The entire basis of science is the idea that the universe operates under a finite set of consistent rules. For science to truly be a never-ending inquiry, then either the rules aren't finite, they're not consistent, or they're not fully knowable. And if they're not fully knowable, then we should recognize the point at which we can learn no more and stop wasting our time. We're nowhere near that point, of course. But the idea that there will always be some new rule of the universe we don't know defeats the purpose of science entirely.
Amazon's one-click patent was good for one reason: it prevented other retailers from creating such an inane system!
I once accidentally hit the one-click purchase button shortly before I had to leave my computer for the day. I couldn't cancel the order before I left, because the system hadn't processed it yet. By the time I got back later that evening, the order had already reached the point I couldn't cancel it! I had to wait for the merchandise to arrive, and then return it under a false reason.
A good lesson in human computer interfaces: the complexity of executing a task should be proportional to the complexity of undoing it.
Why is it not possible that a believer does the right thing because it's right, just like your hypothetical atheist?
It's been said that faith can be usefully divided into three phases, which are analogous to a child's relationship to his parents (surprise). First, you mow the yard because if you don't, you'll be grounded; do right to avoid punishment. Later, you mow the yard because you're paid to; do right to receive reward. But later, as an adult, you mow the yard because you love your parents and they need it done; do right out of love, punishment and reward no longer being necessary motivations.
What happens to me after I die, I'll leave to God. Right now, I have a job to do.
Public transportation is only useful if the route goes pretty much where you need it to go, pretty much when you need it to go there. I once ran the figures. For me to take a bus to school and back, I'd have to get up at 5:30, drive to a park and ride, get to school at 8:00, leave at 4:00, get back to my car at 5:00, and drive home. Since I still have to drive to get to the bus, and since I still have to pay for the bus ride, by taking the bus I would effectively be valuing my time at about $1/hour, eating two hours out of my day, making it impossible for me to go somewhere in the middle of the day, and eliminating all flexibility in my schedule.
I'm still waiting for them to re-release Stargate. They said mine was the Ultimate Edition, dangit! If they release it again, it's just the PENULTIMATE edition, and I want my money back! Plus punitive damages, of course. Who's up for a class-action lawsuit?
"What created the creator" is a silly question. The lack of a creator requires that at some point, something had no cause. Why, then, should the presence of a creator require that creator to have an external cause?
Intelligent design would also predict that there are similarities ("relationships" is begging the question) between all living things. Tell me what prediction evolution makes that could actually break the theory if it turned out to be false. If it doesn't make any, it's not a scientific theory.
I was about to ask the same question about evolution. I mean, yeah, we can observe minor instances of speciation, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that life originally came from non-living matter, and through completely natural, explainable processes, ended with all the forms of life we see today. What falsifiable predictions does THAT make? 'Cause if it doesn't make any, it's not a scientific theory either. And THAT'S what should be said in classrooms: it's an idea. It's not a scientific theory, but that doesn't make it an invalid idea.
I was about to ask the same question about evolution. I mean, yeah, we can observe minor instances of speciation, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that life originally came from non-living matter, and through completely natural, explainable processes, ended with all the forms of life we see today. What falsifiable predictions does THAT make? 'Cause if it doesn't make any, it's not a scientific theory either.
Of course, the same thing applies to any scientific analysis trying to determine the nature of past events. It's really hard to perform an experiment on the past.
Ah, but to be really accurate, you'd have to also have the game simulate all the consequences of those actions. Sure, you can sleep with your neighbor's wife, get her pregnant, then have him killed. But you are soooooo gonna pay for it.
People don't realize, God doesn't condone everything that's recorded in the Bible. A lot of it is just a record of what happened. Just because a big booming voice didn't come down from the sky at one point or another and say "YOU'RE SCREWED!" when someone did something awful doesn't mean that the people involved got away with what they did.
No, it's not.
Grid power is generated by whatever we can find in nature to do it, solar, coal, nuclear, what have you. The main concern is thermodynamics. We can't get more energy out than was put in at some point, so we have to find pre-existing stores of energy somewhere. Creating them ourselves won't do any good. Hydrogen not being found in large, independent, non-plasmariffic quantities anywhere nearby, it won't work for grid power.
But what we're talking about here is portable power, which has a totally different batch of concerns, primarily energy density and ease of use. The fact that the overall creation of the hydrogen isn't highly efficient in absolute terms isn't an issue.
It probably takes quite a bit more grid electricity to make a battery than is actually stored in the battery. Does that make them any less useful?
Slashdot Mirror
Edsger Dijkstra once said, "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
Ayi ayi ayi!
The entire basis of science is the idea that the universe operates under a finite set of consistent rules. For science to truly be a never-ending inquiry, then either the rules aren't finite, they're not consistent, or they're not fully knowable. And if they're not fully knowable, then we should recognize the point at which we can learn no more and stop wasting our time. We're nowhere near that point, of course. But the idea that there will always be some new rule of the universe we don't know defeats the purpose of science entirely.
