their push to eliminate uncontrolled functionality possible via Flash.
Microsoft, say it isn't so.
I think the crux of the question here is capturing that while we can fairly say (and represent) that a movie "contains" actors, and a novel "contains" pages (the wrong answer, here), and a novel also "contains" characters (people in the novel, disambiguating from "characters" meaning "letters" as something "pages" contains just adds to the fun here...), to answer this correctly requires a notion of how to capture in rules that a novel contains characters -in a similar sense- as a movie contains actors.
It's the notion of "in a similar sense" that, to my view, is the major challenge to model and traverse by specific algorithm--and where humans still seem quite distinctly "ahead" of AI. That ability seems to be the defining characteristic of performing a "logical leap", but if discussions I've had in the past are any indicator, this would likely proceed into a very... semantic... argument, with different perspectives as to what would qualify as a general solution as opposed to "just" hard-coding another special-case handling of the issue at another level of pre-specified "abstraction" for particular content.
Fascinating topic, though.
From what I've seen, inference engines still rely on algorithms applied to highly-specified domains.
But, it's been quite a while since I looked at it. Do you happen to have a broad description of an algorithm that can solve the form of problem common to IQ tests, "X is to Y as A is to B", say, this particular example?
movie : actors = novel : ?
1. pages
2. characters
3. magazines
4. singers
This, to me, would be the simplified test case of the general problem of a "logical leap joining two abstract concepts". You're saying this is solved for the general case?
...and man comes from God. I didn't think you could both commit a False Dichotomy Fallacy and fail to understand proximate and ultimate causation in a couple brief sentences, but you managed.
And yes, you are quite done here, objectively, whether you choose to be or not.
What's to "gloss over"? They come from "the exact same place"... well, so what? So does everything, in some sense, regardless of topic. Is that supposed to speak to what's true in some way?
"Put up or shut up"? Nice bluster, but maybe you should manage to come up with the merest beginning of a rational argument, first.
OEC "comes from" God. One particular effect of the existence of that God is the bible, which may also be referenced. Aquinas, among many others, has a laundry list of other sources of inferential support, and there are a number of approaches to seeking direct experience of God. Is the fact you personally haven't considered them or experienced them supposed to be in some way other than your personal subjective experience, and a remarkably narrow one?
Right, so precisely back to my previous objection--it isn't notable that there are now "two" (rather than the previous "one", presumably), if by definition according to the model "all" descendants of that branch are "equally related".
How is TFA even marginally notable in that case?
Heh. Cute.
In my defense, though, I do see your sig's point on how you just accept one less political stance than I do. Glad your reasoning showed you why you shouldn't vote.
Without proven interventions of the nature of direct genetic manipulation, anyway. The issues of causality around the "selection" part of Natural Selection would be quite a broader question...
You already fully demonstrated your failure to understand what a Genetic Fallacy is, so no need to cut-and-paste regarding Dover.
Other than that, I'm not sure why the topic-switch. I never contended that "Creationism" isn't "Religion", nor would that in any way be relevant to it being correct.
I contended that usage of a single concept to indicate two distinct and independent premises, is invalid formation and/or use of a concept. This remains your issue, which, again, some introductory epistemology should cure you of.
Let me just say...
Yawn.
I understand a broad range of the sciences just fine. The question remains, even if you couldn't avoid such pedantic hair-splitting as "TFA" versus "OP".
It is being noted that there are now a count of two "equally close" hominids. It remains my contention that this conceptually makes no sense on a literal level.
We need to be careful not to introduce a False Dichotomy here... my stance is that God both created everything, and "intervenes" in an ongoing fashion.
To tie it back to biology, we will ultimately determine that there are, or are not, "Irreducibly Complex" structures per Behe's et al notion. If there are, it would be a case of "intervention", if not, it would be from my stance a case of initial process design, of the Big-Bang/abiogenesis/evolution. Either are compatible with the notion of a "designing god".
To add a bit to this, the "god of the gaps" argument depends on the notion that once we have a most-proximate cause, preceding causes cease to be valid possibilities.
What "caused" the atomic bomb explosion in Nagasaki? A nuclear chain reaction as describable via physics, or the President of the United States, ordering that it be dropped? The answer is, naturally, both. Specifying the former cause does not supersede or invalidate the latter cause.
