To start with, I have a problem with "believing" anything. There's no place for "believing". You can't just say I "believe" this drug will cure AIDS. It either does or doesn't. You either have evidence and practical material showing that it truly does or you do not.
Is a fetus alive? I.e., does it have the same rights as you and me? If so, how about an embryo? If not, how about a newborn baby? How can you scientifically "prove" that these are different entitites? As we are getting further and futher off-topic, I encourage you to respond at my journal.
Getting further off-topic - if that was possible:) - Genesis and the Big Bang is a good read (even if it's science is a little out of date). It explains how one can read the Torah literally and not eliminate the Big Bang. I believe (it's been a long time since I read this book) that he also explains how it can allow for evolution. This book is written from a Jewish point of view, but that shouldn't matter.
I can't remember if I read this in the same book or somewhere else, but the real danger for Christians (et al.) is the practice of making God the "God of the gaps". I.e., squeezing Him into ever smaller holes so that there is nothing left for him to do. I have no idea what the answer to this is for the religious, but it does seem like a legitimate problem. Another problem I've heard of is tying God to close to a particular scientific world-view. For example, if religious leaders go to great lengths explaining how the religious texts predict exactly this new scientific discovery, then if scientists say "whoops" and change their minds on scientific beliefs (as happened rather drastically from Hoyle to Hubble), it makes the religious leaders lose that much more credibility.
I'm not challenging your numbers - do enough polls and you'll get almost any result - but I wonder if you can tell me the poll you saw. The numbers I saw doing a google search are 55% (Nov. 2004), 47% (Nov. 1991), and 42% (Aug. 2005) of Americans believing in Creationism.
but Dr. Pepper is the more reliable liquid measure conversion device! Luckily, this time Mtn. Dew agrees with the good Doctor. (I've always wondered, is he a Ph.D, an M.D., or some other kind of Doctor?)
You can build a quantum computer... and then prove that QP=NP (where QP implies polynomial in time on a quantum computer). QP=NP is also an unsolved statement. One difference is that it seems to me to be more likely to be true than P=NP.
Focusing on your second paragraph, and making sure that "whatver" does not necessarily equal "Christian" makes your argument difficult (for me, at least) to understand. For example, if I say that a good reason for saying someone is not a "true Slashdot poster" is that they have never posted to Slashdot (even though they are a "self-proclaimed Slashdot poster"), then I will agree that there are people who I accept as a "true Slashdot poster" who might have bad reasons for claiming that I'm not a "true Slashdot poster", but I do not see (to answer your question) that there "is also a good reason for someone [I] accept as a 'true [Slashdot Poster]' to deny that [I am] a 'true [Slashdot Poster]'". Please explain how you see this.
The key word, of course, is "good" (as in "good reason"). Note, that I am not denying that there are several bad reasons to say that someone is not a "true Christian" (since I suspect that when "whatever" = "Christian" is the main contention here, and not my actual logic!). However, it seems clear to me that "not accepting Christ as his/her savior" is a good reason to say someone is not a "true Christian". Well, OK, maybe not. But only because it's arguably not our responsibility to say who is and who is not a "true Christian". Nevertheless, I don't see that the more general concept of someone actually being a "true Christian" is philosophically bankrupt, even if it is a bit "overdrawn" (if you'll pardon the banking analogy), by millions of people using bad reasons for making such a distinction.
You'll note that I've also said that "true Christians" do in fact commit "un-Christian acts", such as Peter denying Christ 3 times before the rooster crowed.
P.S. Some people saying other people aren't Christians doesn't work for me, either, in case I hadn't already made that clear.
Just because there are poor reasons to claim that somebody is not a "true whatever" doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons.
First of all, I imagine what is throwing you off is that people might distinguish between a "Slashdot poster" (for example) and a "true Slashdot poster". What these distinctions really amount to, however, are a "self-proclaimed Slashdot poster" and an "actual Slashdot poster". If I claim to be a Slashdot poster (making me a self-proclaimed Slashdot poster), but have never actually posted anything on Slashdot, than I am not an "actual Slashdot poster".
Do you agree with that last sentence? If not, then there's probably no point in continuing this discussion.
