.. That doesn't address much of anything that I wrote. Yes, the FCC determines most directly what is and isn't prohibited. But we live in a republic, and FCC officials (the people who do the direct determining) are appointed by elected officials (namely, the President). Here's the important part: If FCC prohibitions violated some collective sense of morality, we could reasonably expect it to be a campaign issue. The fact that it isn't confirms that the FCC's decisions comply with the collective moral sense. What you are really arguing for is that the collective moral sense, which is expressed partially through who we elect, be overturned.
Morality should not be codified into law because morality is not a commonality among all cultures. There are basic morala such as murder, rape, theft, the crimes that every religion and every reasonable person would deem as unacceptable. The United States is founded on the creed that I have complete freedom as long as that freedom does not remove the freedom of another person.
Not all religions prohibit these things, or they are qualified in ways that most people in the US would find unacceptable. Also, the teachings of most religions (the ones older than Wicca) would boil to rags the modern Western apetite for sensuality. You can't pick and choose which common teachings you like if you are going to use this as an argument.
I don't buy what you said about "reasonable" people, either. Whether or not we deem someone to be "reasonable" is as subjective (in practice) as whether or not we deem them to be moral. (Not to mention the fact that the two are connected, and the argument is a bit circular.)
The net effect in both cases is a morality by majority vote, which I don't think you'd advocate.
The part about the US and an alledged liberterian ideal, I'll accept for the sake of argument. Having done so, I ask, how is that any different than what we have now? As I pointed out, the restrictions are on a particular type of media, which is very nearly ubiquitous. The vast majority of people think that it would be harmful to them or their children if things were otherwise. Content considered far too racy for TV can be obtained easily and legally.
Also I would suggest that you not attempt to classify a group of people. The old religious farts I was referring to are the FCC board of morals which force their beliefs on the rest of the country.
?? This is plain confusing. You are the one who made reference to "old religious farts." I can't be expected to read your mind to know that you were referring to people who work for the FCC (a few of whom, I'm sure, aren't old or particularly religious.. and anyway, weren't you making appeals to religion just now?).
I believe content creators should have the freedom to produce what they see fit and the collective moral fiber of the country will determine if its a successful release. Then instead of content being driven by someone with one exclusive belief it can be driven by the collective beliefs of the majority of the population or small segments depending on the target audience.
This is basically how it works now. No one is telling people that they can't make pornographic or, if you prefer, "realistic" content. However, the "collective moral fiber" of our society has determined that that content should not be on TV. (Again, it is not prohibited outright.) Maybe there is a little lag in the feedback here, but lest we forget, FCC bureaucrats are appointed (ultimately) by the sitting president, who is elected. If "the collective moral fiber" of the country was being misrepresented, we should expect the candidates to say something about how they intend to clean house. The silence has been deafening, and the reason is simple.
People make comments to this effect EVERY TIME we discuss censorship, and EVERY TIME they are modded insightful or interesting. What's so insightful about something that's been said 7000 times before?
Do you find it humorous? I wonder why. There is a certain level of violence which is acceptable on TV, and there is a certain level of sexual content. Is the acceptable level of violence some quantifiable function of the acceptable level of sexual content that everyone but you is oblivious to?
On the subject of "old religious farts," keep dreaming. Nietzsche was wrong, and you probably are, too.
Let's hope that you're wrong and morality continues to be codified into law. It's hard to imagine our society lasting very long if people are ever able literally to get away with murder.
About why TV can't simply be switched off, I agree a bit, but only a little bit. I think most parents are negligent in this area. But let's assume for the sake of argument that all or most of the restrictions against objectionable content are lifted. What are (for example) single parents supposed to do? They obviously can't police their children 100% of the time. Should they just not own a TV? Isn't that a bit unreasonable, considering how easily people who do want pornography can get it by installing a satellite receiver, applying for membership at a video rental place, or buying a computer and internet access? Whiners about TV and radio restrictions (who, btw, also want to force their morality on the entire country) tend to forget or ignore that most of what they want isn't illegal, it's just in the "adult's only" section of the media.
I don't know which is more mind-boggling - the fact that this was seriously posed as a question or the fact that it was modded insightful.
