My question is this, what ever happens to these old "dead" computers? Your computer is dead (blown out power supply). Well, can I buy these old computers or something? What do people do with this stuff? It sounds like idiots take advice from these folks and toss out perfectly good computer gear.
The sad thing is, after two repairs, you've lost the entire cost of the system.
You can get a brand new computer for cheaper than it costs to repair the broken one. At a certain point it's so cheap to buy a new one that they should just switch the harddrive over and upgrade them. I mean, if they misconfigured windows, so it stopped booting then they need a new harddrive with a new install.
I think it would be easier to just sell a service where they take the contents of your old harddrive and pour it into a directory on a brand new system they sell you for 400 bucks.
>>Well, one major point that I've heard from ID advocates state, and you stated before in this thread, that you can't get more information out of a system than you put into it.
Although, this isn't really true. You add can delete something and add information to the system itself. If you have a 10x10 grid of identicle peas. And you remove pea( 4, 5) you now have more information.
You should randomize the input of a genetic algorithm because it might help. You could start from a zero'd input, but it would take a while to build anything nice. Although, it does depend a lot on what it is trying to do.
>>But theists, while they do say "God did it", go beyond this to further determine how God did it.
But, as I've stated several times before. Determining "how God did it" -- is simply taking the scientific question of "how was it done?" and adding the a priori assumption that God did it. You are just latching "God did it" onto science rather than from the get go. It's dishonest. It's not scientific. And, it's generally pretty stupid. How do elves make the universe spin? Why do unicorns make it rain?
>>>>You are simply taking a scientific question of "How did that happen?" and making it into a question with a priori assumptions >>That's what everybody does. Everyone has a priori assumptions.
No. To assume things about the world in an a priori sense is a waste of energy and a bad policy. Certainly, if I ask "Why do birds have hollow bones?" the question itself doesn't force an evolutionary answer. "Why did hollow bones evolve in birds?" does have a few assumptions imbedded in it. One being incorrect, that they originally evolved in birds rather than their dinosaur ancestors (although, at this point who can tell the difference).
>>>>Consciousness is a product of our brain. >>Is it? God doesn't have a "brain", yet he is conscious.
No. God doesn't have a brain. God isn't conscious. God doesn't exist. You not only failed to make a good argument against my comment, you made a pretty good argument against God.
>>What it is and how it works.
It's our brains higher reasoning centers working such that we can deduct things about the world around us. It works via neurons just as everything else in our brains.
>>But there may be other traits of design that can be used to infer design without having to rely on motive.
In general, we simply have ordered information or unordered information. Design implies that thought went into making the information ordered. It's not a property, it's order with a required cause.
>>I can create a computer program because I love to program. I could also create it because I'm being paid to create it.
The difference is a difference in motive, not whether or not a motive exists.
>>The fact that different motives still result in design means that design should be able to be determined apart from motive.
No. The motive itself is moot, the existence of a motive in an intelligent person is what matters.
>>I don't actually care. Design should be able to be determined apart from the designer.
No. You actually can't tell. The information isn't there. It's unclear which is made by the computer and which is made by the human. Because, design isn't a property. Clearly, I could have started from 0 or 1 and the computer could have done the same. You can't really tell anything about it other than they are ordered. Thus, looking for design in such things is futile.
The fact that the Shakespeare work is written by a person (or an infinite monkey) is unknown out of context.
>>See? You agree with me.
No. I'm saying that design isn't a property. You don't really know unless you know how it was made. Perhaps my copy of Shakespeare was created by an infinite number of monkies typing randomly. This would thusly not make my copy designed. But, the information would be the same. This is because, although ordered, design isn't a property. You can't look for it.
>>Furthermore, it's safe to say that the Shakespeare work didn't appear by chance, and proabably not by chance along with a non-intelligent selection mechanism.
I could write a program that randomly creates characters and compares it to Shakespeare. Change those characters which don't match the text and leave those characters which do alone. This would, in a few minutes, create the works of Shakespeare by evolution via a non-intelligent selection mechanism.