From there, it makes sense to extend this argument to "true [actual] whatevere". If you claim to be a Christian (self-proclaimed Christian), but don't really accept Christ as your savior, then I think it is very reasonable to say that you are not actually a Christian. I.e., you are not a "true Christian.
Naturally, there are people who have some fairly specious arguments about what makes somebody a "true whatever". Again, that doesn't mean that there are no good arguments.
One problem is that there are social pressures for people to claim to be Christian even though they aren't. There are also social pressures for the reverse - as St. Peter himself no doubt could attest to! One possible outcome of this is that people who claim to be Christians do very un-Christian things. It is my belief that people who actually are Christians also do very un-Christian things, but that's a whole other discussion!
Now, what if I said I was a scientist, but I believed in magic? Wouldn't you find it just a little tempting to say that I wasn't a "true scientist"? Now, I don't agree with the GP on what makes a true Christian (most agree that the only pre-requisite is accepting Christ as your savior - of course, this usually does imply some natural consequences, but I don't believe that rejecting evolution is one of them). Similarly, if I told you I am a Scotsman, born to parents who are both nth generational U.S. citizens (with the usual, very mixed heritage of such citizens) while they were living in Germany - and I've never even been to Scotland (that I remember, anyway), you'd have a right to question whether or not I was a "true Scotsman", wouldn't you?
It's simpler to say a person could theoretically drink one shot of espresso per pound that they weigh and still have a 50% chance of surviving.:)
I know that a kilogram is really 2.2 pounds, but 2.2 * (80-100 mg) = 176-220 mg (ignoring significant figures), which averages out to about 200 mg, so it's even better!
Now you understand the real reason Americans will never shift from pounds to kilograms!
I think most capitalist economies are dominated with companies that subscribe to this business model. Of course, with the global marketplace it's not very easy to say where our economy stops and another country's economy starts.
But, and this is probably your point, it's better than nothing! Or, to put another way, if it stops 90% of the people, then it's probably worth its minor cost. (Cost being the effort of humans to read the captchas, etc.)
The Concorde was designed to carry about 100 passengers, though it was certified to carry as many as 128. The theoretical maximum that the aircraft could accommodate was 144, though the cabin would be quite cramped in this configuration.
At the Large Electron Positron Collider, electrons and positrons have smashed together at energies of 200 GeV. That means that each particle has an energy of 100 GeV. Using m = \gamma m_0, and the rest mass (m_0) of an electron being 511 MeV, we find that \gamma^2 = 1/(1-\beta^2) \approx 38,300. This makes \beta^2 \approx 0.99997, or \beta \approx 0.99999.
What all this math boils down to is that the electrons at CERN-LEP are traveling at 99.999% the speed of light, which is quite a bit above 0.4!
as computer theory grammars. No, I agree - I prefer your method as well. But I'm not going to push my luck by using that any papers I submit to journals, etc.
I would use floats. And make sure you note the difference between velocity (speed and direction) as opposed to just speed. And it's not just any speed, it's the speed of light in a vacuum. So, this is better:
float getenergy(float mass, float velocity) {
return mass * (c * c);
}
Or:
float getenergy(float mass, float velocity) {
return mass * (speed_of_light_invacuo * speed_of_light_invacuo);
But m = \gamma m_0, where \gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - \beta^2), and, of course \beta = v/c.
I.e., E = mc^2 = m_0 c^2 / sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2))
Oh, m_0 is rest mass, in case you didn't know that, and m is the relativistic mass.
Getting further off-topic...
on
Wi-Fi Times Sixteen
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
According to this web-site, using periods inside quotation marks in defiance of logic is an American thing. Canadians and Brits only put the periods (and similar punctuation) inside quotation marks where it makes sense. E.g., for the GP post the period makes sense outside of the quotation marks. However, consider this sentence: You said, "They're in the queue, directly behind people who don't put periods inside quotation marks."
Here it makes sense to have the period inside the quotation marks.
It should also be pointed out that many Americans (myself included) follow the Canadian and British style.
And no doubt you are correct about pro/anti Global Warming attitudes being a function of latitude! Around here, things are quite warm enough already, thank you very much.
Of course, with enough warming (more than the 1-2 degrees Celsius some are predicting for the next half century to century), the lions and tigers should like Wisconsin just fine! (The bears are already comfortable there, no doubt.)