Kindly go to a strip club, get HBO, google for "nipple", or buy a magazine in a brown wrapper ALL LEGALLY and THEN tell me how terrible the US is just because most people who live here think it might be smart to not allow nudity during the Superbowl.
I wonder if they will be running without government subsidy by that time. Also, if fusion power ever works properly, it could entirely replace our current means of generating power (meaning that we no longer use natural gas or coal). Wind energy will never do that. Period.
Your definition of "blind faith" is overly expansive for my taste, especially considering the negative connotation the phrase carries.
If "blind faith" is simply "belief without evidence" then no one is immune, because everyone has "blind faith" in many things. Namely, those things that they accept without argument or evidence, or those things which are self-evident to them. We can't have an infinite regress of ideas, each one supported by those logically prior to it. The first ones are therefore held not on the basis of some argument or evidence, but on "blind faith."
Many atheists and agnostics I've met believe that the strength of our belief in any idea ought to be apportioned to the weight of the evidence that we have for believing it. They have, by your definition, a "blind faith" in this principle.
Anyway, I claim that my belief in God is not a "blind faith" because I think a more useful definition of "blind faith" would include a few words about whether or not the belief in question is warranted. I happen to think that my belief in God is entirely warranted (even if, for the sake of argument, I know of no good evidence to support it) because God's existence is obvious to me (I know it as plainly as the sighted person in my first post in this thread knows that light and color exist) and none of the arguments to the contrary are convincing. Because my belief in God is warranted, I don't think I have a "blind faith."
A few notes about other things you said:
"I'm a scientist (microbiologist to be exact), and so I'm inclined to believe that when I die, my conscience will die too, and that will be the end of it."
How does being a scientist incline you one way or the other, here? Science has really nothing to say about it, and in fact many scientists believe/have believed in God and an afterlife (Newton comes most directly to mind, but the list is long).
"What I object to is religions that use fear of things like eternal suffering in the afterlife to coerce people into following their guidelines for a "good" life."
I (as a religious person) would like to politely suggest to you that the role of fear in "coercing" people to believe things is overstated. In any case, the argument cuts both ways. I object to the rejection of religious belief stemming from the discomfort associated with the notion that Hell really exists.
".... rather the various groups that have adapted it over the centuries.... "
There is strong evidence that the bible has not been "adapted over the centuries." Even critical scholars who believe the bible is a myth from stem to stern think (AFAIK) that the bible has been very accurately "transmitted" to us. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but I must say that I think it is unlikely that you will be able to find any, much less any that is good.
Answer this; is there any rational reason to believe in the presence of a deity? If not, then I'd say believing in one is pretty irrational.
My "rational reason" for believing that God exists is that God exists. God's existence is self-evident to me.
That is not to suggest that no amount of arguing could convince me otherwise, or that I believe in spite of the evidence, or that I have a "blind faith." I just mean to say that God's existence is as obvious to me as his non-existence seems to be to many others. They may be persuaded otherwise by whatever evidences they find convincing. The same is true of me.
It happens that the evidence for the non-existence of God (that I've seen) is generally very poor and uncertain.
Whether or not the sighted person could really demonstrate that there are such things as color and light is beside the point. Even supposing he couldn't, he is entirely rational for believing that they exist. In the analogy, the sighted person could theoretically find a point of contact, or some common assumptions, from which to work, as you demonstrated. But suppose he was just too stupid to work that out. Is his belief then illogical? Are the blind people warranted in calling him irrational?
Likewise, if there is some "religious" proposition, like "God exists" which is self-evident to a religious person, is that irrational, or just possibly mistaken? Note carefully what I am saying. I haven't brought in anything like "proofs" of God's existence. I'm talking about a person for whom the existence of God is obvious and needs no proof, like the existence of color and light to the sighted person.
A skeptical person for whom God's existence is not obvious may approach this theist and demand some proof from them. The religious person is unable to provide evidence the skeptic finds convincing. While I think that the skeptic may rationally go on disbelieving in the existence of God (regardless of whether God really exists), I do NOT think that he may justly accuse the theist of irrationality on the basis of the foregoing considerations. To do so, he would have to argue convincingly that there is something irrational about finding God's existence to be self-evident, or that God really doesn't exist.
