Go argue with Einstein. He's the perfect example of a scientist who came up with really good theories which were not proven for a significant amount of time until the evidence came in later and which (quite properly) *he* did not consider proven until the evidence came in.
Lots of explanations can fit the evidence at a given point of time and are absolutely wrong. The lack of stellar parallax was always one of the most sophisticated knocks against heliocentrism. The heliocentrists finally got good enough instruments to prove that it was there, but only in the 1800s. That the Church did not want the courts of the Inquisition used to punish geocentrists should hardly be controversial but here you are, being pissed off about the lack of stake burnings for scientists who hold the wrong views.
I think the problem believers generally have with scientism is not that we imagine that so many people subscribe to scientism but rather that the vast bulk of scientists seem to be so lackadaisical about their basic human obligation to police their own in an even-handed manner. You don't have to have a lot of science teachers twisting science into scientism and advocating atheism under the color of science in order to be justifiably mad about it. You just have to have one, the one that's teaching your kid.
Is talking to yourself puzzling... hmm... nah, I understand the impulse well enough. Why don't you?
I prayed to God at about midnight to help me wake up on time so I could be out on the road by 6AM. I am usually a relatively late riser. I woke up at about 4:50AM, a highly unusual event. Maybe God answered my prayer, maybe I "talked to myself" and made it work but it was a functional behavior, one I've used for years, and it works more reliably for me than alarm clocks. So why is it puzzling again?
Actually, christian theology is pretty consistent on the whole God exists outside the limits of the whole time and space thing. Once you can stop time at will, or even significantly alter time, you can walk on water. That's even putting aside the whole omnipotent thing which, by definition, would let you walk on water.
Once you start in on this or that act of an omnipotent divine being being physically impossible, you've already dismissed, a priori, that you're talking about a divine being.
Almost universally, young earth creationists are not only obtuse about science but also about theology. The large majority of the two billion worldwide christians are apostolic, either Catholic (1.1B) or Orthodox (0.25B) neither of which particularly is science hostile. There are an awful lot of tiny splinter groups that people get worked up about though.
Yes, we too can then kill ourselves off (as nations) from ennui. How's that 1.3 TFR working for you sparky? I'd feel much better about that secular future people keep talking about if, you know, there was any future in it.
Actually, both were banned by the Church for the same thing, expressing the opinion that they knew as a fact that this is the way things were long in advance of actually having proof, the last of which finally came long after their deaths (stellar parallax was observed in real life for the first time in the 1800s). Galileo was abrasive, offensive, and wanted the Church to use the Inquisition to put Geocentrists in prison. That's what his trial was about, whether or not he'd committed heresy by trying to get his scientific opponents denounced as heretics.
Once Copernicus' and Galileo's works were tweaked to actually claim to be scientific theories that best fit the evidence available at the time, they were permitted publication in Rome in those forms but Galileo made so many enemies with his personal behavior that his rehab took longer. This was wrong and Pope John Paul II essentially said that the curial officials at the time were petty in their revenge over being insulted by Galileo and obligated the Holy See to undergo a minor penance over the matter.
Yes, you can install OSX on hardware that wasn't meant to take it. That defeats the purpose of OS X. An EFI board shouldn't end up costing much more than a board that uses legacy BIOS (or near enough).
OS X as opposed to Darwin, is useful because you get Apple providing a stick to ensure good behavior in the hardware/software ecosystem. The further away you get from Apple's hardware standards, the more you're going to be punished by the system instead of reaping its rewards.
I'd like to make a mac clone in order to do something neat that Apple does not and will not do using its own engineering resources. The +/- $150 over buying a mac mini is not going to break me.
I've currently got a main house valve that doesn't work, a post meter valve that doesn't work, a sidewalk valve that's buried and the only thing that's keeping my kitchen dry is the valve on my sink and that one's starting to leak. The house is about 20 years old.
Plumbing needs maintenance just like everything else.
They're out there. Radley Balko has been doing good work assembling cases of SWAT raids gone wrong through error and malice and the trend line seems to be going in a bad direction. http://www.theagitator.com/
Re:Emphasis in Cuban medicine is prevention not cu
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
The WHO health statistics are reported by the Cuban government. There is no independent check available. The communist system, of which Cuba is one of the last surviving examples, is famous for lying through their teeth on these stats and when the iron curtain came down, we found out that even pessimistic conservative estimates often understated the pathology.