> The biggest hole in this assumption is that someone could have hacked that web-site.
Second biggest. The biggest is that you actually fail to act on a legitimate email because the dumb bastards didn't use good common sense on their own part.
Good point. Additionally, it occurs to me that if someone had hacked that web-site, they very likely already have your passwords, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting further off-topic - if that was possible :) - Genesis and the Big Bang is a good read (even if it's science is a little out of date). It explains how one can read the Torah literally and not eliminate the Big Bang. I believe (it's been a long time since I read this book) that he also explains how it can allow for evolution. This book is written from a Jewish point of view, but that shouldn't matter.
I can't remember if I read this in the same book or somewhere else, but the real danger for Christians (et al.) is the practice of making God the "God of the gaps". I.e., squeezing Him into ever smaller holes so that there is nothing left for him to do. I have no idea what the answer to this is for the religious, but it does seem like a legitimate problem. Another problem I've heard of is tying God to close to a particular scientific world-view. For example, if religious leaders go to great lengths explaining how the religious texts predict exactly this new scientific discovery, then if scientists say "whoops" and change their minds on scientific beliefs (as happened rather drastically from Hoyle to Hubble), it makes the religious leaders lose that much more credibility.
I'm not challenging your numbers - do enough polls and you'll get almost any result - but I wonder if you can tell me the poll you saw. The numbers I saw doing a google search are 55% (Nov. 2004), 47% (Nov. 1991), and 42% (Aug. 2005) of Americans believing in Creationism.
but Dr. Pepper is the more reliable liquid measure conversion device! Luckily, this time Mtn. Dew agrees with the good Doctor. (I've always wondered, is he a Ph.D, an M.D., or some other kind of Doctor?)
The great thing about water as a fuel source is that the fuel (H2) and oxidizer (O) are combined in one easy-to-use package!
You can build a quantum computer... and then prove that QP=NP (where QP implies polynomial in time on a quantum computer). QP=NP is also an unsolved statement. One difference is that it seems to me to be more likely to be true than P=NP.
Fox! After all, they're fair and balanced!
Focusing on your second paragraph, and making sure that "whatver" does not necessarily equal "Christian" makes your argument difficult (for me, at least) to understand. For example, if I say that a good reason for saying someone is not a "true Slashdot poster" is that they have never posted to Slashdot (even though they are a "self-proclaimed Slashdot poster"), then I will agree that there are people who I accept as a "true Slashdot poster" who might have bad reasons for claiming that I'm not a "true Slashdot poster", but I do not see (to answer your question) that there "is also a good reason for someone [I] accept as a 'true [Slashdot Poster]' to deny that [I am] a 'true [Slashdot Poster]'". Please explain how you see this.
The key word, of course, is "good" (as in "good reason"). Note, that I am not denying that there are several bad reasons to say that someone is not a "true Christian" (since I suspect that when "whatever" = "Christian" is the main contention here, and not my actual logic!). However, it seems clear to me that "not accepting Christ as his/her savior" is a good reason to say someone is not a "true Christian". Well, OK, maybe not. But only because it's arguably not our responsibility to say who is and who is not a "true Christian". Nevertheless, I don't see that the more general concept of someone actually being a "true Christian" is philosophically bankrupt, even if it is a bit "overdrawn" (if you'll pardon the banking analogy), by millions of people using bad reasons for making such a distinction.
You'll note that I've also said that "true Christians" do in fact commit "un-Christian acts", such as Peter denying Christ 3 times before the rooster crowed.
P.S. Some people saying other people aren't Christians doesn't work for me, either, in case I hadn't already made that clear.
Just because there are poor reasons to claim that somebody is not a "true whatever" doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons.
First of all, I imagine what is throwing you off is that people might distinguish between a "Slashdot poster" (for example) and a "true Slashdot poster". What these distinctions really amount to, however, are a "self-proclaimed Slashdot poster" and an "actual Slashdot poster". If I claim to be a Slashdot poster (making me a self-proclaimed Slashdot poster), but have never actually posted anything on Slashdot, than I am not an "actual Slashdot poster".
Do you agree with that last sentence? If not, then there's probably no point in continuing this discussion.