Hopefully that clears up the point of the analogy.
Until I see such logical proof of this or any other religion, I shall continue to label all followers as "blindly believing masses".
Why are Christians (or any other religious people) obligated to prove to you that their beliefs are true before you concede the possibility that they are not all "blindly believing masses?" Why does my rationality (in your mind) depend on my ability to prove something to you?
Let's say for the sake of argument that you are the only sighted person in a society of totally blind people. You try as hard as you can to explain to the blind people that there are such things as light and color, but the skeptics insist that you are being irrational, because your proofs are not convincing enough to overcome their inability to see. Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or not the blind people are being rational in denying the existence of color and light, are YOU being rational in affirming it? Does this suggest anything to you about the rationality of your blanket assertion of the irrationality of all religious people?
Unfortunately, "popularisations" lend themselves to misunderstanding. My favorite subject (theology) is the frequent victim of uneducated assault by people who have managed to parse the simplistic ideas offered in Sunday School or similar settings, and so believe themselves to be experts.
Very few people have the time or inclination to understand enough of the fundamental "tools of the trade" to actually understand what scientists are talking about, but they are still curious. It would be nice if everyone had enough leisure time to become experts in mathematics so they could genuinely understand what scholars are talking about, but that just isn't going to happen. Do we then deny people any understanding at all because they can't understand everything? If so, what on earth for? Just so a few elitists can protect knowledge in an ivory tower from the unwashed masses?
Probably without a lot of difficulty. Evidentally, even with the gear installed backwards, the air brakes still functioned. The concern is that if a great deal of stress were ever placed on it (in an emergency landing after an aborted launch, the CNN article mentioned), it would fail. I don't know what kind of checks the shuttle is put through before it is allowed to fly, but if the rudder is doing what it is supposed to do, and the gears were not considered to be a a high-wear part, would they take everything apart to check them out? Also, it wouldn't be surprising if they DID fairly routinely take things apart to look for wear, but just didn't notice the gear was in backwards. Apparently it was an easy-to-make/easy-to-miss goof up, because the original contractor who built the actuators is the one who did it. Anyway, as the article points out, the gears are being redesigned so that they can't be put on backwards. If you want to complain about something, you should probably point your gripes in that direction, imo. The guy who designed the gear should have realized from the outset that it could malfunction if put on backwards, and that without some obvious way of preventing it from going on that way, someone would eventually screw up.
Could the numbers be biased because there are more "nerds" involved in IT? I mean, if you think of the jobs that are high up there, (florist, plumber) the people doing those jobs are probably not experiencing a lot of existential angst. That's not to say that florists and the guy who fixes your pipes aren't intelligent. I'm just guessing that people who work a lot with their hands (on things outside of themselves that are clearly seen and understood) would be more outwardly focused in their thinking, and less prone to contemplating how miserable their lives are. Then again, maybe that's complete BS.:)
Most of the winners were born in other countries and (presumably) immigrated with their parents. Is this because Intel specifically looked for that or because the only people whose parents really push them to excel are from outside of the US?
I'd feel a lot better about slashdot right now if I didn't think this guy posted AC because he knew he'd be modded to hell for simply daring to suggest that the FCC is right.
I know just what you mean. Harmful and evil things go away on their own all the time. My grandfather doesn't even remember the last time someone was murdered or robbed.
I agree with you entirely. The only things that are immoral or indecent are the things that very obviously harm people (We reserve the right to define "harm" and "obvious" as we see fit, of course). People who don't agree with our assumptions about reality can't possibly have a valid viewpoint. They are just complete and utter morons who we should probably consider torturing to death and eating, not necessarily in that order.
Use a full name (w/ middle initial), a number tacked on the end, a location ("Frank at LA"), or whatever. Hasn't been to hard to work out with email addresses.