...and when things go pear-shaped, those humans won't escape, Dysons are AI's best friend!
Does that bother you?
Amazon's one-click patent was good for one reason: it prevented other retailers from creating such an inane system!
I once accidentally hit the one-click purchase button shortly before I had to leave my computer for the day. I couldn't cancel the order before I left, because the system hadn't processed it yet. By the time I got back later that evening, the order had already reached the point I couldn't cancel it! I had to wait for the merchandise to arrive, and then return it under a false reason.
A good lesson in human computer interfaces: the complexity of executing a task should be proportional to the complexity of undoing it.
In Russian epic "Cinderella", glass slipper wears you!
RTFA! The chisel is for installing antennas, n00b!
Only if Apple pays royalties!
Why is it not possible that a believer does the right thing because it's right, just like your hypothetical atheist? It's been said that faith can be usefully divided into three phases, which are analogous to a child's relationship to his parents (surprise). First, you mow the yard because if you don't, you'll be grounded; do right to avoid punishment. Later, you mow the yard because you're paid to; do right to receive reward. But later, as an adult, you mow the yard because you love your parents and they need it done; do right out of love, punishment and reward no longer being necessary motivations. What happens to me after I die, I'll leave to God. Right now, I have a job to do.
I love Stargate! I hope O'Neil comes back.
Public transportation is only useful if the route goes pretty much where you need it to go, pretty much when you need it to go there. I once ran the figures. For me to take a bus to school and back, I'd have to get up at 5:30, drive to a park and ride, get to school at 8:00, leave at 4:00, get back to my car at 5:00, and drive home. Since I still have to drive to get to the bus, and since I still have to pay for the bus ride, by taking the bus I would effectively be valuing my time at about $1/hour, eating two hours out of my day, making it impossible for me to go somewhere in the middle of the day, and eliminating all flexibility in my schedule.
So why would I take the bus, again?
And Africa is a big country in the middle of the world...
I'm still waiting for them to re-release Stargate. They said mine was the Ultimate Edition, dangit! If they release it again, it's just the PENULTIMATE edition, and I want my money back! Plus punitive damages, of course. Who's up for a class-action lawsuit?
HANS? Geek card. Now.
I don't see you with a degree in fungineering!
Why not just put porn on it and get it over with?
"What created the creator" is a silly question. The lack of a creator requires that at some point, something had no cause. Why, then, should the presence of a creator require that creator to have an external cause? Intelligent design would also predict that there are similarities ("relationships" is begging the question) between all living things. Tell me what prediction evolution makes that could actually break the theory if it turned out to be false. If it doesn't make any, it's not a scientific theory.
I was about to ask the same question about evolution. I mean, yeah, we can observe minor instances of speciation, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that life originally came from non-living matter, and through completely natural, explainable processes, ended with all the forms of life we see today. What falsifiable predictions does THAT make? 'Cause if it doesn't make any, it's not a scientific theory either. And THAT'S what should be said in classrooms: it's an idea. It's not a scientific theory, but that doesn't make it an invalid idea.
I was about to ask the same question about evolution. I mean, yeah, we can observe minor instances of speciation, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that life originally came from non-living matter, and through completely natural, explainable processes, ended with all the forms of life we see today. What falsifiable predictions does THAT make? 'Cause if it doesn't make any, it's not a scientific theory either. Of course, the same thing applies to any scientific analysis trying to determine the nature of past events. It's really hard to perform an experiment on the past.
When's the first astrologer going to sue because the discovery of this planet has deformed her horoscope?
To Soyuz 1 and 11.
Ah, but to be really accurate, you'd have to also have the game simulate all the consequences of those actions. Sure, you can sleep with your neighbor's wife, get her pregnant, then have him killed. But you are soooooo gonna pay for it. People don't realize, God doesn't condone everything that's recorded in the Bible. A lot of it is just a record of what happened. Just because a big booming voice didn't come down from the sky at one point or another and say "YOU'RE SCREWED!" when someone did something awful doesn't mean that the people involved got away with what they did.
No, it's not. Grid power is generated by whatever we can find in nature to do it, solar, coal, nuclear, what have you. The main concern is thermodynamics. We can't get more energy out than was put in at some point, so we have to find pre-existing stores of energy somewhere. Creating them ourselves won't do any good. Hydrogen not being found in large, independent, non-plasmariffic quantities anywhere nearby, it won't work for grid power. But what we're talking about here is portable power, which has a totally different batch of concerns, primarily energy density and ease of use. The fact that the overall creation of the hydrogen isn't highly efficient in absolute terms isn't an issue. It probably takes quite a bit more grid electricity to make a battery than is actually stored in the battery. Does that make them any less useful?