The original poster's claim is intuitive and meshes both with my common-sense knowledge about the way the world works and my specific knowledge about how research is conducted. That makes the detractor's claim the one that requires proof.
Common sense is often orthogonal to reality. Throwing money at a problem rarely yields a solution, and anyone who says we could do something if we just increased spending needs to supply evidence that funding is currently a problem.
ouch. you'd better hope there's no G-d, cuz if there is... you just made a big insult to Him.
If you believe the stuff in Kings and Chronicles, then what I said is an accurate discription of God and his policies -- he's a genocidal maniac.
G-d, if He exists, doesn't have to live by your 21st century ideals of political correctness. He can kill is He deems it correct (and by definition, it would be correct).
No, Euthyphro, genocide is wrong, period. If God supports it, then he is an evil deity.
The Rwanda tragedy was in great part caused by "developed" countries interventions (mostly from France and Belgium) during the colonial era and more recent events.
Which is equally true in the Middle East.
The US only act in countries where the dictator is not willing to cooperate and sell its oil.
Please provide some evidence to back up your claim that lack of funding is not the problem?
You don't grasp this logic thing. The person putting forth a claim has the burden of proof -- in this case, that's the person who first said the problem is lack of funding.
The guy who proposed continental drift was "right" that land-masses move over time. He even had surveys that indicated North America was moving away from Iceland.
Just one problem -- the movement was withint he margin of error for surveying equipment of the time.
On top of that, the mechanism he proposed for the drift -- ocean waves pushing the continents apart -- was absurd.
So while he was correct that continents move over time, he was, strictly speaking, wrong. Likewise, if cold fusion is possible, it doesn't mean Ponz and Fleishman were right when they said they'd discovered how to do it.
From Wikipedia:
Strictly defined, spyware is computer software that gathers information about a computer user without the user's knowledge or informed consent, and then transmits this information to an organisation that expects to be able to profit from it in some way.
Ok, this is not spyware - strictly defined and mentioned on the NETI@home webpage in every second sentence.
Strictly defined by a user of Wikipedia. I could, of course, redefine it to contradict your point if I wanted to.
I long ago concluded that SETI@home is a waste of time. Sure, it's cool, but the fact is the project has no hope of detecting broadcast signals unless they're very close, and the odds of an alien civilization beaming a signal at us and our radio telescopes looking in the right direction to catch it are very slim. At least with Folding@home my contribution will have real-world benefits.
Why? The CPU cycles I devote to Folding@home are donations to a project that will benefit all of humanity. Charging for it would take resources away from the project and negate the whole point of donating.
The Sumerian myth is also more internally consistent. In the Sumerian version, all the gods decided to destroy humanity, but Enki, who, like Doctor Who, had a soft spot for us, decided to warn Ut-napishtim. In the Biblical version, all the gods are folded into one character, so on the one hand you have an inerrant supreme being decide to wipe out humanity, but then he changes his mind to save Noah.
Free will doesn't excuse God from all the times in the Bible where he orders the murder of women and children. Read Kings and Chronicles for stuff that puts God in the same league with Pol Pot and Stalin.
The "modifications" to the Bible theory was disproved by the Dead Sea scrolls... that's why they were such a big deal! The Dead Sea scrolls contained thousands of parchments preserved since 100BC.
Since the person you're responding to referred to texts concerning Mary Magdalene, I hardly think the Dead Sea Scrolls apply.
There are numerous texts dealing with Jesus that don't appear in the Bible. Why? Well, a bunch of men meeting in Nicaea several hundred years ago decided that they weren't canonical. Now tell me, why should I trust a committee appointed by the Catholic Church to decide such things? Why should I believe that Jesus raised a man from the dead but not that killed a boy who picked on him as a child? Why should I believe that a Roman stabbed Jesus on the cross, but not that Mary Magdalene preserved Jesus' foreskin in oinment which she used when washing his feet?
Every OS ships with pre-installed versions of complimentary software. Microsoft does it, Apple does, and Linux does it.
Of course a Debian CD doesn't come with a Debian internet browser and no other; Mandrake discs don't have a Mandrake office suite and no other; Suse doesn't have a Suse Media Player that's the default until you download one of the alternatives.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
In other words, constitutional law is coequal with treaties. Under the rules of "statutory construction", all else equal, more specific recent rules trump more general older ones.
Nope. The Constitution always refers to itself as "this Constitution". "The Constitution or Laws of any State" refers to the individual state constitutions. A treaty is equal to federal law (the Supreme Law of the Land) and trumps the constitution of any state, but nothing is equal to or above the Constitution.
No, my my Ann Coulter fantasy involves her pulling a cart up and down 14th Street in DC while naked and with a horse-tail butt-plug stuffed up her ass as I whip her with a cat-o-nine-tails.
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God.
