But the kids are hungry. They generally don't have constant snacking as is common in the US.
Exactly. If you give kids the freedom to constantly snack, then they will. They need to be trained. Otherwise you get the current paradoxical situation of an increasing number of kids being obese, and yet poorly nourished, which is effectively child neglect.
If parents can't or won't do something, then the State needs to intervene, as they would if the kids were being beaten up or not sent to school. Yeah, I know, Nanny State.
Parent's, especially mothers, have an innate ability to love their offspring. This has *nothing* to do with evolution although you can keep trying to pretend it does.
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that parents who love their offspring and therefore don't neglect them give their kids a better chance of reaching maturity, having children of their own, and passing on their genes.
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
If religion was happy to limit itself to being a branch of ethics, which in itself is a branch of philosophy, then we could all have nice academic discussions if we were philosophy students and let everyone else get on with our lives.
Unfortunately, religion is a lot more tangled up in the real world and politics than that.
The god of the new testament is somewhat kinder if only by its absence. But the god of the old testament is as far as "hand off" as you can be.
As much as knew it to be for the best, it was difficult for me to be a hands-off parent for my first daughter. It was easier for me with my second daughter an now with my third child as well. But for new parents, and presumably new gods, it may be difficult to sit back and to let our children make the mistakes that they need to make.
So God is now more like a teenage single parent than an omniscient, omnipotent being?
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
But that still doesn't get you free will: just because you don't know the outcome of a coin flip, it doesn't mean that the coin has free will.
Human beings have consciousness. Coins do not.
You can argue that consciousness doesn't exist, of course. You can also argue that the whole physical world doesn't exist outside of your mind, or that we're living in some computer generated world. Neither are plausible, even if they are unproveable.
That said free will doesn't exist, so it's a pointless argument.
If there really is no such thing as free will, then everything's pointless and you might as well kill yourself to avoid the inevitable pain of existence. It is only the knowledge that we can do something to affect what happens to us that makes it worth bothering at all.
Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
I disagree. If you CAN discover that without changing it then it most certainly does take your free will away. Without something like quantum uncertainty, the ability to observe a thing locks it down for all future eternity.
Chaotic systems are deterministic but not predictable. That seems like a more plausible description of a human being than some clockwork automaton.
No, it doesn't. If there is actually free will, the future is literally indeterminate. Then there is no "the future", that would be merely a linguistic construct.
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
So all the Revelations stuff can be ignored as it hasn't happened yet and is therefore nothing to do with God?
Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it.
How about The Flood, to take an obvious example? That seems pretty hands-on to me, wiping out all of humanity except for Noah and his family.
Richard Dawkins and the hardcore atheist sect seem to know there is no god, despite this being just as unfalsifiable as proving there is one.
Bullshit, you religious people could prove that gods(s) exist quite easily. Just one piece of solid evidence would do. And "it says in the bible" is not evidence.
There are very good reasons to be suspicious of both GMO and nuclear power, but they are politico-economic rather than scientific (or anti-scientific).
But I'd also imagine those people don't need cars to get to work.
The size of the parking lots at most apartment complexes in the U.S. would tend to argue the opposite.
Then you can build a charging point at the side of each parking space.
The range figures for a typical commuter are mostly irrelevant, since the typical commuter won't even get close to the max range in their daily commute, and they can easily charge overnight.
0
Exactly. People seem happy enough charging their smartphone every night.
what utility "should" a Tesla have that it is missing?
In most vehicle discussions on slashdot, the answer to this is "it must be able to carry a two ton twenty foor tree trunk in case I want to build a tree house, and be a 4 x 4 as I sometimes need to visit my granny who lives on top of a mountain up a dirt track."
I need more than 300 miles, I live in a very rural, isolated area. Nearest city worthy of the name is 280 miles away (and it's not the one I'd pick as my first choice to visit, either. The air is seriously polluted there. Outright stank.) 600 miles -- more or less what he's talking about -- would be awesome. I'd buy one of those in a heartbeat if it was under $60k.
There will be outliers who "need" 600 or 1000 miles even though they can't get that with their current vehicles.
Most cars here in the UK have a range of about 400 miles. You really shouldn't be driving more than that without stopping for a break anyway.
Obviously, the real issues are (1) that of providing enough charging stations, and (2) of trying to get it so that you can recharge in less than ten minutes, to make it as convenient as a conventional car.
The second one of these is not going to change in a couple of years.
If you believe in torture, and especially if you discount anything that doesn't maim you as torture in the first place, you are on the same moral level as Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Your vision of libertarianism is not the same as 99% of the right wing loons who post on slashdot. I don't think it's just a matter of presentation though, it is a genuine difference in defining what is right and wrong.
Tabulating machines were not computers. Nor were comptometers. There were analog computers before digital ones, but IBM didn't make them.
Oh fuck off, you're just playing with words. It doesn't matter if IBM just supplied them with bigger abacuses, they still contributed towards the Nazi's final solution.
Slashdot Mirror
But the kids are hungry. They generally don't have constant snacking as is common in the US.
Exactly. If you give kids the freedom to constantly snack, then they will. They need to be trained. Otherwise you get the current paradoxical situation of an increasing number of kids being obese, and yet poorly nourished, which is effectively child neglect.
If parents can't or won't do something, then the State needs to intervene, as they would if the kids were being beaten up or not sent to school. Yeah, I know, Nanny State.
Parent's, especially mothers, have an innate ability to love their offspring. This has *nothing* to do with evolution although you can keep trying to pretend it does.