I'm confused, because it sounds like the "nanograss" is some kind of little temperature-actuated valve. More likely: The real idea is not that liquid is applied only to problem areas, but that heat-removal is applied only to problem areas. Channels lined with tiny fins are cut all over the die, and liquid is pumped all through them. Liquid flowing through channels in cool areas is heated less than liquid flowing through channels in hot areas. The energy savings comes from needing a lot less coolant (meaning less cooling and pumping), which is in turn a result of the intimate contact between the coolant and the die, and the huge heat transfer area from all those fins (relative to what you'd have w/ just empty channels).
It's a silly thing to argue about, but I have a lot of esteem for Starbucks. The quality of the espresso and coffee you get at a locally-owned place depends pretty heavily on things like how rigorously the baristas are trained, the quality and freshness of the beans, and so on. All these factors depend ultimately on a combination of how good a manager the owner is and how much he knows/cares about coffee (which is, btw, a far more subtle art than most people realize). Starbucks is in the business of coffee and has been for years and years. They know what they're doing. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing it well, because they could be doing a crappy job intentionally for business reasons, but my experience has been that Starbucks is consistently decent. It's certainly possible to get better coffee at a locally owned joint (When I was still in a college town, I always went to the locally owned places over the Starbucks, partially out of principle, but mostly because they were just as good), but it isn't absolutely going to happen. In fact, the worst "latte" I've ever had was at a locally owned place, probably because the lady running the machine had no freaking idea what she was doing.
I notice that most people post spelling and grammar critiques as AC. It's like they realize they are being asses and can't resist, but don't want to risk the karma hit like an adult.
Actually, I doubt it. One relatively famous "day-age" creationist I know of (who, incidentally, all the "real" creationists hate) speculated years ago that we would probably eventually find evidence of life on mars. Here's a link to a more recent statement his organization has made. Quote: "Will NASA ever find evidence of life on Mars? I expect so, if NASA searches with sufficient diligence. Just as meteors travel from Mars to Earth so also do they travel from Earth to Mars. Over the past four billion years at least several billion tons of Earth material, much of it life-carrying material, has landed on Mars."
Slashdot Mirror
.. That doesn't address much of anything that I wrote. Yes, the FCC determines most directly what is and isn't prohibited. But we live in a republic, and FCC officials (the people who do the direct determining) are appointed by elected officials (namely, the President). Here's the important part: If FCC prohibitions violated some collective sense of morality, we could reasonably expect it to be a campaign issue. The fact that it isn't confirms that the FCC's decisions comply with the collective moral sense. What you are really arguing for is that the collective moral sense, which is expressed partially through who we elect, be overturned.
Morality should not be codified into law because morality is not a commonality among all cultures. There are basic morala such as murder, rape, theft, the crimes that every religion and every reasonable person would deem as unacceptable. The United States is founded on the creed that I have complete freedom as long as that freedom does not remove the freedom of another person.
Not all religions prohibit these things, or they are qualified in ways that most people in the US would find unacceptable. Also, the teachings of most religions (the ones older than Wicca) would boil to rags the modern Western apetite for sensuality. You can't pick and choose which common teachings you like if you are going to use this as an argument.
I don't buy what you said about "reasonable" people, either. Whether or not we deem someone to be "reasonable" is as subjective (in practice) as whether or not we deem them to be moral. (Not to mention the fact that the two are connected, and the argument is a bit circular.)
The net effect in both cases is a morality by majority vote, which I don't think you'd advocate.
The part about the US and an alledged liberterian ideal, I'll accept for the sake of argument. Having done so, I ask, how is that any different than what we have now? As I pointed out, the restrictions are on a particular type of media, which is very nearly ubiquitous. The vast majority of people think that it would be harmful to them or their children if things were otherwise. Content considered far too racy for TV can be obtained easily and legally.
Also I would suggest that you not attempt to classify a group of people. The old religious farts I was referring to are the FCC board of morals which force their beliefs on the rest of the country.
?? This is plain confusing. You are the one who made reference to "old religious farts." I can't be expected to read your mind to know that you were referring to people who work for the FCC (a few of whom, I'm sure, aren't old or particularly religious.. and anyway, weren't you making appeals to religion just now?).
I believe content creators should have the freedom to produce what they see fit and the collective moral fiber of the country will determine if its a successful release. Then instead of content being driven by someone with one exclusive belief it can be driven by the collective beliefs of the majority of the population or small segments depending on the target audience.
