The Moon hasn't always been the same size in the sky. It is slowly moving away, so it has been larger in the past and will be smaller in the future. It's just that *now*, it is roughly the same size as the sun (depending on how far out it is, as its orbit is not perfect). So no, not a coincidence - you just misunderstand what's going on.
The second law of thermodynamics? Give it a rest. The Earth is an open system, and so that does not apply.
Trees? Ha! You are seriously claiming that the only evidence for the flood is in tree rings? Where is the geological evidence that should be literally everywhere? It's not there. Get a grip. Pointing to one interesting (to you) thing and claiming that it overturns the metric ass-loads of evidence to the contrary is not science. It's not even thinking. It's idiotic.
They didn't use evolution as the basis for their ill-deeds, as evolution says that no people are "ueber" or "unter", and that genetic diversity is of paramount importance to the survival of a species. They used scientifically-unsound beliefs to achieve that logic.
Creationism has everything to do with how species were created, not life itself, and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
People who don't want evolution taught in schools simply don't understand it.
Superstition and religion are both forms of "magical thinking" - the thinking that some act (praying, wearing your wife's underwear) affects something, with the only evidence of efficacy being purely anecdotal and entirely devoid of any reproducible rigour. Just as if your regular expressions don't work you might attribute it to the wrong colour, religious people might attribute misfortune to incorrect prayers or incorrect actions.
He didn't mean they were stupid because of the rules, just that explaining if you don't follow the rules you will be messed up for eternity is a pretty good way of getting people to follow the rules, regardless of how intelligent or knowledgeable one is, provided they believe. Before people could be adequately reasoned with and educated on the benefits of a society living together, and in the absence of a judiciary and police force, that was the only way to really achieve a system of common laws. "Do this or burn forever".
You are confusing the layman's use of the word "theory" with the scientific meaning of the word. "Theory" in a scientific context means the best explanation available for which a preponderance of evidence exists. It does not mean "guess".
False. Evolution is the natural phenomenon we observe. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for it, which doesn't require a big bang. Hell - the universe could have been farted into existence and the theory would still hold water, as it is based on evidence, experimentation, predictions, and so forth. You clearly have no idea.
Are you insane? Are you seriously claiming that scientific knowledge doesn't impart wisdom or understanding of human nature, while religion does?? You're a mess. Religion has caused some people to be the absolute worst they can. What is it Weinberg said? Something along the lines of "[F]or good people to do evil things, that takes religion". Go peddle your snivelling nonsense somewhere else.
... who hasn't been needed. Hell, when those "very alert, cautious humans" were at the wheel, the Google fleet had their only accidents. Computers 1 Humans 0.
The human is there for legal reasons and because the technology is brand new. Neither of those change the fact that the cars have travelled for hundreds of thousands of miles without accident, which according to your logic is impossible. Either you or reality is wrong...
Because cars travelling at ~100mph in contact with the ground are entirely similar to planes travelling at ~400 tens of thousands of feet in the air. If you're scared of technology, just say! It's cool - no-one will be mean to you. You're safe here.
It seems you are judging the ability of Google/Tesla/Whoever's engineers by your own, which is never a good idea. They are experts in this field. You clearly are not. Google has already demonstrated the ability of their cars to perform better than your appraisal of "object detected! blow up cos im retardet computer car thing".
And yet humans frequently make mistakes of which they are simply unaware, such as your use of "responcible" instead of "responsible". Humans are indeed adaptable and flexible, yet error-prone and evolved to make quick judgements which are better suited to fight-or-flight scenarios rather than adapting the physics of a speeding vehicle.
It's true. You have discovered the weakness of technology. The finest minds the human race has ever created have been struggling with this for decades: How to have a camera recognise red stop signs and yellow lines on the floor, and let two computers talk remotely. You have uncovered the two biggest secrets in technology, and now we wait for the tech giants to crumble as their secrets are made public.
Or, maybe you're a muppet, and they've thought of this already.
Are you insane? Planes have been landing automatically - that is without any human interaction beyond flipping the "land the plane" switch - for years and years. Drones auto-landing is no big deal, as it's been done to death. Heck, if you've flown in the last two decades you've most likely landed automatically at least once.