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that parents who love their offspring and therefore don't neglect them give their kids a better chance of reaching maturity, having children of their own, and passing on their genes.
This doesn't minimise the depth of love involved.
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
If religion was happy to limit itself to being a branch of ethics, which in itself is a branch of philosophy, then we could all have nice academic discussions if we were philosophy students and let everyone else get on with our lives.
Unfortunately, religion is a lot more tangled up in the real world and politics than that.
I thought the first rule of Troll Club was not to make it quite so fucking obvious that you're a Troll?
The god of the new testament is somewhat kinder if only by its absence. But the god of the old testament is as far as "hand off" as you can be.
As much as knew it to be for the best, it was difficult for me to be a hands-off parent for my first daughter. It was easier for me with my second daughter an now with my third child as well. But for new parents, and presumably new gods, it may be difficult to sit back and to let our children make the mistakes that they need to make.
So God is now more like a teenage single parent than an omniscient, omnipotent being?
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
But that still doesn't get you free will: just because you don't know the outcome of a coin flip, it doesn't mean that the coin has free will.
Human beings have consciousness. Coins do not.
You can argue that consciousness doesn't exist, of course. You can also argue that the whole physical world doesn't exist outside of your mind, or that we're living in some computer generated world. Neither are plausible, even if they are unproveable.
That said free will doesn't exist, so it's a pointless argument.
If there really is no such thing as free will, then everything's pointless and you might as well kill yourself to avoid the inevitable pain of existence. It is only the knowledge that we can do something to affect what happens to us that makes it worth bothering at all.
Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
I disagree. If you CAN discover that without changing it then it most certainly does take your free will away. Without something like quantum uncertainty, the ability to observe a thing locks it down for all future eternity.
Chaotic systems are deterministic but not predictable. That seems like a more plausible description of a human being than some clockwork automaton.
No, it doesn't. If there is actually free will, the future is literally indeterminate. Then there is no "the future", that would be merely a linguistic construct.
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
So all the Revelations stuff can be ignored as it hasn't happened yet and is therefore nothing to do with God?
Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it.
How about The Flood, to take an obvious example? That seems pretty hands-on to me, wiping out all of humanity except for Noah and his family.
Richard Dawkins and the hardcore atheist sect seem to know there is no god, despite this being just as unfalsifiable as proving there is one.
Bullshit, you religious people could prove that gods(s) exist quite easily. Just one piece of solid evidence would do. And "it says in the bible" is not evidence.
There are very good reasons to be suspicious of both GMO and nuclear power, but they are politico-economic rather than scientific (or anti-scientific).
But I'd also imagine those people don't need cars to get to work. The size of the parking lots at most apartment complexes in the U.S. would tend to argue the opposite.
Then you can build a charging point at the side of each parking space.
The range figures for a typical commuter are mostly irrelevant, since the typical commuter won't even get close to the max range in their daily commute, and they can easily charge overnight.
0 Exactly. People seem happy enough charging their smartphone every night.
what utility "should" a Tesla have that it is missing?
In most vehicle discussions on slashdot, the answer to this is "it must be able to carry a two ton twenty foor tree trunk in case I want to build a tree house, and be a 4 x 4 as I sometimes need to visit my granny who lives on top of a mountain up a dirt track."
I need more than 300 miles, I live in a very rural, isolated area. Nearest city worthy of the name is 280 miles away (and it's not the one I'd pick as my first choice to visit, either. The air is seriously polluted there. Outright stank.) 600 miles -- more or less what he's talking about -- would be awesome. I'd buy one of those in a heartbeat if it was under $60k.
There will be outliers who "need" 600 or 1000 miles even though they can't get that with their current vehicles.
Most cars here in the UK have a range of about 400 miles. You really shouldn't be driving more than that without stopping for a break anyway.
Obviously, the real issues are (1) that of providing enough charging stations, and (2) of trying to get it so that you can recharge in less than ten minutes, to make it as convenient as a conventional car.
The second one of these is not going to change in a couple of years.
This post has a score above -1? Is this how people really feel? This country is doomed.
I suggest you google "sarcasm".
If you believe in torture, and especially if you discount anything that doesn't maim you as torture in the first place, you are on the same moral level as Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Your vision of libertarianism is not the same as 99% of the right wing loons who post on slashdot. I don't think it's just a matter of presentation though, it is a genuine difference in defining what is right and wrong.
tl;dr version of the above essay: she is evil because she didn't totally demonize Islam.
Invented a polio vaccine and refused to patent it - now THAT is an achievement.
Found the Higgs Boson - that's an achievement.
Found a proof for Fermatt's last theorem, there's a real achievement.
Those are the kinds of things those with STEM degrees set out to do in their lives
They also produce things like H-bombs, facebook and Donald Trump's rug.
That is unhinged. .... (snip) How did you end up so morally confused?
Ever hear of "hyperbole" or "sarcasm" or "exaggeration"? I thought not.
One of the disadvantages of modern education is that the whole subject of Rhetoric is a closed book to most people.
I believe their point was that comparing it with the holocaust is silly. You're still doing that.
It's a rhetorical device, not a statement of mathematically exact moral equivalence.
Tabulating machines were not computers. Nor were comptometers. There were analog computers before digital ones, but IBM didn't make them.
Oh fuck off, you're just playing with words. It doesn't matter if IBM just supplied them with bigger abacuses, they still contributed towards the Nazi's final solution.
Trump says her face is a form of waterboarding.
Which leads us to the question: what kind of atrocity is Trump's face? Or are we getting into something too horrible to discuss even on slashdot?
Don't. Mention. The. Hair.