If you've got hard currency to spend, the communist system wants *you*. That's nothing new.
They provide great service by impoverishing their domestic services and give subsidized foreigners some good care so they can get $$$ that's actually worth something on the world market. So yes, you can get good care in Cuba but for every x foreign patients treated well, an extra y cubans get treated badly or not at all and in communism, the y is always greater than the x. You're only seeing the x. If you try to find out about the other half of the equation, you'll find that Cuba's security apparat wants to have a chat with you. It will not be a friendly chat.
That's the real tragedy of places like Cuba. In Romania, where I was born, they were exporting food while people went hungry. There were goods to be had, but mostly in dollar shops where normal people couldn't go. You'd think that after the iron curtain went down and 300M people were liberated and could tell their stories, the old communist propaganda wouldn't work anymore. You're post proves that wrong.
The USAF's actions are stupid because it's counterproductive and hurts the war effort. Wartime censorship is a fact of life and has been for a very long time. Done appropriately, it helps the war effort. The number of cases where it's justified to censor an outlet is dropping like a stone and the USAF needs to figure that out.
While healthcare is "free" in Castro's Cuba, the doctors have virtually nothing to offer sick people in terms of medicine, medical devices, and decent facilities. There is a two tier system. If you're a foreigner or part of the party high ups, you can get decent healthcare. If you're part of the vast majority of the population, you get shafted and get to watch your relatives die before their time. How are they smiling then?
Why yes, and even the absolute monarchies abandoned that original system because it sucked. Now monied interests are trying to back us into a return to that system. It's as bad now as it was in Queen Anne's day when she ended the perpetual monopoly system. The end of perpetual copyrights is not an American innovation.
If a private businessman were to actually try to deal with it, the US taxpayer would pay for his arrest, trial, and imprisonment. The Westphalian system restricts private actors from dealing with a lot of goofball things foreign governments do. The government is supposed to do it instead.
Oh, I'd say emptying his prisons out and pointing his criminals north towards Florida is probably just a smidgen worse than France at its most annoying. Communist states have rapists and child molesters too, you know, and we ended up with his.
No, actually it's not theirs. Perpetual copyrights were done away with centuries ago for very good reason because it promotes unproductive leeching and retards society. If I independently reinvent something that some guy invented 150 years ago, what makes my creative impulse thievery? Why should anybody creative have an IP lawyer constantly looking over their shoulder to make sure they aren't infringing? That's just daft.
People have a right to do what they like, including copying. We do it in fashion without even a twitch of remorse. In fact, that's the entire purpose of fashion, to set up models to copy from.
We infringe upon that right to copy for very good reason, in order to maximize creativity and progress. That's the proper test, not income maintenance. Right now very deep pockets are looking at the value of very old copyrights and seeing the cost of buying politicians as much less a hit on their balance sheets than giving up those income streams from Mickey Mouse, etc. That's the real impetus for copyright extension. We just went through a long fight over copyright extension that got Disney et al twenty years of extra portfolio revenue. Now they want to prep for another extension in a decade.
I'm talking about what is. You're talking about what should be. This doesn't have to be in conflict.
I've been part of a retail startup that poured 50k in startup funds into a marble espresso setup imported from Italy, total waste of money. Waste comes in many forms and any bit of waste can be the "straw that breaks the camel's back".
Rarely, small expenditures can tip things over the edge. That's the textbook definition of marginal. You've got a good product and one shot at an angel who is going to fill your money gap. There's a certain pain point past which he won't finance and if you've burnt money just a bit too fast you'll go under.
I think you haven't understood what marginal means. In any large continuum (and worldwide business startups qualify) there's going to be businesses that just barely miss making it. They run out of money and go under a week or two before they would have finished their product sufficient to get a key payment. It happens. It's the difference between 100 businesses in a thousand making it and 102.
People make all sorts of foolish decisions on spending startup cash. They burn through it quickly and go under because their revenue doesn't rise fast enough and nobody wants to finance the gaps with such irresponsible startups. Some investor groups toss out the cash burners fast enough, some don't. I've been on both sides of that equation.
Slashdot Mirror
Go argue with Einstein. He's the perfect example of a scientist who came up with really good theories which were not proven for a significant amount of time until the evidence came in later and which (quite properly) *he* did not consider proven until the evidence came in.