The realisation that instead of carrying massive amounts of oxygen in order to force your way through massive amounts of oxygen is indicative of something rather different to a "dead-end technology". A plane that can take off horizontally, burning atmospheric air while accelerating and climbing, which then switches to using its own on-board oxygen in order to reach orbit makes a lot of sense. The only real challenge there are the engines, which if to be an economically viable solution, have to provide both phases of flight. Luckily, Reaction Engines Ltd. are working on those engines, and have had a lot of success (including creating one of the most impressive heat-exchangers ever seen), and are on their way to developing their first prototype. The Shuttle and Buran were not space planes - they were large, partially-reusable rockets with bits that looked like planes which helped on the return leg back through the atmosphere. Conflating the two isn't going to help the issue. The Space Shuttle, while inspirational, was terrible compared to what it originally promised. Just because no-one has made a viable SSTO space plane yet doesn't mean they are a dead-end technology.
BT are *not* in bed with Ofcom. Nowhere near. BT regularly struggles with Ofcom to provide cheaper services to customers, but Ofcom slaps them down as being uncompetitive. I like the cut of your jib, but please don't muddy the waters with nonsense. Of course BT is a complicated beast, and so some aspects of their business will be more at odds with Ofcom than others, but to imply BT is "in bed" with Ofcom is absurd.
You are not your country, nor are you your country's government. You are not the people of your country in the past, present, or future. You are you. You have no logical reason to be ashamed of the actions of others, but to be merely disappointed with any culture or society which fosters those actions and the beliefs which drive them. By the same token you should not feel pride in the actions of those of your country, in the past or present, as you are not them and played no part. That is the only logically sustainable outlook to have when thinking of one's own relation to their country or, indeed, the countries of others. Everything else is, at one level or another, at best hypocritical and at worst illogical, though usually an unhealthy mix of the two. Patriotism and nationalism are powerful tools for the weak, but in the hands of the strong they are deadly weapons which tend to ensure they are used as such.
Slashdot Mirror
The Moon hasn't always been the same size in the sky. It is slowly moving away, so it has been larger in the past and will be smaller in the future. It's just that *now*, it is roughly the same size as the sun (depending on how far out it is, as its orbit is not perfect). So no, not a coincidence - you just misunderstand what's going on.
The second law of thermodynamics? Give it a rest. The Earth is an open system, and so that does not apply.
Trees? Ha! You are seriously claiming that the only evidence for the flood is in tree rings? Where is the geological evidence that should be literally everywhere? It's not there. Get a grip. Pointing to one interesting (to you) thing and claiming that it overturns the metric ass-loads of evidence to the contrary is not science. It's not even thinking. It's idiotic.
Ha ha - you linked to The Daily Mail, who have been demonstrated to misrepresent findings to bolster their peculiar take on science. Try again.
They didn't use evolution as the basis for their ill-deeds, as evolution says that no people are "ueber" or "unter", and that genetic diversity is of paramount importance to the survival of a species. They used scientifically-unsound beliefs to achieve that logic.
Creationism has everything to do with how species were created, not life itself, and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
People who don't want evolution taught in schools simply don't understand it.
Superstition and religion are both forms of "magical thinking" - the thinking that some act (praying, wearing your wife's underwear) affects something, with the only evidence of efficacy being purely anecdotal and entirely devoid of any reproducible rigour. Just as if your regular expressions don't work you might attribute it to the wrong colour, religious people might attribute misfortune to incorrect prayers or incorrect actions.
He didn't mean they were stupid because of the rules, just that explaining if you don't follow the rules you will be messed up for eternity is a pretty good way of getting people to follow the rules, regardless of how intelligent or knowledgeable one is, provided they believe. Before people could be adequately reasoned with and educated on the benefits of a society living together, and in the absence of a judiciary and police force, that was the only way to really achieve a system of common laws. "Do this or burn forever".
You are confusing the layman's use of the word "theory" with the scientific meaning of the word. "Theory" in a scientific context means the best explanation available for which a preponderance of evidence exists. It does not mean "guess".
False. Evolution is the natural phenomenon we observe. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for it, which doesn't require a big bang. Hell - the universe could have been farted into existence and the theory would still hold water, as it is based on evidence, experimentation, predictions, and so forth. You clearly have no idea.
