No, I believe he was suggesting that we let it happen unless you want to pony up to pay for the protection of those buildings. Believe me, I couldn't care less.
We could simply ignore the problem as a race. Every time something bad happens to a group of people, they usually figure out how to adapt and prosper. I mean, the Dutch learned how to live under the sea without massive government intervention. It's not neccessary for our governments to step in and decide how to solve problems for us when we can decide as individuals. What if I really wouldn't mind converting my 3rd story apartment into a small dock? What if I'm willing to move?
My point is that if individuals want to preserve their way of life, they can usually find a way of doing that without having more government control. And it's best if they pay for it, not the people who figured out that their current homes would be under water in a few years and moved. The fact that our governments have taken it upon themselves to solve all our problems for us is insulting because it's predicated on the idea that we can't do it ourselves. If you live in the US, look at your paycheck every month to see just how much it's costing us to solve other people's problems.
You need to actually work out the muscles in the lower back. A lot of back injuries can be averted by actually using those muscles instead of avoiding them like we are coached to. The danger only comes when you overuse them.
Seriously though, every group out there has members that are fascist. For example, the "liberal" folks in the US congress believe that they have the right to force me to donate my money to foreign countries. They enforce that so-called right with the threat of the FBI, police, and military.
So what you're saying is that men are brutish, ugly creatures who prefer to punch each other rather than discuss disputes rationally. Well, I guess the majority of scientific consensus reached prior to the sexual revolution in the 60s was pretty bloody what with all the fistfights and gunshot wounds.
Nevermind the fact that both sexes have the tendancy to resolve disputes through violence, let's perpetuate the stereotype of woman as a "meek, caring little creature" and man as a "strong, willful monster."
Don't demean yourself by reaffirming his assertion that we are animals. You can't both be an animal and not be an animal at the same time, and there are clearly traits which seperate us from them.
I like this post because it shows a rational evaluation of Mankind's ability to think, and doesn't just spew the same diatribe that every priest and monk does about how corrupt and evil mankind is.
Well, Coal hasn't yet destroyed a whole city with a single bomb. That, and the public's wild imagination, are largely what causes the fear of nuclear power.
I'd say that the backward attitude and resistance to education exists because people have always seen high school as teaching students academic skills. The reason rote memorization exists in mathematics education is because students need to learn the methods of algebraic manipulation in order to study any science or engineering. Rote memorization is neccessary. What we need to do isn't remove it, but add tasks which include using the rote to make judgements based on quantities.
Are you implying that the existence of millions of more people on the planet does not also require that some of them be employed keeping themselves fed, clothed, housed, driven, etc?
The trouble with the "creating jobs" idea is that frequently government takes money away from other people who would have paid someone to do something, and distributes it through a long chain of tax collectors and bureaucrats who all get their cut. So essentially by relying on government to "create jobs" for hundreds of thousands, you may be inadvertently denying jobs to millions of people.
Essentially, would you rather take $1000 out of your taxes to spend on repairs to your house or car, or would you rather $250 be spent on $750 of that money going to repair someone else's house or car?
Or our experiment doesn't account for a phenomenon not predicted by current theory. One of the two. Either way it doesn't "disprove" GR, it only suggests that there is something we're missing. Consider that Gravity Lensing and Gravitational Redshift are two of the most important effects predicted by GR, and both of these effects actually happen.
I will sacrifice 100 Oxen tonight in the Den of My Computer, but only if the great Cursor will highlight it once more. Make it so great God of the Heavens.
Hey, don't drag Math into this. Humans invented Math. Math exists entirely inside of a person's head, and therefore is not an artifact of the Universe. I could certainly make a rule in my Mathematics that "2+2=5." Math's game would then be to determine how that rule interacts with any other rules I would posit. There's nothing concrete about it.
Look, having met the scientists at LIGO Hanford, I can tell you that they don't have the precision yet to detect anything really meaningful. You're suggesting that just because we haven't detected one phenomenon predicted by a niche scientific theory that gets a chuckle from most scientists except the proponents of the theory that Einstein is completely wrong?
And FYI, Newton had to make a TON of wierd distinctions in order to make Gravity a non-localized instantaneous effect. For example, he had to posit a difference between Inertial Mass, which is the quantity of matter causing an object to avoid changes in motion, and Gravitational Mass, which is the quantity of matter causing an attractive force. What's disturbing about this disunity is that, for all intents and purposes these quantities are experimentally the same. So why do we need to define two different kinds of mass?
Consider this: How do you explain gravity lensing if Einstein was wrong? How would Newton's theory explain the changes in motion of a particle with no gravitational or inertial mass?
On a more practical note, having listened to the guys at LIGO Hanford admit that they don't have the precision to actually detect a gravity wave emanating from more common and observable events, I can tell you that this doesn't prove or disprove anything. Yet.