This is basically how it works now. No one is telling people that they can't make pornographic or, if you prefer, "realistic" content. However, the "collective moral fiber" of our society has determined that that content should not be on TV. (Again, it is not prohibited outright.) Maybe there is a little lag in the feedback here, but lest we forget, FCC bureaucrats are appointed (ultimately) by the sitting president, who is elected. If "the collective moral fiber" of the country was being misrepresented, we should expect the candidates to say something about how they intend to clean house. The silence has been deafening, and the reason is simple.
People make comments to this effect EVERY TIME we discuss censorship, and EVERY TIME they are modded insightful or interesting. What's so insightful about something that's been said 7000 times before?
Do you find it humorous? I wonder why. There is a certain level of violence which is acceptable on TV, and there is a certain level of sexual content. Is the acceptable level of violence some quantifiable function of the acceptable level of sexual content that everyone but you is oblivious to?
On the subject of "old religious farts," keep dreaming. Nietzsche was wrong, and you probably are, too.
Let's hope that you're wrong and morality continues to be codified into law. It's hard to imagine our society lasting very long if people are ever able literally to get away with murder.
About why TV can't simply be switched off, I agree a bit, but only a little bit. I think most parents are negligent in this area. But let's assume for the sake of argument that all or most of the restrictions against objectionable content are lifted. What are (for example) single parents supposed to do? They obviously can't police their children 100% of the time. Should they just not own a TV? Isn't that a bit unreasonable, considering how easily people who do want pornography can get it by installing a satellite receiver, applying for membership at a video rental place, or buying a computer and internet access? Whiners about TV and radio restrictions (who, btw, also want to force their morality on the entire country) tend to forget or ignore that most of what they want isn't illegal, it's just in the "adult's only" section of the media.
I don't know which is more mind-boggling - the fact that this was seriously posed as a question or the fact that it was modded insightful.
Kindly go to a strip club, get HBO, google for "nipple", or buy a magazine in a brown wrapper ALL LEGALLY and THEN tell me how terrible the US is just because most people who live here think it might be smart to not allow nudity during the Superbowl.
I wonder if they will be running without government subsidy by that time. Also, if fusion power ever works properly, it could entirely replace our current means of generating power (meaning that we no longer use natural gas or coal). Wind energy will never do that. Period.
You were under the impression that things were supposed to be fair? If things were fair, there would be no casinos.
You can't say that in here. You must be a religious person out to moralize and keep us from having fun. Boo. Hiss.
Your definition of "blind faith" is overly expansive for my taste, especially considering the negative connotation the phrase carries.
If "blind faith" is simply "belief without evidence" then no one is immune, because everyone has "blind faith" in many things. Namely, those things that they accept without argument or evidence, or those things which are self-evident to them. We can't have an infinite regress of ideas, each one supported by those logically prior to it. The first ones are therefore held not on the basis of some argument or evidence, but on "blind faith."
Many atheists and agnostics I've met believe that the strength of our belief in any idea ought to be apportioned to the weight of the evidence that we have for believing it. They have, by your definition, a "blind faith" in this principle.
Anyway, I claim that my belief in God is not a "blind faith" because I think a more useful definition of "blind faith" would include a few words about whether or not the belief in question is warranted. I happen to think that my belief in God is entirely warranted (even if, for the sake of argument, I know of no good evidence to support it) because God's existence is obvious to me (I know it as plainly as the sighted person in my first post in this thread knows that light and color exist) and none of the arguments to the contrary are convincing. Because my belief in God is warranted, I don't think I have a "blind faith."
A few notes about other things you said:
"I'm a scientist (microbiologist to be exact), and so I'm inclined to believe that when I die, my conscience will die too, and that will be the end of it."
How does being a scientist incline you one way or the other, here? Science has really nothing to say about it, and in fact many scientists believe/have believed in God and an afterlife (Newton comes most directly to mind, but the list is long).
"What I object to is religions that use fear of things like eternal suffering in the afterlife to coerce people into following their guidelines for a "good" life."