It turns out while your a child, you will turn out better if you touch everything and pick your nose and eat your buggers.
In general being exposed to a lot of germs (typically harmless) trains up your immune system. buggers catch a lot of local bacteria and allows for exposure in a safe and weakened form.
-- Just because it's correct. Doesn't make you want to do it.
>>>>They are two different questions, but I was addressing the former. >>I understand that. You claimed that the worldview that says "God did it" is injurious to science. It isn't. It's a hysterical reaction to an opposing worldview.
God did it, isn't a scientific answer.
>>>>I regard the latter as nonsense. >>I would too, were I an atheist. So what?
Simply attacking me as an atheist, doesn't fix any problems with the "question". You are simply taking a scientific question of "How did that happen?" and making it into a question with a priori assumptions. In essence, you are making it into a trick question. Rightfully the answer to your "scientific" question, should always be 'mu'.
>>What is the naturalistic source for highly complex specific information?
Depends on the information. Are we talking Library of Congress, DNA, or star light.
>>Except, for some reason, that didn't appear to be the case.
Because a lot of people at the time believed in God.
You think that since some people looked for order in the universe while believing in God that the idea of God is suddenly scientific?
>>I don't believe I said that. What I said what that some historians of science noted that science did not flourish apart from certain monotheistic societies.
You mean the west and the middle east, excluding Greece. Not that China was completely backwards at the time western science started picking up. They believed in all manner of things at the time. I would sooner give astrology credit for Kepler's work (as Kepler was first and foremost an astrologer).
>>I was rebutting the claim that acceptance of the existence of god would be a disaster for modern science.
I didn't say it was a disaster for modern science, I said that it, like String Theory isn't science. Time would better be spent on other subjects.
>>Materialists haven't come anywhere close to being able to understand the basis for our consciousness or rational thought.
Consciousness is a product of our brain. Consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation. A dog has some sense of consciousness, but probably not as advanced as humans. More consciousness = more fit. What part of consciousness is such a mystery?
>>So if that leprechaun had the characteristics of a certain monotheistic god, it might be reasonable to give him/her/it that credit.
Oh, but leprechauns have those characteristics and more. They eat monotheistic gods for breakfast You can go ahead and give any mythological character any quality you want. There is still no establishing that such a character has such a characteristic. Certainly, if there existed an allpowerful anything it would be worthwhile to note, be it leprechaun or god. However, just saying that it has something doesn't make such a thing exist or have such a property.
Actually, I know a number of materialistic naturalists and they would never say "In the beginning were the particles..." -- Such a thing is instantly flawed based on the existence of particles. Thus it can't be the beginning.
>>Elsewhere, one poster has said that matter/energy, space/time are all that there is. That is, that "particles" gave rise to intelligence. If that isn't the case, then what would you say is?
No that is the case. It just can't be the case that such things existed before the universe. In the beginning there cannot be particles. Because the existence of particles requires that time has already started. I would add forces to his list.
>>Why not?
Because, design requires motive. Here, which of these two sets of numbers is generated by a computer and which did I design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
>>This sentence, I think, proves my point. You don't look for design in nature because, to you, it's a priori not recognizable.
I think you might be confusing two definitions of materialism.
The first is a naturalistic worldview. Only things which exist, exist. Where as the supernaturalistic worldview includes non-naturalistic things. So things which exist, exist... but so do somethings which don't exist (non-material).
You are confusing this with materialism like the want of things. Please Santa, I want a pony! Please God, give me money!
>>And with those restricitions on "God did it!", scientific research became feasible. Without it... sorry. Can't do it.
So long as you view God as unable to do anything science works out fine. You simply find your result and credit God with the discovery. "Why did that happen?" is the same questions as "Why did God make that happen?" -- with the noted a priori assumption that "God did it" tossed in for sport.
>>How does this follow? "God did it" and "how did God do it?" are two different things.