Well yeah, ignoring how Bacteria appear to mutate in response to changes in their environment, which is an effect predicted by evolution, I would say that any theory of origins is completely untestable. Oh, Evolution might also predict that there will be differences between Dogs and Wolves based on how Dogs are raised in human environments. But we can't actually test any of those predictions, can we? I mean, how would we look at differences between dogs and wolves? Are there any experiments we could do that would let us observe bacteria adapting to their environments?
And what if I told you that everything horrible that happens in the world is either due to the stupidity of a large mass of people or the collusion of a very small mass of very powerful people? Which is the better explanation, the one that posits an observable tendancy for masses of people to act against their own best interests, or the one that posits the existence of an organization nobody has ever seen or heard of?
Essentially, in the absence of direct evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution is always the better theory because it's SIMPLER. It doesn't rely on the existence of an unknown actor, only on the observed repeatability of life's tendancy to change. And a bias toward the more complex but god-fearing explanation would be terrible for science, because all I would have to say to explain things like the motion of planets is to suggest that God did it. But positing the existence of God has no predictive power, and predictive power is what makes Science so useful. You can make good predictions with a geocentric model, or a heliocentric model, but you can't make good predictions about the formation and future motions of the planets by suggesting that God wills that the planets and stars revolve.
Suggesting that I'm biased detracts from the discussion at hand because it implies that bias is neccessarily a bad thing. Look around you. Everyone is biased. My bias toward scientific explanations exists for a reason. Do your biases?
So what you're saying is that when a company makes changes to something it is bad, but when it refuses to change things it is bad. I thought that Microsoft wasn't making enough changes to its software to keep up with other innovations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has ever attempted to create an interface like the Ribbon before in an office suite. So when Microsoft comes up with something new, suddenly it's not okay to be running for the new.
This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better, and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software. It's like every post is a new punch bowl filled with red kool-aid stupid. Could we please get past the 1990's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things? Not everything boils down to a "good vs. evil" essential conflict.
Get 33 people and I'll believe you. Even then, at a 99% confidence interval your anecdotal evidence may not be statistically significant. I'm more inclined to believe that that 2.4% dislike it because they expected to find it harder to use, and, not being disappointed, continued to not use it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I believe he was suggesting that we let it happen unless you want to pony up to pay for the protection of those buildings. Believe me, I couldn't care less.
We could simply ignore the problem as a race. Every time something bad happens to a group of people, they usually figure out how to adapt and prosper. I mean, the Dutch learned how to live under the sea without massive government intervention. It's not neccessary for our governments to step in and decide how to solve problems for us when we can decide as individuals. What if I really wouldn't mind converting my 3rd story apartment into a small dock? What if I'm willing to move?
My point is that if individuals want to preserve their way of life, they can usually find a way of doing that without having more government control. And it's best if they pay for it, not the people who figured out that their current homes would be under water in a few years and moved. The fact that our governments have taken it upon themselves to solve all our problems for us is insulting because it's predicated on the idea that we can't do it ourselves. If you live in the US, look at your paycheck every month to see just how much it's costing us to solve other people's problems.
You need to actually work out the muscles in the lower back. A lot of back injuries can be averted by actually using those muscles instead of avoiding them like we are coached to. The danger only comes when you overuse them.
I can tell when a person is baiting me, being facetious, or otherwise playing me more readily when they're in the same room with me.
It helps that a drunk woman will actually talk to you if you try to make conversation, instead of staring at you like you're a moron or a rapist.
Let's not forget aboutthese guys!
Seriously though, every group out there has members that are fascist. For example, the "liberal" folks in the US congress believe that they have the right to force me to donate my money to foreign countries. They enforce that so-called right with the threat of the FBI, police, and military.
Can I get a citation for your assertion that geniuses are unable to work cooperatively with other people? I find that hard to believe.
So what you're saying is that men are brutish, ugly creatures who prefer to punch each other rather than discuss disputes rationally. Well, I guess the majority of scientific consensus reached prior to the sexual revolution in the 60s was pretty bloody what with all the fistfights and gunshot wounds.
Nevermind the fact that both sexes have the tendancy to resolve disputes through violence, let's perpetuate the stereotype of woman as a "meek, caring little creature" and man as a "strong, willful monster."
Don't demean yourself by reaffirming his assertion that we are animals. You can't both be an animal and not be an animal at the same time, and there are clearly traits which seperate us from them.
I like this post because it shows a rational evaluation of Mankind's ability to think, and doesn't just spew the same diatribe that every priest and monk does about how corrupt and evil mankind is.
Well, Coal hasn't yet destroyed a whole city with a single bomb. That, and the public's wild imagination, are largely what causes the fear of nuclear power.
I'd say that the backward attitude and resistance to education exists because people have always seen high school as teaching students academic skills. The reason rote memorization exists in mathematics education is because students need to learn the methods of algebraic manipulation in order to study any science or engineering. Rote memorization is neccessary. What we need to do isn't remove it, but add tasks which include using the rote to make judgements based on quantities.
Actually, Unemployment is a tax on the employee.
Are you implying that the existence of millions of more people on the planet does not also require that some of them be employed keeping themselves fed, clothed, housed, driven, etc?