They can't? Name one jurisdiction where they don't.
There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Since it's at the Supreme Court and they're unlikely to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, yes it is. Ceremonial deism, such as "In God We Trust" on our money, oaths taken on the Bible, and chaplains opening congressional sessions with a prayer, isn't likely to go away anytime soon, and that includes the references in the Pledge.
No it's not. The 9th Circuit ruled the "under God" bit unconstitutional, but even that's been stayed until the Supreme Court makes its decision. The only thing unconstitutional is forcing people to say it.
Score:-1, Conservative
Please don't tarnish conservatives by associating with us.
No, the link is for Blogger users specifically -- the sign-up form automatically fills in information from Blogger such as name and permanent email address.
The ads appear immediately to the right of the message body, though if the system doesn't detect any keywords to trigger an ad, the space remains blank. And for those wondering, encrypted messages don't trigger ads.
1600 scientists, include over 100 NOBEL LAUREATES, agree that human activity is causing global warming. I trust them FAR MORE than you:
Augh! Augh! Appeal to authority! Run for your life!
Here's where the troll part comes in. Do you actually believe the only consequence of global warming is rolling up our pants and walking inland a couple feet? The economy falls apart when the prices go up on oil. What do you think will happen when we are asked to MOVE LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK INLAND???
Do you have any evidence that global warming will be catastrophic instead of gradual?
There are three real questions we need to ask:
Is there anything we can do to reduce the human component in global warming?
Would the impact of these actions be significant in comparison to the natural warming trend?
And are the overall costs of action less than the costs of adapting to environmental changes?
Lots of environmentalists simply jump past that question and automatically assume that we must maintain the status quo at all costs.
What pre-existing food? Without the sun there're no plants, and without plants there are no animals. They could feed us dirt, but since there are a number of important nutrients that don't occur abiotically, that's not a long-term solution. That rather elliminates the viable alternatives unless the machines have a really big stash of twinkies.
Slashdot Mirror
The original poster's claim is intuitive and meshes both with my common-sense knowledge about the way the world works and my specific knowledge about how research is conducted. That makes the detractor's claim the one that requires proof.
Common sense is often orthogonal to reality. Throwing money at a problem rarely yields a solution, and anyone who says we could do something if we just increased spending needs to supply evidence that funding is currently a problem.
ouch. you'd better hope there's no G-d, cuz if there is... you just made a big insult to Him.
If you believe the stuff in Kings and Chronicles, then what I said is an accurate discription of God and his policies -- he's a genocidal maniac.
G-d, if He exists, doesn't have to live by your 21st century ideals of political correctness. He can kill is He deems it correct (and by definition, it would be correct).
No, Euthyphro, genocide is wrong, period. If God supports it, then he is an evil deity.
The Rwanda tragedy was in great part caused by "developed" countries interventions (mostly from France and Belgium) during the colonial era and more recent events.
Which is equally true in the Middle East.
The US only act in countries where the dictator is not willing to cooperate and sell its oil.
Tell that to Noreiga and Milosovic.
Please provide some evidence to back up your claim that lack of funding is not the problem?
You don't grasp this logic thing. The person putting forth a claim has the burden of proof -- in this case, that's the person who first said the problem is lack of funding.
The guy who proposed continental drift was "right" that land-masses move over time. He even had surveys that indicated North America was moving away from Iceland.
Just one problem -- the movement was withint he margin of error for surveying equipment of the time.
On top of that, the mechanism he proposed for the drift -- ocean waves pushing the continents apart -- was absurd.
So while he was correct that continents move over time, he was, strictly speaking, wrong. Likewise, if cold fusion is possible, it doesn't mean Ponz and Fleishman were right when they said they'd discovered how to do it.
From Wikipedia: Strictly defined, spyware is computer software that gathers information about a computer user without the user's knowledge or informed consent, and then transmits this information to an organisation that expects to be able to profit from it in some way.
Ok, this is not spyware - strictly defined and mentioned on the NETI@home webpage in every second sentence.
Strictly defined by a user of Wikipedia. I could, of course, redefine it to contradict your point if I wanted to.
I long ago concluded that SETI@home is a waste of time. Sure, it's cool, but the fact is the project has no hope of detecting broadcast signals unless they're very close, and the odds of an alien civilization beaming a signal at us and our radio telescopes looking in the right direction to catch it are very slim. At least with Folding@home my contribution will have real-world benefits.
Don't just give those cycles away! Sell them!
Why? The CPU cycles I devote to Folding@home are donations to a project that will benefit all of humanity. Charging for it would take resources away from the project and negate the whole point of donating.
The Sumerian myth is also more internally consistent. In the Sumerian version, all the gods decided to destroy humanity, but Enki, who, like Doctor Who, had a soft spot for us, decided to warn Ut-napishtim. In the Biblical version, all the gods are folded into one character, so on the one hand you have an inerrant supreme being decide to wipe out humanity, but then he changes his mind to save Noah.
