Am I the only one who read that as "I'm a adoloscent social awkward person who sits in his room masturbating porn while wishing he was getting laid by a *flesh*light but is too afraid to actually buy one because he come home with a flashlight while shopping for a fleshlight because of his dyslexia"?
This brings "feeling unable and inadequate to mate" to a whole new level.
Music sounds good because of the structural and chemical make up of our brain and from past experience. What you believe to be God's work is in fact all in your head.
I'm not religious, but your observation is just an observation, not an argument. It's like saying "A coctail has the following ingredients. Therefore, the concept of a bartender is ridiculous." Or even "The experience of drinking a cocktail is just originated in your mouth. Therefore, there is no cocktail, and certainly no bartender."
How did the chemicals join in that particular structure, creating a conscious mind able to interprent that music, processing it in such a way you can enjoy it and experience it in such a way you do? Even it's all just perception, where does the perception originate from?
If you want to be scientific, give me an experiment where you take raw chemicals and create something which you can call "living" and is not emulated or utilizes existing organic matter. With only water. Once you do that, take it further and create a multiverse without any matter.
I'm a rational, atheïst. But the explinations "oh, we evolved *millions of years* out of water" and "nothing exploded but it did." doesn't cut it for me; I truely want to understand and grasp every detail of the universe and refuse to create an abstract concept which "explains everything" like a religion.
The human mind has great limitations as it evolved in our limited solar system, and everything is wired up in this closed intimate relation with the sun. Our ability to think conceptually is limited to our needs in our direct environment.
Ofcourse, but you repeat yourself.
You make the distinction "in classes where there is a significant fraction of immigrants from poor socio-economic backgrounds", so why add the extra disclaimer saying the same thing?
It has nothing to do with generalization. If your observation is that there are certain disagreements "in classes where there is a significant fraction of immigrants from poor socio-economic backgrounds" you're not generalizing 300000 "human beings", you've made an intersection of those 300000 "human beings" with those that are in specific classes about evolution, who are immigrant and come for a poor socio-economic background. These do not match the general 3000000 people with the qualifiers you've expressed.
At what level of specification is a generalization a description?
At what point becomes a generalization lazy? If you find your own description shortcoming to describe something where it becomes too much of a generalization, isn't that a form of lazyness as it's presented too simplistic?
It's like saying "Some people like banana's. Disclaimer: there are some people who don't like banana's. If you don't acknowledge that not all people like banana's, then you are lazy and unscientific."
The duality in your comment illustrates my sentiments exactly.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that all muslims think that way.
Welcome fellow Belgian. It's horrible to see how we've been conditioned in excusing ourselves for statements which "potentially could be read in a racist way" because of the constant idea we are "against multiculturism" and are overly sensitive to "cultural differences".
I rarely see hard-core nerds in crowds, with everyone listening to their well reasoned arguments and the crowd accepting these views.
However, it's a daily occurence where arguments that do not make any sense, presented by bad actor, are blindly accepted.
I've thought this over myself, but it wouldn't work: The problem with that is, that not everyone can keep track of *all bills*.
If all bills are passed online, in a forum, I only would have an hour of "free time" a day to spend reading and voting on those bills. As a result the process isn't entirely representative for a certain demography.
People who do have alot of time on their hands and are interested to spend that time on reading and voting on bills would be able to put more weight to their views, which aren't necessary mine. So I'd need a representative, who is able to spend alot of time representing my views. Hence a party.
Too bad this isn't always the way it works in current governments. (I can't really understand how the US ended up with only two parties; overhere we have at least five, and in that handfull of parties I don't find a complete match with my views.)
Remember SyGate and those other firewalls, where you would "whitelist" traffic. Every geek would encourage non-geeks to install a firewall (the non-geeks knew it would protect them, after banging it in, but couldn't grasp the concept.) However, the non-geek would "whitelist" everything because he got conditioned into thinking "I can't do what I try to do, until I click 'yes - remember'" and didn't understand what an "incomming request on port 1234" ment anyway.
There has been a guy named Graham W. Birdsall, who pointed his satelite dish to the shuttle, picking up unencrypted signals and taping it all and made a documentary of the footage: Secret NASA Transmissions.
The whole conspiracy-nuts around it make it seem uninteresting, but it really is worth the time.
I agree with you that the public isn't "let into the experience" enough to be able to enjoy it.
Everytime I see a decent documentary about the universe, or past NASA deep-space exploration programs, the Mars Rovers' (which were very closely followed by slashdotters) or just am discussing the universe with people, these is this great sense of insignifance and awe about space and the universe. Seeing a shuttle lieft lift off and land *is* boring, it can't nearly satisfy my drive to discover and learn more about what the universe is all about. It's pretty anti-climaxive.
Ya know, actually engage the people on the ground in the process.
yea, but PLEASE! Nothing televoting based or big-brother styled:)
Forum.Post(structures.Forums.SlashDot,(bug.OS == structures.OS.Windows ? "windows is engineered by stupid monkeys" : (bug.OS == structures.OS.Linux ? "It'll be fixed in no time, as expected" : "In sovjet russia " + bug.OS + " bugs you!")));
Slashdot Mirror
That would be "sympathy".
...with a lengthy bill, a large cheque and a monkey in the office.
But Brain, why the toga? No one's worn those in years. Except for that one really strange man in Lancaster-Shire.