I (as a religious person) would like to politely suggest to you that the role of fear in "coercing" people to believe things is overstated. In any case, the argument cuts both ways. I object to the rejection of religious belief stemming from the discomfort associated with the notion that Hell really exists.
".... rather the various groups that have adapted it over the centuries.... "
There is strong evidence that the bible has not been "adapted over the centuries." Even critical scholars who believe the bible is a myth from stem to stern think (AFAIK) that the bible has been very accurately "transmitted" to us. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but I must say that I think it is unlikely that you will be able to find any, much less any that is good.
Answer this; is there any rational reason to believe in the presence of a deity? If not, then I'd say believing in one is pretty irrational.
My "rational reason" for believing that God exists is that God exists. God's existence is self-evident to me.
That is not to suggest that no amount of arguing could convince me otherwise, or that I believe in spite of the evidence, or that I have a "blind faith." I just mean to say that God's existence is as obvious to me as his non-existence seems to be to many others. They may be persuaded otherwise by whatever evidences they find convincing. The same is true of me.
It happens that the evidence for the non-existence of God (that I've seen) is generally very poor and uncertain.
Whether or not the sighted person could really demonstrate that there are such things as color and light is beside the point. Even supposing he couldn't, he is entirely rational for believing that they exist. In the analogy, the sighted person could theoretically find a point of contact, or some common assumptions, from which to work, as you demonstrated. But suppose he was just too stupid to work that out. Is his belief then illogical? Are the blind people warranted in calling him irrational?
Likewise, if there is some "religious" proposition, like "God exists" which is self-evident to a religious person, is that irrational, or just possibly mistaken? Note carefully what I am saying. I haven't brought in anything like "proofs" of God's existence. I'm talking about a person for whom the existence of God is obvious and needs no proof, like the existence of color and light to the sighted person.
A skeptical person for whom God's existence is not obvious may approach this theist and demand some proof from them. The religious person is unable to provide evidence the skeptic finds convincing. While I think that the skeptic may rationally go on disbelieving in the existence of God (regardless of whether God really exists), I do NOT think that he may justly accuse the theist of irrationality on the basis of the foregoing considerations. To do so, he would have to argue convincingly that there is something irrational about finding God's existence to be self-evident, or that God really doesn't exist.
Hopefully that clears up the point of the analogy.
Until I see such logical proof of this or any other religion, I shall continue to label all followers as "blindly believing masses".
Why are Christians (or any other religious people) obligated to prove to you that their beliefs are true before you concede the possibility that they are not all "blindly believing masses?" Why does my rationality (in your mind) depend on my ability to prove something to you?
Let's say for the sake of argument that you are the only sighted person in a society of totally blind people. You try as hard as you can to explain to the blind people that there are such things as light and color, but the skeptics insist that you are being irrational, because your proofs are not convincing enough to overcome their inability to see. Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or not the blind people are being rational in denying the existence of color and light, are YOU being rational in affirming it? Does this suggest anything to you about the rationality of your blanket assertion of the irrationality of all religious people?
Unfortunately, "popularisations" lend themselves to misunderstanding. My favorite subject (theology) is the frequent victim of uneducated assault by people who have managed to parse the simplistic ideas offered in Sunday School or similar settings, and so believe themselves to be experts.
Very few people have the time or inclination to understand enough of the fundamental "tools of the trade" to actually understand what scientists are talking about, but they are still curious. It would be nice if everyone had enough leisure time to become experts in mathematics so they could genuinely understand what scholars are talking about, but that just isn't going to happen. Do we then deny people any understanding at all because they can't understand everything? If so, what on earth for? Just so a few elitists can protect knowledge in an ivory tower from the unwashed masses?
Probably without a lot of difficulty. Evidentally, even with the gear installed backwards, the air brakes still functioned. The concern is that if a great deal of stress were ever placed on it (in an emergency landing after an aborted launch, the CNN article mentioned), it would fail. I don't know what kind of checks the shuttle is put through before it is allowed to fly, but if the rudder is doing what it is supposed to do, and the gears were not considered to be a a high-wear part, would they take everything apart to check them out? Also, it wouldn't be surprising if they DID fairly routinely take things apart to look for wear, but just didn't notice the gear was in backwards. Apparently it was an easy-to-make/easy-to-miss goof up, because the original contractor who built the actuators is the one who did it. Anyway, as the article points out, the gears are being redesigned so that they can't be put on backwards. If you want to complain about something, you should probably point your gripes in that direction, imo. The guy who designed the gear should have realized from the outset that it could malfunction if put on backwards, and that without some obvious way of preventing it from going on that way, someone would eventually screw up.