They are two different questions, but I was addressing the former. I regard the latter as nonsense. How do elves shift plate techtonics? This is certainly different from the idea *that* elves cause plate techtonics to shift. If elves can do everything, then the answer "elves" is scientifically moot. Asking how elves do such a thing is just nonsense. We are simply looking for the naturalistic source and applying the motive to the process.
>>I find it really interesting that the former excludes the latter. Some historians of science have argued that it was because of the idea of a rational God that the idea arose that nature was ordered and could be fathomed,
Yes, and some people think that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church. The existence of order in the universe would easily have been noted without the concept of God.
>>particularly through observation and testing. Wasn't it Kepler who studied the heavens in order to "think God's thoughts after Him"?
Kepler was a very good astrologer. Looking for order in the universe doesn't require an idea of God. We are really good at noticing order. 1 7 4 10 7 13 10 16 13 19 16 ___. What number would God make be next?
>>So the idea that God and science are incompatible is, to borrow a phrase, "not even wrong". It's simply a by product of the anti-intellectual, anti-historical, "don't offend me" nonsense that passes for thinking these days.
You think that since some people looked for order in the universe while believing in God that the idea of God is suddenly scientific? That's downright absurd. You might as well give leprechaun credit for our understanding of light diffusion.
>>Science flourished within a theistic worldview in Europe and elsewhere, so I don't see how you can support the idea that God is a disaster when it comes to science.
It flourished after the Dark Ages ended. Before that it could get you burnt or locked up. I am simply noting that there is a parallel between the article's idea of string theory having no real predictive power and the idea of God having nothing to add. Certainly, one could argue that Kepler's understanding of planetary rotation is based on his astrology and theism. He looked for patterns in things, but the idea of God doesn't add to the patterns or change the work. Just as one could say that since string theory explains QM it somehow changes the work. It doesn't. The ideas aren't scientific and don't add anything to the science itself. There's no reason to consider them, and doing so is just a waste of time.
>>But maybe by "modern" you mean "completely materialistic". And of course that's true. It's the age old dilemma: which came first? The naturalist says, "In the beginning were the particles...". The Christian says, "In the beginning was the Word..." And never the 'twain shall meet.
Actually, I know a number of materialistic naturalists and they would never say "In the beginning were the particles..." -- Such a thing is instantly flawed based on the existence of particles. Thus it can't be the beginning.
>>Oh, what the hell, let's go for troll moderation. I'll go so far as to argue that denying the existence of God is actually hindering science.
Well, I never argued what you think I argued. I argued that they are non-scientific and add nothing to the work itself. Thus, time should better be spend looking at other things.
>>Why? Because atheism a priori denies the existence of an intelligence far greater than man's and therefore denies the possibility of design in nature.
This is based off an incorrect understanding of atheism. Atheism isn't a denial of the existence of God it's a disbelief in the existence of God. It's not "There is no God." It's "I don't believe in God." -- There is a rather major difference there.
One must, in science, be open minded to ideas. But, all the noted instances of desi
>>Okay, so because a theory (or more an idea or almost a philosiphy) cannot be disproven, it becomes a disaster for modern science?
If it can't be disproven, it's not really scientific. And thus claims a lot of focus that should be given elsewhere. Thus, since it's not scientific it should be disregarded.
>>I suppose we should stop looking for what started the universe, since we can't disprove the existance of God or anything. What a load of BS.
No. This claim is the opposite claim. If we were to accept the existance of God it would also be a disaster for modern science. It's not science. It allows for every answer and is not testible. In your example String Theory is Existence of God. The point is that we should properly disregard both as non-science and focus on other things. They don't make any testible claims. They aren't science. And if you sit around thinking about them, you are just wasting your time.
Sure, you just hook some electrodes up to Cartman and everytime he gets a word wrong Kyle zaps him.
This type of implant doesn't need to be inside the body. You could make the device small and place it on your chin or something. Although the early version would look a lot like a normal headset that gives you some kind of sound cue feedback. Heck, you could do it with a normal headset and a computer program (if the headset were good enough). It would be pretty easy to do. Sounds like a pretty okay way to get pitch right. Oh, better yet, have the program itself put your pitch out on the monitor. Screen turns red if you're offkey. Records the entire song and lets you review your problem areas.
