For we live by faith, not by sight. -- 2 Corinthians 5:7 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9
So you see, Biblical faith is exclusionary -- if you have proof, it is no longer faith. Yet certain Christians are ashamed of acknowledging their faith, so they try to instead rely on "the wisdom of this world".
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. -- Hebrews 11:1-3
But Creationists claim that it is by cleverness and science that they can prove that the universe was formed at God’s command, rather than by faith as the Bible says.
Science is the pursuit of the subset of truth that makes predictions about the real world. Yet this simple definition seems to be lost on so many people. The worst offenders are the ones who think science is the pursuit of Truth in general, or about being right, or about explanations.
As an example, consider "Creation Science", whose objective is to explain, not predict, information about biology. And because such explanation is, in the eyes of the public, a decently good explanation, people accept it. And hardly anyone calls them out for failing to make predictions, and thus not even being science. It's like if you have two weathermen, one predicts every day whether it will rain or not, and the other collects a list of every time the first weatherman made a mistake. The second one may be right all the time, but he's still useless. Thus "creation scientists" do not focus on the mathematics of sediments and sorting of dead things, or the impact a population bottleneck will have on current genetics, or their own mathematical predictions concerning radiometric dating, but rather on explanations for these, all of which shows that they themselves don't even believe what they're pretending to support.
As for science and religion, consider this: many Christians will tell you that the core of Christianity is faith in God. And then they'll turn around and try to "prove" God's existence, demonstrating that they believe testing God is superior to having faith in God. But if the world with God and the world without God are indistinguishable from each other, only then can you say believing in God is an act of faith. Else you could scientifically test for God's existence, and then where would faith be?
If the email address is the public key, and then you generate a private key from that... what's to stop someone else from generating your private key from the email address?
Fighting for mates is always one vs one, winner take all, and yes they are trying to kill their opponent.
Not true. In many animals, fights are intentionally non-lethal. Much like a fistfight, when both have knives. But if one unsheathes their claws (or whatever real weapon), then the other will too and they both run the risk of being maimed or killed. This works because the non-lethal dominance competition correlates pretty well with what would happen if they were fighting for real.
Ducks are notorious sex offenders. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." is true for ducks because they have evolved a maze-like vagina for just that occasion.
And now I decree that you will never think the same way again about having "all your ducks in a row".
Famine, Plague, and even War have been on the decline for years, despite what modern media coverage would have you believe. There's plenty of room for our growth, if we don't mind killing off a bit more of the remaining habitat of other species.
Maybe Nadella got tired of hearing about the year of Linux on the desktop, and decided to finally make it happen? Anyhow, good luck without your researchers. I hope it was the ones responsible for Windows 8.
Fructose is the nasty sugar, which makes high fructose corn syrup also nasty. Sucrose is only 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Glucose is the "standard universal" sugar used to make everything from starch to cellulose. And artificial sweeteners are the "weird new thing" which our bodies haven't adapted to yet.
Al Quaeda has lasted for decades, and will continue for the foreseeable future. They're mostly harmless and a useful tool for keeping the population loyal and unified. ISIS is not merely using terror but have become actually dangerous. Guess what comes next?
How do you distinguish between an attack from a nation and an attack from a group of individuals.
I hear a bunch of individuals only marginally related to Russia, are attacking the Ukraine. No? Well, unless the country fesses up, you have to rely on a preponderance of various sorts of evidence. The first hint will be a powerful attack with sophistication and resources. I could see it being much harder to get beyond that when it comes to cyberwarfare, but you still have to hunt down the perpetrators and identify them, whether they're a government or not, so it's not a meaningful difference until then.
But I don't know where it crosses the line from espionage to act of war. I think the standard solution was for the current leader to ask the magic convenience ball.
Slashdot Mirror
"hope I die before I get old"
I hope to cure aging before I get old. Other creatures don't age so why should I?
Also a good way to dry off your pet after a bath! 100% guaranteed no "wet dog smell".
It's not that hard to arrange for info to be distributed should something happen to me.
For we live by faith, not by sight. -- 2 Corinthians 5:7
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9
So you see, Biblical faith is exclusionary -- if you have proof, it is no longer faith. Yet certain Christians are ashamed of acknowledging their faith, so they try to instead rely on "the wisdom of this world".
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. -- Hebrews 11:1-3
But Creationists claim that it is by cleverness and science that they can prove that the universe was formed at God’s command, rather than by faith as the Bible says.
Raid proof. Not RAID.
As in, resilient to police officers not disk failure.
Relevant Assortment of Incriminating Data?