Are you insane? Are you seriously claiming that scientific knowledge doesn't impart wisdom or understanding of human nature, while religion does?? You're a mess. Religion has caused some people to be the absolute worst they can. What is it Weinberg said? Something along the lines of "[F]or good people to do evil things, that takes religion". Go peddle your snivelling nonsense somewhere else.
... who hasn't been needed. Hell, when those "very alert, cautious humans" were at the wheel, the Google fleet had their only accidents. Computers 1 Humans 0.
The human is there for legal reasons and because the technology is brand new. Neither of those change the fact that the cars have travelled for hundreds of thousands of miles without accident, which according to your logic is impossible. Either you or reality is wrong...
Because cars travelling at ~100mph in contact with the ground are entirely similar to planes travelling at ~400 tens of thousands of feet in the air. If you're scared of technology, just say! It's cool - no-one will be mean to you. You're safe here.
It seems you are judging the ability of Google/Tesla/Whoever's engineers by your own, which is never a good idea. They are experts in this field. You clearly are not. Google has already demonstrated the ability of their cars to perform better than your appraisal of "object detected! blow up cos im retardet computer car thing".
And yet humans frequently make mistakes of which they are simply unaware, such as your use of "responcible" instead of "responsible". Humans are indeed adaptable and flexible, yet error-prone and evolved to make quick judgements which are better suited to fight-or-flight scenarios rather than adapting the physics of a speeding vehicle.
Then don't buy one. Get a grip, sparky.
It's true. You have discovered the weakness of technology. The finest minds the human race has ever created have been struggling with this for decades: How to have a camera recognise red stop signs and yellow lines on the floor, and let two computers talk remotely. You have uncovered the two biggest secrets in technology, and now we wait for the tech giants to crumble as their secrets are made public.
Or, maybe you're a muppet, and they've thought of this already.
Are you insane? Planes have been landing automatically - that is without any human interaction beyond flipping the "land the plane" switch - for years and years. Drones auto-landing is no big deal, as it's been done to death. Heck, if you've flown in the last two decades you've most likely landed automatically at least once.
The realisation that instead of carrying massive amounts of oxygen in order to force your way through massive amounts of oxygen is indicative of something rather different to a "dead-end technology". A plane that can take off horizontally, burning atmospheric air while accelerating and climbing, which then switches to using its own on-board oxygen in order to reach orbit makes a lot of sense. The only real challenge there are the engines, which if to be an economically viable solution, have to provide both phases of flight. Luckily, Reaction Engines Ltd. are working on those engines, and have had a lot of success (including creating one of the most impressive heat-exchangers ever seen), and are on their way to developing their first prototype. The Shuttle and Buran were not space planes - they were large, partially-reusable rockets with bits that looked like planes which helped on the return leg back through the atmosphere. Conflating the two isn't going to help the issue. The Space Shuttle, while inspirational, was terrible compared to what it originally promised. Just because no-one has made a viable SSTO space plane yet doesn't mean they are a dead-end technology.
You are woefully uninformed about global temperatures. Seriously. This is sad.
There is no pause. Please inform yourself - it's embarrassing.
The body count disagrees.
"Benghazi coverup" - grow up. Seriously. As for the rest: predictable, bland, and most unsatisfying. Would not read again. 2/10.
BT are *not* in bed with Ofcom. Nowhere near. BT regularly struggles with Ofcom to provide cheaper services to customers, but Ofcom slaps them down as being uncompetitive. I like the cut of your jib, but please don't muddy the waters with nonsense. Of course BT is a complicated beast, and so some aspects of their business will be more at odds with Ofcom than others, but to imply BT is "in bed" with Ofcom is absurd.
You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact. Arrogance will do that.
So you're not only woefully ill-informed, you're a chicken too. Wonderful to know.
You are not your country, nor are you your country's government. You are not the people of your country in the past, present, or future. You are you. You have no logical reason to be ashamed of the actions of others, but to be merely disappointed with any culture or society which fosters those actions and the beliefs which drive them. By the same token you should not feel pride in the actions of those of your country, in the past or present, as you are not them and played no part. That is the only logically sustainable outlook to have when thinking of one's own relation to their country or, indeed, the countries of others. Everything else is, at one level or another, at best hypocritical and at worst illogical, though usually an unhealthy mix of the two. Patriotism and nationalism are powerful tools for the weak, but in the hands of the strong they are deadly weapons which tend to ensure they are used as such.