Lots of explanations can fit the evidence at a given point of time and are absolutely wrong. The lack of stellar parallax was always one of the most sophisticated knocks against heliocentrism. The heliocentrists finally got good enough instruments to prove that it was there, but only in the 1800s. That the Church did not want the courts of the Inquisition used to punish geocentrists should hardly be controversial but here you are, being pissed off about the lack of stake burnings for scientists who hold the wrong views.
Twit.
I think the problem believers generally have with scientism is not that we imagine that so many people subscribe to scientism but rather that the vast bulk of scientists seem to be so lackadaisical about their basic human obligation to police their own in an even-handed manner. You don't have to have a lot of science teachers twisting science into scientism and advocating atheism under the color of science in order to be justifiably mad about it. You just have to have one, the one that's teaching your kid.
Is "the universe is ordered according to principles and that those principles are knowable" a statement of faith or of scientific knowledge?
Is talking to yourself puzzling... hmm... nah, I understand the impulse well enough. Why don't you?
I prayed to God at about midnight to help me wake up on time so I could be out on the road by 6AM. I am usually a relatively late riser. I woke up at about 4:50AM, a highly unusual event. Maybe God answered my prayer, maybe I "talked to myself" and made it work but it was a functional behavior, one I've used for years, and it works more reliably for me than alarm clocks. So why is it puzzling again?
Actually, christian theology is pretty consistent on the whole God exists outside the limits of the whole time and space thing. Once you can stop time at will, or even significantly alter time, you can walk on water. That's even putting aside the whole omnipotent thing which, by definition, would let you walk on water.
Once you start in on this or that act of an omnipotent divine being being physically impossible, you've already dismissed, a priori, that you're talking about a divine being.
Almost universally, young earth creationists are not only obtuse about science but also about theology. The large majority of the two billion worldwide christians are apostolic, either Catholic (1.1B) or Orthodox (0.25B) neither of which particularly is science hostile. There are an awful lot of tiny splinter groups that people get worked up about though.
Yes, we too can then kill ourselves off (as nations) from ennui. How's that 1.3 TFR working for you sparky? I'd feel much better about that secular future people keep talking about if, you know, there was any future in it.
To pray is an old english way to say "request". I pray thee, pass the salt. Why you should think that is superstitious is puzzling to me...
Actually, both were banned by the Church for the same thing, expressing the opinion that they knew as a fact that this is the way things were long in advance of actually having proof, the last of which finally came long after their deaths (stellar parallax was observed in real life for the first time in the 1800s). Galileo was abrasive, offensive, and wanted the Church to use the Inquisition to put Geocentrists in prison. That's what his trial was about, whether or not he'd committed heresy by trying to get his scientific opponents denounced as heretics.
Once Copernicus' and Galileo's works were tweaked to actually claim to be scientific theories that best fit the evidence available at the time, they were permitted publication in Rome in those forms but Galileo made so many enemies with his personal behavior that his rehab took longer. This was wrong and Pope John Paul II essentially said that the curial officials at the time were petty in their revenge over being insulted by Galileo and obligated the Holy See to undergo a minor penance over the matter.
Yes, you can install OSX on hardware that wasn't meant to take it. That defeats the purpose of OS X. An EFI board shouldn't end up costing much more than a board that uses legacy BIOS (or near enough).
OS X as opposed to Darwin, is useful because you get Apple providing a stick to ensure good behavior in the hardware/software ecosystem. The further away you get from Apple's hardware standards, the more you're going to be punished by the system instead of reaping its rewards.
I'd like to make a mac clone in order to do something neat that Apple does not and will not do using its own engineering resources. The +/- $150 over buying a mac mini is not going to break me.
Actually these days, all you need is an EFI board.
I've currently got a main house valve that doesn't work, a post meter valve that doesn't work, a sidewalk valve that's buried and the only thing that's keeping my kitchen dry is the valve on my sink and that one's starting to leak. The house is about 20 years old.
Plumbing needs maintenance just like everything else.
They're out there. Radley Balko has been doing good work assembling cases of SWAT raids gone wrong through error and malice and the trend line seems to be going in a bad direction.
http://www.theagitator.com/
The WHO health statistics are reported by the Cuban government. There is no independent check available. The communist system, of which Cuba is one of the last surviving examples, is famous for lying through their teeth on these stats and when the iron curtain came down, we found out that even pessimistic conservative estimates often understated the pathology.