Mainly because "god of the gaps" is a notion made up by atheists to reference something nobody means by the term "god"--a being that would be able to design particular biological entities, but unable to design evolution.
There is fallacious reasoning here, but it is introduced by the term referencing a meaningless definition, "god" as supposedly "of the gaps". The fallacious reasoning here is "owned" entirely by the person presenting the term.
My position would be that everything is designed, we simply don't have complete information as to "special case" design (creating a particular organism via a distinct act), and "process design" (creating particular organisms as a determined function of an designed process--evolution). I have no "gaps" at all, regardless of the scientific resolution of the particular method(s) used.
So then, how is the OP informative? By that standard, the number "equally close" would be arbitrary. For some reason, these particular two are noted. Why?
The situation most resembling "optimally close" would be a chimpanzee and bonobo mating, which would obviously be... causally problematic.
No, not at all. It is not testable -per your preferred methodology-.
Your preferred methodology is not the only one there is, because you say so by fiat.
Okay, I -accept- the universe was created, and -reject- that it is 6000 years old.
Pick the word you want to use for that, as they're never mutually dependent.
The rest is the standard boilerplate Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy, so I'll be skipping that. Code to do.
And yes, I did test it. The test confirmed.
We'll use High School geometry to answer all questions in any epistemological domain! Brilliant! ;)
A Ferrari is 99% close to a Ford Escort, then. Trade ya.
"Fairly close" I'd have no problem with. "Equally close", in the context of genetics, doesn't make much literal sense. Also, we are -descendants- in the OP's case, not predecessors. There's a reproductive causality problem the other way around, I think.
Well, no, "Creationism" as it's commonly-used is a deliberate invalid collapsing into one word two different and non-dependent notions, first that the universe was created, and second the entirely distinct notion that it is 6000 years old.
...but that's a conversation for another day.
Though commonly-used this way (particularly by atheists), to attempt to sneak a False Dichotomy Fallacy into the discussion by offering only one word implying both, and thus demanding the listener either accept or reject both premises together, this is invalid usage of any word, going all the way back to Aristotle...
Okay, I read this twice.
Two. Different. Species. Equally. Close.
On behalf of the Old Earth Creationists, let me request that this is presented such it doesn't practically beg Young Earth Creationists to scoff at science here.
And the law, as best as the legal dept see it, must be obeyed.
Back in my day, we had a thing called...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
Now that maximizing shareholder value (or, compatibly, keeping your job) is serving as a no-thought-required stand-in for ethics, though, by acting in effect as a rubber-stamping arm of the government on issues like this, that seems to be less and less in the public consciousness...
Sorry, your post's phrasing seemed to have a certain... disturbing automaticness about it, and I haven't had my morning coffee yet.
I have several... many... sets of Skullcandy earbuds. Though I've experienced uncomfortable earbuds before, that isn't the case at all for me with these. The only contact with your ear is a very soft, squishy "mushroom" of silicone/rubber. I can't imagine any over-ear headphones that would be more comfortable, personally.
And, the bass and noise isolation is excellent. Their "base models" are cheap, with little discernable quality compromise from their higher-end. At the price, I'd suggest trying one--they may challenge your preconceptions of what you are looking for.
It would be interesting to see where earlier hominids would fall along the "uncanny valley" curve. Perhaps by VR simulation or even cloning if we found some viable DNA for that.
I'd like to see how this would play into conceptual, rather than perceptual, differentiation of "human", as, it seems most have no actual specifiable basis for this.
(Note to attentive mods: Yes, I am indeed going for the record for most-subtle troll today. The karma will be worth it, and such an experiment I actually would like to see...)
Your commitment to your self-importance aside, it does not undermine our faith. Particular theological notions, along with all notions about anything, are continually challenged. That one adjusts one's understanding based on new data, again, about anything, is unproblematic, and in the particular case of theism the majority have made adjustments to their understanding (be clear, -their understanding-, not the essential content of this or any other view) a long time ago. Note the official stance of the Catholic Church, among many others.
It doesn't "undermine" it. It merely trolls it, and this process will probably persist as such until Natural Selection systematically eliminates you and every single person holding your views, down to the very last troll in your mind the very last corresponding one in every single person you consider yourself "allied" with.
As you demand for yourself, naturally.
Please enumerate the full set of scientific causal processes resulting in predictable values of random.
Thank you.