Yes, it would work, but you don't need surgery to make such a pitch feedback device. Although, it wouldn't be very portable unless you could get a PDA to run it and somehow take in good mic data.
Nothing better than pseudoscience eugenics to make the point of why politics should stay the hell away from science. To let racism get garbed in science is bad enough, but to blame the science for the misdeeds of pseudoscience is tragic. Worse yet to claim that eugenics is somehow scientifically sound to make this outlandish statement is the beyond stupid.
What's worse is properly understood science not only destroys the idea of eugenics but of racism itself. The idea that I am genetically *that* different from somebody on the other side of the planet is downright silly. We are all simply humans and carriers for genes.
Liberal Party of Australia is the conservative Australian party. It seems odd that some people don't understand that names don't prove anything. I guess this guy is why the Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, and No Child Left Behind got the names they did. How can you argue against a name?
I suppose framing things as such helps. Renaming Creationism to Creation Science was probably a slick move. Hitler did just take over a small socialist party and had absolutly nothing to do with socialism (as anybody can tell by his post election activities). Nazi Germany != Sweden.
You know why people watched Shrek? Because it had a pot and made sense! I watched that crap, what the hell! We can replace actors for sure... however, writers not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Joe Sixshooter.
Holy crap, I should totally get a job there. Seems like you could just embezzle a lan party in a few weeks.
You should go by Kelvins. Have enough brain power to move crap with your mind.
My question is this, what ever happens to these old "dead" computers? Your computer is dead (blown out power supply). Well, can I buy these old computers or something? What do people do with this stuff? It sounds like idiots take advice from these folks and toss out perfectly good computer gear.
The sad thing is, after two repairs, you've lost the entire cost of the system.
You can get a brand new computer for cheaper than it costs to repair the broken one. At a certain point it's so cheap to buy a new one that they should just switch the harddrive over and upgrade them. I mean, if they misconfigured windows, so it stopped booting then they need a new harddrive with a new install.
I think it would be easier to just sell a service where they take the contents of your old harddrive and pour it into a directory on a brand new system they sell you for 400 bucks.
Hardware it too cheap to pay to repair it.
Well, I live in California in late June. Room temperature is getting close to genius level (without ac).
HAHAHA YOU MEANT TO SAY BOOGER!
if you can't beat them... join them.
>>Well, one major point that I've heard from ID advocates state, and you stated before in this thread, that you can't get more information out of a system than you put into it.
Although, this isn't really true. You add can delete something and add information to the system itself. If you have a 10x10 grid of identicle peas. And you remove pea( 4, 5) you now have more information.
You should randomize the input of a genetic algorithm because it might help. You could start from a zero'd input, but it would take a while to build anything nice. Although, it does depend a lot on what it is trying to do.
>>But theists, while they do say "God did it", go beyond this to further determine how God did it.
But, as I've stated several times before. Determining "how God did it" -- is simply taking the scientific question of "how was it done?" and adding the a priori assumption that God did it. You are just latching "God did it" onto science rather than from the get go. It's dishonest. It's not scientific. And, it's generally pretty stupid. How do elves make the universe spin? Why do unicorns make it rain?
>>>>You are simply taking a scientific question of "How did that happen?" and making it into a question with a priori assumptions
>>That's what everybody does. Everyone has a priori assumptions.
No. To assume things about the world in an a priori sense is a waste of energy and a bad policy. Certainly, if I ask "Why do birds have hollow bones?" the question itself doesn't force an evolutionary answer. "Why did hollow bones evolve in birds?" does have a few assumptions imbedded in it. One being incorrect, that they originally evolved in birds rather than their dinosaur ancestors (although, at this point who can tell the difference).
>>>>Consciousness is a product of our brain.
>>Is it? God doesn't have a "brain", yet he is conscious.