So I should believe the WHO stats, why?
If you've got hard currency to spend, the communist system wants *you*. That's nothing new.
They provide great service by impoverishing their domestic services and give subsidized foreigners some good care so they can get $$$ that's actually worth something on the world market. So yes, you can get good care in Cuba but for every x foreign patients treated well, an extra y cubans get treated badly or not at all and in communism, the y is always greater than the x. You're only seeing the x. If you try to find out about the other half of the equation, you'll find that Cuba's security apparat wants to have a chat with you. It will not be a friendly chat.
That's the real tragedy of places like Cuba. In Romania, where I was born, they were exporting food while people went hungry. There were goods to be had, but mostly in dollar shops where normal people couldn't go. You'd think that after the iron curtain went down and 300M people were liberated and could tell their stories, the old communist propaganda wouldn't work anymore. You're post proves that wrong.
The USAF's actions are stupid because it's counterproductive and hurts the war effort. Wartime censorship is a fact of life and has been for a very long time. Done appropriately, it helps the war effort. The number of cases where it's justified to censor an outlet is dropping like a stone and the USAF needs to figure that out.
While healthcare is "free" in Castro's Cuba, the doctors have virtually nothing to offer sick people in terms of medicine, medical devices, and decent facilities. There is a two tier system. If you're a foreigner or part of the party high ups, you can get decent healthcare. If you're part of the vast majority of the population, you get shafted and get to watch your relatives die before their time. How are they smiling then?
Why yes, and even the absolute monarchies abandoned that original system because it sucked. Now monied interests are trying to back us into a return to that system. It's as bad now as it was in Queen Anne's day when she ended the perpetual monopoly system. The end of perpetual copyrights is not an American innovation.
If a private businessman were to actually try to deal with it, the US taxpayer would pay for his arrest, trial, and imprisonment. The Westphalian system restricts private actors from dealing with a lot of goofball things foreign governments do. The government is supposed to do it instead.
Oh, I'd say emptying his prisons out and pointing his criminals north towards Florida is probably just a smidgen worse than France at its most annoying. Communist states have rapists and child molesters too, you know, and we ended up with his.
No, actually it's not theirs. Perpetual copyrights were done away with centuries ago for very good reason because it promotes unproductive leeching and retards society. If I independently reinvent something that some guy invented 150 years ago, what makes my creative impulse thievery? Why should anybody creative have an IP lawyer constantly looking over their shoulder to make sure they aren't infringing? That's just daft.
People have a right to do what they like, including copying. We do it in fashion without even a twitch of remorse. In fact, that's the entire purpose of fashion, to set up models to copy from.
We infringe upon that right to copy for very good reason, in order to maximize creativity and progress. That's the proper test, not income maintenance. Right now very deep pockets are looking at the value of very old copyrights and seeing the cost of buying politicians as much less a hit on their balance sheets than giving up those income streams from Mickey Mouse, etc. That's the real impetus for copyright extension. We just went through a long fight over copyright extension that got Disney et al twenty years of extra portfolio revenue. Now they want to prep for another extension in a decade.
No way, no how, over my dead body.
I'm talking about what is. You're talking about what should be. This doesn't have to be in conflict.
I've been part of a retail startup that poured 50k in startup funds into a marble espresso setup imported from Italy, total waste of money. Waste comes in many forms and any bit of waste can be the "straw that breaks the camel's back".
Rarely, small expenditures can tip things over the edge. That's the textbook definition of marginal. You've got a good product and one shot at an angel who is going to fill your money gap. There's a certain pain point past which he won't finance and if you've burnt money just a bit too fast you'll go under.
I think you haven't understood what marginal means. In any large continuum (and worldwide business startups qualify) there's going to be businesses that just barely miss making it. They run out of money and go under a week or two before they would have finished their product sufficient to get a key payment. It happens. It's the difference between 100 businesses in a thousand making it and 102.
People make all sorts of foolish decisions on spending startup cash. They burn through it quickly and go under because their revenue doesn't rise fast enough and nobody wants to finance the gaps with such irresponsible startups. Some investor groups toss out the cash burners fast enough, some don't. I've been on both sides of that equation.