The trouble with the "creating jobs" idea is that frequently government takes money away from other people who would have paid someone to do something, and distributes it through a long chain of tax collectors and bureaucrats who all get their cut. So essentially by relying on government to "create jobs" for hundreds of thousands, you may be inadvertently denying jobs to millions of people.
Essentially, would you rather take $1000 out of your taxes to spend on repairs to your house or car, or would you rather $250 be spent on $750 of that money going to repair someone else's house or car?
To hell with the electric car, we need an affordable electric truck that can tow a class III trailer, has an 8-foot bed, and a 120-150 mile range.
But if Texas were gone, where would our beef cattle come from?
Is it really neccessary to patronize people with a "google it noob" link in response to a joking question with no link request?
Or our experiment doesn't account for a phenomenon not predicted by current theory. One of the two. Either way it doesn't "disprove" GR, it only suggests that there is something we're missing. Consider that Gravity Lensing and Gravitational Redshift are two of the most important effects predicted by GR, and both of these effects actually happen.
I will sacrifice 100 Oxen tonight in the Den of My Computer, but only if the great Cursor will highlight it once more. Make it so great God of the Heavens.
Hey, don't drag Math into this. Humans invented Math. Math exists entirely inside of a person's head, and therefore is not an artifact of the Universe. I could certainly make a rule in my Mathematics that "2+2=5." Math's game would then be to determine how that rule interacts with any other rules I would posit. There's nothing concrete about it.
Look, having met the scientists at LIGO Hanford, I can tell you that they don't have the precision yet to detect anything really meaningful. You're suggesting that just because we haven't detected one phenomenon predicted by a niche scientific theory that gets a chuckle from most scientists except the proponents of the theory that Einstein is completely wrong?
And FYI, Newton had to make a TON of wierd distinctions in order to make Gravity a non-localized instantaneous effect. For example, he had to posit a difference between Inertial Mass, which is the quantity of matter causing an object to avoid changes in motion, and Gravitational Mass, which is the quantity of matter causing an attractive force. What's disturbing about this disunity is that, for all intents and purposes these quantities are experimentally the same. So why do we need to define two different kinds of mass?
Consider this: How do you explain gravity lensing if Einstein was wrong? How would Newton's theory explain the changes in motion of a particle with no gravitational or inertial mass?
On a more practical note, having listened to the guys at LIGO Hanford admit that they don't have the precision to actually detect a gravity wave emanating from more common and observable events, I can tell you that this doesn't prove or disprove anything. Yet.
Well yeah, ignoring how Bacteria appear to mutate in response to changes in their environment, which is an effect predicted by evolution, I would say that any theory of origins is completely untestable. Oh, Evolution might also predict that there will be differences between Dogs and Wolves based on how Dogs are raised in human environments. But we can't actually test any of those predictions, can we? I mean, how would we look at differences between dogs and wolves? Are there any experiments we could do that would let us observe bacteria adapting to their environments?
And what if I told you that everything horrible that happens in the world is either due to the stupidity of a large mass of people or the collusion of a very small mass of very powerful people? Which is the better explanation, the one that posits an observable tendancy for masses of people to act against their own best interests, or the one that posits the existence of an organization nobody has ever seen or heard of?
Essentially, in the absence of direct evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution is always the better theory because it's SIMPLER. It doesn't rely on the existence of an unknown actor, only on the observed repeatability of life's tendancy to change. And a bias toward the more complex but god-fearing explanation would be terrible for science, because all I would have to say to explain things like the motion of planets is to suggest that God did it. But positing the existence of God has no predictive power, and predictive power is what makes Science so useful. You can make good predictions with a geocentric model, or a heliocentric model, but you can't make good predictions about the formation and future motions of the planets by suggesting that God wills that the planets and stars revolve.
Suggesting that I'm biased detracts from the discussion at hand because it implies that bias is neccessarily a bad thing. Look around you. Everyone is biased. My bias toward scientific explanations exists for a reason. Do your biases?
Wait, I'm confused, did you just make a biblical reference? Aren't you taking this a little out of proportion?
So what you're saying is that when a company makes changes to something it is bad, but when it refuses to change things it is bad. I thought that Microsoft wasn't making enough changes to its software to keep up with other innovations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has ever attempted to create an interface like the Ribbon before in an office suite. So when Microsoft comes up with something new, suddenly it's not okay to be running for the new.
This community constantly rails against how Microsoft has aped other OS vendors to try to make their products better, and then rails against Microsoft trying to innovate in their own software. It's like every post is a new punch bowl filled with red kool-aid stupid. Could we please get past the 1990's Microsoft vs. Linux attitude and admit that it's possible for one arm of a company to do bad things while another arm of the company does good things? Not everything boils down to a "good vs. evil" essential conflict.
Get 33 people and I'll believe you. Even then, at a 99% confidence interval your anecdotal evidence may not be statistically significant. I'm more inclined to believe that that 2.4% dislike it because they expected to find it harder to use, and, not being disappointed, continued to not use it.