Yes.
Am I the only one who read that as "I'm a adoloscent social awkward person who sits in his room masturbating porn while wishing he was getting laid by a *flesh*light but is too afraid to actually buy one because he come home with a flashlight while shopping for a fleshlight because of his dyslexia"?
This brings "feeling unable and inadequate to mate" to a whole new level.
I think they'll have some recursion protection inthere, to avoid the collapse of the universe.
That's an Alpha.
They should make this device "girlfriend"-sized.
"This is a 5CP laptop, but if you could overclock it to 6CP."
It'll take a few thousand years for their rocketts to reach earth. We're DOOOMED! DOOOOOMED!
I'm not religious, but your observation is just an observation, not an argument. It's like saying "A coctail has the following ingredients. Therefore, the concept of a bartender is ridiculous." Or even "The experience of drinking a cocktail is just originated in your mouth. Therefore, there is no cocktail, and certainly no bartender."
How did the chemicals join in that particular structure, creating a conscious mind able to interprent that music, processing it in such a way you can enjoy it and experience it in such a way you do? Even it's all just perception, where does the perception originate from?
If you want to be scientific, give me an experiment where you take raw chemicals and create something which you can call "living" and is not emulated or utilizes existing organic matter. With only water. Once you do that, take it further and create a multiverse without any matter.
I'm a rational, atheïst. But the explinations "oh, we evolved *millions of years* out of water" and "nothing exploded but it did." doesn't cut it for me; I truely want to understand and grasp every detail of the universe and refuse to create an abstract concept which "explains everything" like a religion.
The human mind has great limitations as it evolved in our limited solar system, and everything is wired up in this closed intimate relation with the sun. Our ability to think conceptually is limited to our needs in our direct environment.
You don't remember
You don't remember
Why don't you remember my name?
Ofcourse, but you repeat yourself.
You make the distinction "in classes where there is a significant fraction of immigrants from poor socio-economic backgrounds", so why add the extra disclaimer saying the same thing?
It has nothing to do with generalization. If your observation is that there are certain disagreements "in classes where there is a significant fraction of immigrants from poor socio-economic backgrounds" you're not generalizing 300000 "human beings", you've made an intersection of those 300000 "human beings" with those that are in specific classes about evolution, who are immigrant and come for a poor socio-economic background. These do not match the general 3000000 people with the qualifiers you've expressed.
At what level of specification is a generalization a description?
At what point becomes a generalization lazy? If you find your own description shortcoming to describe something where it becomes too much of a generalization, isn't that a form of lazyness as it's presented too simplistic?
It's like saying "Some people like banana's. Disclaimer: there are some people who don't like banana's. If you don't acknowledge that not all people like banana's, then you are lazy and unscientific."
The duality in your comment illustrates my sentiments exactly.
Welcome fellow Belgian. It's horrible to see how we've been conditioned in excusing ourselves for statements which "potentially could be read in a racist way" because of the constant idea we are "against multiculturism" and are overly sensitive to "cultural differences".
I rarely see hard-core nerds in crowds, with everyone listening to their well reasoned arguments and the crowd accepting these views. However, it's a daily occurence where arguments that do not make any sense, presented by bad actor, are blindly accepted.
I feel so unlucky the US hasn't brougth Belgium real democracy yet :(
oh help us, you hero americans.
So, basically you want a movie of these running around?
I've thought this over myself, but it wouldn't work: The problem with that is, that not everyone can keep track of *all bills*. If all bills are passed online, in a forum, I only would have an hour of "free time" a day to spend reading and voting on those bills. As a result the process isn't entirely representative for a certain demography.
People who do have alot of time on their hands and are interested to spend that time on reading and voting on bills would be able to put more weight to their views, which aren't necessary mine. So I'd need a representative, who is able to spend alot of time representing my views. Hence a party.
Too bad this isn't always the way it works in current governments. (I can't really understand how the US ended up with only two parties; overhere we have at least five, and in that handfull of parties I don't find a complete match with my views.)
Sounds like you're an "experience-expert" :)
Yes, but after downloading, could you install it?
Remember SyGate and those other firewalls, where you would "whitelist" traffic.
Every geek would encourage non-geeks to install a firewall (the non-geeks knew it would protect them, after banging it in, but couldn't grasp the concept.)
However, the non-geek would "whitelist" everything because he got conditioned into thinking "I can't do what I try to do, until I click 'yes - remember'" and didn't understand what an "incomming request on port 1234" ment anyway.
a beowulf cluster of these!
I agree with you that the public isn't "let into the experience" enough to be able to enjoy it. Everytime I see a decent documentary about the universe, or past NASA deep-space exploration programs, the Mars Rovers' (which were very closely followed by slashdotters) or just am discussing the universe with people, these is this great sense of insignifance and awe about space and the universe. Seeing a shuttle lieft lift off and land *is* boring, it can't nearly satisfy my drive to discover and learn more about what the universe is all about. It's pretty anti-climaxive.
yea, but PLEASE! Nothing televoting based or big-brother styled :)
Forum.Post(structures.Forums.SlashDot,(bug.OS == structures.OS.Windows ? "windows is engineered by stupid monkeys" : (bug.OS == structures.OS.Linux ? "It'll be fixed in no time, as expected" : "In sovjet russia " + bug.OS + " bugs you!")));