No. God doesn't have a brain. God isn't conscious. God doesn't exist. You not only failed to make a good argument against my comment, you made a pretty good argument against God.
>>What it is and how it works.
It's our brains higher reasoning centers working such that we can deduct things about the world around us. It works via neurons just as everything else in our brains.
>>But there may be other traits of design that can be used to infer design without having to rely on motive.
In general, we simply have ordered information or unordered information. Design implies that thought went into making the information ordered. It's not a property, it's order with a required cause.
>>I can create a computer program because I love to program. I could also create it because I'm being paid to create it.
The difference is a difference in motive, not whether or not a motive exists.
>>The fact that different motives still result in design means that design should be able to be determined apart from motive.
No. The motive itself is moot, the existence of a motive in an intelligent person is what matters.
>>I don't actually care. Design should be able to be determined apart from the designer.
No. You actually can't tell. The information isn't there. It's unclear which is made by the computer and which is made by the human. Because, design isn't a property. Clearly, I could have started from 0 or 1 and the computer could have done the same. You can't really tell anything about it other than they are ordered. Thus, looking for design in such things is futile.
The fact that the Shakespeare work is written by a person (or an infinite monkey) is unknown out of context.
>>See? You agree with me.
No. I'm saying that design isn't a property. You don't really know unless you know how it was made. Perhaps my copy of Shakespeare was created by an infinite number of monkies typing randomly. This would thusly not make my copy designed. But, the information would be the same. This is because, although ordered, design isn't a property. You can't look for it.
>>Furthermore, it's safe to say that the Shakespeare work didn't appear by chance, and proabably not by chance along with a non-intelligent selection mechanism.
I could write a program that randomly creates characters and compares it to Shakespeare. Change those characters which don't match the text and leave those characters which do alone. This would, in a few minutes, create the works of Shakespeare by evolution via a non-intelligent selection mechanism.
>>>>Intelligence can produce order but so can
It turns out while your a child, you will turn out better if you touch everything and pick your nose and eat your buggers.
In general being exposed to a lot of germs (typically harmless) trains up your immune system. buggers catch a lot of local bacteria and allows for exposure in a safe and weakened form.
-- Just because it's correct. Doesn't make you want to do it.
>>>>They are two different questions, but I was addressing the former.
>>I understand that. You claimed that the worldview that says "God did it" is injurious to science. It isn't. It's a hysterical reaction to an opposing worldview.
God did it, isn't a scientific answer.
>>>>I regard the latter as nonsense.
>>I would too, were I an atheist. So what?
Simply attacking me as an atheist, doesn't fix any problems with the "question". You are simply taking a scientific question of "How did that happen?" and making it into a question with a priori assumptions. In essence, you are making it into a trick question. Rightfully the answer to your "scientific" question, should always be 'mu'.
>>What is the naturalistic source for highly complex specific information?
Depends on the information. Are we talking Library of Congress, DNA, or star light.
>>Except, for some reason, that didn't appear to be the case.
Because a lot of people at the time believed in God.
You think that since some people looked for order in the universe while believing in God that the idea of God is suddenly scientific?
>>I don't believe I said that. What I said what that some historians of science noted that science did not flourish apart from certain monotheistic societies.
You mean the west and the middle east, excluding Greece. Not that China was completely backwards at the time western science started picking up. They believed in all manner of things at the time. I would sooner give astrology credit for Kepler's work (as Kepler was first and foremost an astrologer).
>>I was rebutting the claim that acceptance of the existence of god would be a disaster for modern science.
I didn't say it was a disaster for modern science, I said that it, like String Theory isn't science. Time would better be spent on other subjects.
>>Materialists haven't come anywhere close to being able to understand the basis for our consciousness or rational thought.
Consciousness is a product of our brain. Consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation. A dog has some sense of consciousness, but probably not as advanced as humans. More consciousness = more fit. What part of consciousness is such a mystery?
>>So if that leprechaun had the characteristics of a certain monotheistic god, it might be reasonable to give him/her/it that credit.