Free will doesn't excuse God from all the times in the Bible where he orders the murder of women and children. Read Kings and Chronicles for stuff that puts God in the same league with Pol Pot and Stalin.
The "modifications" to the Bible theory was disproved by the Dead Sea scrolls... that's why they were such a big deal! The Dead Sea scrolls contained thousands of parchments preserved since 100BC.
Since the person you're responding to referred to texts concerning Mary Magdalene, I hardly think the Dead Sea Scrolls apply.
There are numerous texts dealing with Jesus that don't appear in the Bible. Why? Well, a bunch of men meeting in Nicaea several hundred years ago decided that they weren't canonical. Now tell me, why should I trust a committee appointed by the Catholic Church to decide such things? Why should I believe that Jesus raised a man from the dead but not that killed a boy who picked on him as a child? Why should I believe that a Roman stabbed Jesus on the cross, but not that Mary Magdalene preserved Jesus' foreskin in oinment which she used when washing his feet?
Every OS ships with pre-installed versions of complimentary software. Microsoft does it, Apple does, and Linux does it.
Of course a Debian CD doesn't come with a Debian internet browser and no other; Mandrake discs don't have a Mandrake office suite and no other; Suse doesn't have a Suse Media Player that's the default until you download one of the alternatives.
In other words, constitutional law is coequal with treaties. Under the rules of "statutory construction", all else equal, more specific recent rules trump more general older ones.
Nope. The Constitution always refers to itself as "this Constitution". "The Constitution or Laws of any State" refers to the individual state constitutions. A treaty is equal to federal law (the Supreme Law of the Land) and trumps the constitution of any state, but nothing is equal to or above the Constitution.
The US is well known for not ratifying treaties they have signed, or just not signing treaties at all.
Damn the US for acting like a sovereign nation! And damn Congress for not being a rubber-stamp for the President!
Right. You would have broken Mexican laws. The American authorities would arrest you and return you to Mexico for trial.
Wrong. A country can claim jurisdiction over any crime committed against its citizens regardless of where it took place.
No, my my Ann Coulter fantasy involves her pulling a cart up and down 14th Street in DC while naked and with a horse-tail butt-plug stuffed up her ass as I whip her with a cat-o-nine-tails.
But I'm just weird like that.
No, you can pledge all you like. But government agents (i.e. teachers) can't lead children in a statement that asserts the existence of God.
They can't? Name one jurisdiction where they don't.
There are gray areas of the establishment clause, but this one isn't even close.
Since it's at the Supreme Court and they're unlikely to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, yes it is. Ceremonial deism, such as "In God We Trust" on our money, oaths taken on the Bible, and chaplains opening congressional sessions with a prayer, isn't likely to go away anytime soon, and that includes the references in the Pledge.
No, the pledge is unconstitutional now.
No it's not. The 9th Circuit ruled the "under God" bit unconstitutional, but even that's been stayed until the Supreme Court makes its decision. The only thing unconstitutional is forcing people to say it.
Score:-1, Conservative
Please don't tarnish conservatives by associating with us.
No, the link is for Blogger users specifically -- the sign-up form automatically fills in information from Blogger such as name and permanent email address.
The ads appear immediately to the right of the message body, though if the system doesn't detect any keywords to trigger an ad, the space remains blank. And for those wondering, encrypted messages don't trigger ads.
Based upon some initial testing, outgoing attachments are capped somewhere between 5.5 and 7.5 megs. Which is making capacity testing a PIA.
Okay, tell you what, I'll use my Gmail account to send my entire pr0n directory to you with the title "Free Pr0n!!!! Free Cia1i$".
Works in Firefox ... once I installed the latest version of Java, something I've managed to avoid for the last four years.
Augh! Augh! Appeal to authority! Run for your life!
Here's where the troll part comes in. Do you actually believe the only consequence of global warming is rolling up our pants and walking inland a couple feet? The economy falls apart when the prices go up on oil. What do you think will happen when we are asked to MOVE LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK INLAND???
Do you have any evidence that global warming will be catastrophic instead of gradual?
There are three real questions we need to ask:
- Is there anything we can do to reduce the human component in global warming?
- Would the impact of these actions be significant in comparison to the natural warming trend?
- And are the overall costs of action less than the costs of adapting to environmental changes?
Lots of environmentalists simply jump past that question and automatically assume that we must maintain the status quo at all costs.What pre-existing food? Without the sun there're no plants, and without plants there are no animals. They could feed us dirt, but since there are a number of important nutrients that don't occur abiotically, that's not a long-term solution. That rather elliminates the viable alternatives unless the machines have a really big stash of twinkies.