Could the numbers be biased because there are more "nerds" involved in IT? I mean, if you think of the jobs that are high up there, (florist, plumber) the people doing those jobs are probably not experiencing a lot of existential angst. That's not to say that florists and the guy who fixes your pipes aren't intelligent. I'm just guessing that people who work a lot with their hands (on things outside of themselves that are clearly seen and understood) would be more outwardly focused in their thinking, and less prone to contemplating how miserable their lives are. Then again, maybe that's complete BS. :)
Most of the winners were born in other countries and (presumably) immigrated with their parents. Is this because Intel specifically looked for that or because the only people whose parents really push them to excel are from outside of the US?
I'd feel a lot better about slashdot right now if I didn't think this guy posted AC because he knew he'd be modded to hell for simply daring to suggest that the FCC is right.
I know just what you mean. Harmful and evil things go away on their own all the time. My grandfather doesn't even remember the last time someone was murdered or robbed.
I agree with you entirely. The only things that are immoral or indecent are the things that very obviously harm people (We reserve the right to define "harm" and "obvious" as we see fit, of course). People who don't agree with our assumptions about reality can't possibly have a valid viewpoint. They are just complete and utter morons who we should probably consider torturing to death and eating, not necessarily in that order.
Use a full name (w/ middle initial), a number tacked on the end, a location ("Frank at LA"), or whatever. Hasn't been to hard to work out with email addresses.
I'm confused, because it sounds like the "nanograss" is some kind of little temperature-actuated valve. More likely: The real idea is not that liquid is applied only to problem areas, but that heat-removal is applied only to problem areas. Channels lined with tiny fins are cut all over the die, and liquid is pumped all through them. Liquid flowing through channels in cool areas is heated less than liquid flowing through channels in hot areas. The energy savings comes from needing a lot less coolant (meaning less cooling and pumping), which is in turn a result of the intimate contact between the coolant and the die, and the huge heat transfer area from all those fins (relative to what you'd have w/ just empty channels).
You mean this?
I'd love one, but so far Vonage hasn't set up a local line into my area, so anyone calling me would have to pay long distance.
The hell of it is, the problem was known and a patch was available, it just hadn't been installed.
It's a silly thing to argue about, but I have a lot of esteem for Starbucks. The quality of the espresso and coffee you get at a locally-owned place depends pretty heavily on things like how rigorously the baristas are trained, the quality and freshness of the beans, and so on. All these factors depend ultimately on a combination of how good a manager the owner is and how much he knows/cares about coffee (which is, btw, a far more subtle art than most people realize). Starbucks is in the business of coffee and has been for years and years. They know what they're doing. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing it well, because they could be doing a crappy job intentionally for business reasons, but my experience has been that Starbucks is consistently decent. It's certainly possible to get better coffee at a locally owned joint (When I was still in a college town, I always went to the locally owned places over the Starbucks, partially out of principle, but mostly because they were just as good), but it isn't absolutely going to happen. In fact, the worst "latte" I've ever had was at a locally owned place, probably because the lady running the machine had no freaking idea what she was doing.
I notice that most people post spelling and grammar critiques as AC. It's like they realize they are being asses and can't resist, but don't want to risk the karma hit like an adult.
Actually, I doubt it. One relatively famous "day-age" creationist I know of (who, incidentally, all the "real" creationists hate) speculated years ago that we would probably eventually find evidence of life on mars. Here's a link to a more recent statement his organization has made. Quote: "Will NASA ever find evidence of life on Mars? I expect so, if NASA searches with sufficient diligence. Just as meteors travel from Mars to Earth so also do they travel from Earth to Mars. Over the past four billion years at least several billion tons of Earth material, much of it life-carrying material, has landed on Mars."