Oh, but leprechauns have those characteristics and more. They eat monotheistic gods for breakfast You can go ahead and give any mythological character any quality you want. There is still no establishing that such a character has such a characteristic. Certainly, if there existed an allpowerful anything it would be worthwhile to note, be it leprechaun or god. However, just saying that it has something doesn't make such a thing exist or have such a property.
Actually, I know a number of materialistic naturalists and they would never say "In the beginning were the particles..." -- Such a thing is instantly flawed based on the existence of particles. Thus it can't be the beginning.
>>Elsewhere, one poster has said that matter/energy, space/time are all that there is. That is, that "particles" gave rise to intelligence. If that isn't the case, then what would you say is?
No that is the case. It just can't be the case that such things existed before the universe. In the beginning there cannot be particles. Because the existence of particles requires that time has already started. I would add forces to his list.
>>Why not?
Because, design requires motive. Here, which of these two sets of numbers is generated by a computer and which did I design?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
>>This sentence, I think, proves my point. You don't look for design in nature because, to you, it's a priori not recognizable.
No, we have to lo
Don't naysay! I have somebody to blame now!
>>Ok. Name just one. In the end, everything comes down to either theism or atheism. You can't have it any other way.
Great taste!!! LESS FILLING!!! GREAT TASTE!!! LESS FILLING!!!
-- In the end this clearly comes down to atheism or theism. Way to go there Mr. Smarty Pants. How did elves make you that stupid?
I think you might be confusing two definitions of materialism.
The first is a naturalistic worldview. Only things which exist, exist. Where as the supernaturalistic worldview includes non-naturalistic things. So things which exist, exist... but so do somethings which don't exist (non-material).
You are confusing this with materialism like the want of things. Please Santa, I want a pony! Please God, give me money!
>>And with those restricitions on "God did it!", scientific research became feasible. Without it... sorry. Can't do it.
So long as you view God as unable to do anything science works out fine. You simply find your result and credit God with the discovery. "Why did that happen?" is the same questions as "Why did God make that happen?" -- with the noted a priori assumption that "God did it" tossed in for sport.
>>How does this follow? "God did it" and "how did God do it?" are two different things.
They are two different questions, but I was addressing the former. I regard the latter as nonsense. How do elves shift plate techtonics? This is certainly different from the idea *that* elves cause plate techtonics to shift. If elves can do everything, then the answer "elves" is scientifically moot. Asking how elves do such a thing is just nonsense. We are simply looking for the naturalistic source and applying the motive to the process.
>>I find it really interesting that the former excludes the latter. Some historians of science have argued that it was because of the idea of a rational God that the idea arose that nature was ordered and could be fathomed,
Yes, and some people think that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church. The existence of order in the universe would easily have been noted without the concept of God.
>>particularly through observation and testing. Wasn't it Kepler who studied the heavens in order to "think God's thoughts after Him"?
Kepler was a very good astrologer. Looking for order in the universe doesn't require an idea of God. We are really good at noticing order. 1 7 4 10 7 13 10 16 13 19 16 ___. What number would God make be next?
>>So the idea that God and science are incompatible is, to borrow a phrase, "not even wrong". It's simply a by product of the anti-intellectual, anti-historical, "don't offend me" nonsense that passes for thinking these days.
You think that since some people looked for order in the universe while believing in God that the idea of God is suddenly scientific? That's downright absurd. You might as well give leprechaun credit for our understanding of light diffusion.
>>Science flourished within a theistic worldview in Europe and elsewhere, so I don't see how you can support the idea that God is a disaster when it comes to science.
It flourished after the Dark Ages ended. Before that it could get you burnt or locked up. I am simply noting that there is a parallel between the article's idea of string theory having no real predictive power and the idea of God having nothing to add. Certainly, one could argue that Kepler's understanding of planetary rotation is based on his astrology and theism. He looked for patterns in things, but the idea of God doesn't add to the patterns or change the work. Just as one could say that since string theory explains QM it somehow changes the work. It doesn't. The ideas aren't scientific and don't add anything to the science itself. There's no reason to consider them, and doing so is just a waste of time.