From there, it makes sense to extend this argument to "true [actual] whatevere". If you claim to be a Christian (self-proclaimed Christian), but don't really accept Christ as your savior, then I think it is very reasonable to say that you are not actually a Christian. I.e., you are not a "true Christian.
Naturally, there are people who have some fairly specious arguments about what makes somebody a "true whatever". Again, that doesn't mean that there are no good arguments.
One problem is that there are social pressures for people to claim to be Christian even though they aren't. There are also social pressures for the reverse - as St. Peter himself no doubt could attest to! One possible outcome of this is that people who claim to be Christians do very un-Christian things. It is my belief that people who actually are Christians also do very un-Christian things, but that's a whole other discussion!
Now, what if I said I was a scientist, but I believed in magic? Wouldn't you find it just a little tempting to say that I wasn't a "true scientist"? Now, I don't agree with the GP on what makes a true Christian (most agree that the only pre-requisite is accepting Christ as your savior - of course, this usually does imply some natural consequences, but I don't believe that rejecting evolution is one of them). Similarly, if I told you I am a Scotsman, born to parents who are both nth generational U.S. citizens (with the usual, very mixed heritage of such citizens) while they were living in Germany - and I've never even been to Scotland (that I remember, anyway), you'd have a right to question whether or not I was a "true Scotsman", wouldn't you?
It's simpler to say a person could theoretically drink one shot of espresso per pound that they weigh and still have a 50% chance of surviving. :)
I know that a kilogram is really 2.2 pounds, but 2.2 * (80-100 mg) = 176-220 mg (ignoring significant figures), which averages out to about 200 mg, so it's even better!
Now you understand the real reason Americans will never shift from pounds to kilograms!
I think most capitalist economies are dominated with companies that subscribe to this business model. Of course, with the global marketplace it's not very easy to say where our economy stops and another country's economy starts.
But, and this is probably your point, it's better than nothing! Or, to put another way, if it stops 90% of the people, then it's probably worth its minor cost. (Cost being the effort of humans to read the captchas, etc.)
For certain definitions of that. :)
From aerospaceweb.org:At the Large Electron Positron Collider, electrons and positrons have smashed together at energies of 200 GeV. That means that each particle has an energy of 100 GeV. Using m = \gamma m_0, and the rest mass (m_0) of an electron being 511 MeV, we find that \gamma^2 = 1/(1-\beta^2) \approx 38,300. This makes \beta^2 \approx 0.99997, or \beta \approx 0.99999.
What all this math boils down to is that the electrons at CERN-LEP are traveling at 99.999% the speed of light, which is quite a bit above 0.4!
n/t
as computer theory grammars. No, I agree - I prefer your method as well. But I'm not going to push my luck by using that any papers I submit to journals, etc.
I would use floats. And make sure you note the difference between velocity (speed and direction) as opposed to just speed. And it's not just any speed, it's the speed of light in a vacuum. So, this is better:
float getenergy(float mass, float velocity) { }Or:
float getenergy(float mass, float velocity) { }if you don't like using "c" for some reason.
But m = \gamma m_0, where \gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - \beta^2), and, of course \beta = v/c.
I.e., E = mc^2 = m_0 c^2 / sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2))
Oh, m_0 is rest mass, in case you didn't know that, and m is the relativistic mass.
According to this web-site, using periods inside quotation marks in defiance of logic is an American thing. Canadians and Brits only put the periods (and similar punctuation) inside quotation marks where it makes sense. E.g., for the GP post the period makes sense outside of the quotation marks. However, consider this sentence:
You said, "They're in the queue, directly behind people who don't put periods inside quotation marks."
Here it makes sense to have the period inside the quotation marks.
It should also be pointed out that many Americans (myself included) follow the Canadian and British style.
(Unless you count Landstuhl, Germany.)
And no doubt you are correct about pro/anti Global Warming attitudes being a function of latitude! Around here, things are quite warm enough already, thank you very much.
Of course, with enough warming (more than the 1-2 degrees Celsius some are predicting for the next half century to century), the lions and tigers should like Wisconsin just fine! (The bears are already comfortable there, no doubt.)
Haven't you been paying attention? ;)
I prefer "cogito ergo spud", or "I think therefore I yam".