Science is the pursuit of the subset of truth that makes predictions about the real world. Yet this simple definition seems to be lost on so many people. The worst offenders are the ones who think science is the pursuit of Truth in general, or about being right, or about explanations.
As an example, consider "Creation Science", whose objective is to explain, not predict, information about biology. And because such explanation is, in the eyes of the public, a decently good explanation, people accept it. And hardly anyone calls them out for failing to make predictions, and thus not even being science. It's like if you have two weathermen, one predicts every day whether it will rain or not, and the other collects a list of every time the first weatherman made a mistake. The second one may be right all the time, but he's still useless. Thus "creation scientists" do not focus on the mathematics of sediments and sorting of dead things, or the impact a population bottleneck will have on current genetics, or their own mathematical predictions concerning radiometric dating, but rather on explanations for these, all of which shows that they themselves don't even believe what they're pretending to support.
As for science and religion, consider this: many Christians will tell you that the core of Christianity is faith in God. And then they'll turn around and try to "prove" God's existence, demonstrating that they believe testing God is superior to having faith in God. But if the world with God and the world without God are indistinguishable from each other, only then can you say believing in God is an act of faith. Else you could scientifically test for God's existence, and then where would faith be?
If the email address is the public key, and then you generate a private key from that... what's to stop someone else from generating your private key from the email address?
1) Find wife's FB password.
2) Keep account active by visiting pages and liking stuff.
3) Get judge to agree to serve legal papers via FB.
4) Profit!
What's wrong with American drivers? Well to begin with, they all drive like assholes.
American drivers drive like Americans!
Poison ivy is self-replicating and transmissible to another plot of land.
Don't let your car tell on you. You can mod me down now.
Fighting for mates is always one vs one, winner take all, and yes they are trying to kill their opponent.
Not true. In many animals, fights are intentionally non-lethal. Much like a fistfight, when both have knives. But if one unsheathes their claws (or whatever real weapon), then the other will too and they both run the risk of being maimed or killed. This works because the non-lethal dominance competition correlates pretty well with what would happen if they were fighting for real.
The benefits of this new system are obvious: more privacy for users, less resources needed by Apple for responding to warrants.
Ducks are notorious sex offenders. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." is true for ducks because they have evolved a maze-like vagina for just that occasion.
And now I decree that you will never think the same way again about having "all your ducks in a row".
Famine, Plague, and even War have been on the decline for years, despite what modern media coverage would have you believe. There's plenty of room for our growth, if we don't mind killing off a bit more of the remaining habitat of other species.
Maybe Nadella got tired of hearing about the year of Linux on the desktop, and decided to finally make it happen? Anyhow, good luck without your researchers. I hope it was the ones responsible for Windows 8.
Fructose is the nasty sugar, which makes high fructose corn syrup also nasty. Sucrose is only 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Glucose is the "standard universal" sugar used to make everything from starch to cellulose. And artificial sweeteners are the "weird new thing" which our bodies haven't adapted to yet.
Might I suggest a Chromebook? In this case, being partly crippled is a feature.
Clearly, anonymous reader is a masochist.
Indeed. Remote tech support for people who will regularly need it is bad enough, when they're your relatives it can be worse (and you can't bail).
3 Jihadis are building a bomb and 1 jihadi makes a booboo and blows himself up. How many jihadis do you have left?
Declare it to be an American drone strike and recruit a dozen more?
Al Quaeda has lasted for decades, and will continue for the foreseeable future. They're mostly harmless and a useful tool for keeping the population loyal and unified. ISIS is not merely using terror but have become actually dangerous. Guess what comes next?
They share tenets with conservatives (government is too big, and should be reduced in size),
That's a conservative talking point, not a conservative tenet. (at least if by "conservative" you mean "Republican" like most people do)
To clarify my point, terrorism still ranks below peanuts on lethality. It's already a drop in the bucket.
It would be far more effective at controlling the risk and threat of terror.
Why would any leader want to do that? It instills unity and patriotism, and gets people to overlook the leaders' flaws.
As usual, the headline is misleading. What's less usual is that they totally undersensationalized the news.
Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd
vs
Torvalds: UNIX Philosophy is Obsolete
How do you distinguish between an attack from a nation and an attack from a group of individuals.
I hear a bunch of individuals only marginally related to Russia, are attacking the Ukraine. No? Well, unless the country fesses up, you have to rely on a preponderance of various sorts of evidence. The first hint will be a powerful attack with sophistication and resources. I could see it being much harder to get beyond that when it comes to cyberwarfare, but you still have to hunt down the perpetrators and identify them, whether they're a government or not, so it's not a meaningful difference until then.
But I don't know where it crosses the line from espionage to act of war. I think the standard solution was for the current leader to ask the magic convenience ball.