>>But maybe by "modern" you mean "completely materialistic". And of course that's true. It's the age old dilemma: which came first? The naturalist says, "In the beginning were the particles...". The Christian says, "In the beginning was the Word..." And never the 'twain shall meet.
Actually, I know a number of materialistic naturalists and they would never say "In the beginning were the particles..." -- Such a thing is instantly flawed based on the existence of particles. Thus it can't be the beginning.
>>Oh, what the hell, let's go for troll moderation. I'll go so far as to argue that denying the existence of God is actually hindering science.
Well, I never argued what you think I argued. I argued that they are non-scientific and add nothing to the work itself. Thus, time should better be spend looking at other things.
>>Why? Because atheism a priori denies the existence of an intelligence far greater than man's and therefore denies the possibility of design in nature.
This is based off an incorrect understanding of atheism. Atheism isn't a denial of the existence of God it's a disbelief in the existence of God. It's not "There is no God." It's "I don't believe in God." -- There is a rather major difference there.
One must, in science, be open minded to ideas. But, all the noted instances of desi
I kept my yahoo address and used it as my primary. After a merger, I would move to Google.
May I recommend. "All things are true. If false, they are true in a different dimension."
Wait, I think that might be taken.
>>Okay, so because a theory (or more an idea or almost a philosiphy) cannot be disproven, it becomes a disaster for modern science?
If it can't be disproven, it's not really scientific. And thus claims a lot of focus that should be given elsewhere. Thus, since it's not scientific it should be disregarded.
>>I suppose we should stop looking for what started the universe, since we can't disprove the existance of God or anything. What a load of BS.
No. This claim is the opposite claim. If we were to accept the existance of God it would also be a disaster for modern science. It's not science. It allows for every answer and is not testible. In your example String Theory is Existence of God. The point is that we should properly disregard both as non-science and focus on other things. They don't make any testible claims. They aren't science. And if you sit around thinking about them, you are just wasting your time.
Sure, you just hook some electrodes up to Cartman and everytime he gets a word wrong Kyle zaps him.
This type of implant doesn't need to be inside the body. You could make the device small and place it on your chin or something. Although the early version would look a lot like a normal headset that gives you some kind of sound cue feedback. Heck, you could do it with a normal headset and a computer program (if the headset were good enough). It would be pretty easy to do. Sounds like a pretty okay way to get pitch right. Oh, better yet, have the program itself put your pitch out on the monitor. Screen turns red if you're offkey. Records the entire song and lets you review your problem areas.
Yes, it would work, but you don't need surgery to make such a pitch feedback device. Although, it wouldn't be very portable unless you could get a PDA to run it and somehow take in good mic data.
So do I.
Nothing better than pseudoscience eugenics to make the point of why politics should stay the hell away from science. To let racism get garbed in science is bad enough, but to blame the science for the misdeeds of pseudoscience is tragic. Worse yet to claim that eugenics is somehow scientifically sound to make this outlandish statement is the beyond stupid.
What's worse is properly understood science not only destroys the idea of eugenics but of racism itself. The idea that I am genetically *that* different from somebody on the other side of the planet is downright silly. We are all simply humans and carriers for genes.
Liberal Party of Australia is the conservative Australian party. It seems odd that some people don't understand that names don't prove anything. I guess this guy is why the Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, and No Child Left Behind got the names they did. How can you argue against a name?
I suppose framing things as such helps. Renaming Creationism to Creation Science was probably a slick move. Hitler did just take over a small socialist party and had absolutly nothing to do with socialism (as anybody can tell by his post election activities). Nazi Germany != Sweden.
Oh, to have an edit commmand...
We can animate something... look at us now...
You know why people watched Shrek? Because it had a pot and made sense! I watched that crap, what the hell! We can replace actors for sure... however, writers not so much.
Also, a ten minute short film that makes no sense at all hardly gets a point.