Maybe I'm conflating two different areas of "quantum" here, but here goes.
At the quantum level of physics, if you observe something, the very act of observing will cause the quantum state to collapse, meaning you can't directly observe what ever it is you are trying to observe !? If you can create a filter that effectively only allows you to observe things that can pass through that filter, doesn't that mean that a quantum objects state can now be defined without direct observation ? The filter has already defined what may be observed, so any results acquired through that filter must be equivalent to what you defined as the filter. More positive hits ?
The only way my tiny mind can demonstrate this is something like: If you are in a room, with the door locked and the lights out, you do not need to observe the door opening to detect that it has opened, and to thereby infer that a person has opened it, and further that that person has a key to the door.
I don't have a kindle or whatever the sony device is called. I am not at college or any other educational establishment. But I like reading, and I end up in some odd places, and am away from home a lot of the time. So I use my phone. (HTC Trinity) Ok, I can see the "screen too small" arguments already, but it does ok for me (320x240 or 60mm x 45mm). With font smoothing turned on, and the backlight set just as I like it, and using my preferred font at my preferred size (all these are fully adjustable), I can read just as well as I can a normal book. I'm only reading truly literary stuff, no diagrams, although things like the maps from LOTR display fine. I only need to gently touch the RH of the screen with my thumb to turn the page, and can annotate, bookmark, highlight and refer to a dictionary where necessary. I have hundreds of ebooks on an SD card, some bought and others from manybooks.net which has the gutenberg library available in all the main formats.
My phone fits in 1 hand, if I get a call it switches to that mode by itself and doesn't "lose" my place. In fact I can have several books on the go at once. As soon as I open any book, it returns to the page I was last on, I don't have to enable that or specifically bookmark anything. The kindle type devices apart from being too large (for my purposes) and being single purpose, have one major flaw when compared to real paper books. You can only have 1 book open at once. I'm not sure how it goes these days, but when I was at school, I would normally have at least 2 books open at once when doing any kind of research. Unless you buy two (or 3) kindles then you will never have that capability. Also, I don't think paper books are replaceable by electronics. The library would becomes a fairly empty souless place once that happened. Part of the appeal of a library to me, is being surrounded by millions of documents that contain the majority of the worlds knowledge and dreams. A couple of servers wouldn't have the same gravitas.
Viewing a single page of text is an unusual way of reading (for me anyway), and if I were to get a full size document reader, it would have to display 2 pages at once, just like a real book. But then it would likely not fit in my pocket, it wouldn't play games, mp3s or movie files, it wouldn't have GPS or 3G internet or a calculator, or stereo bluetooth, or SMS, or email. I would need SSH access to my servers, and be able to program my own software and be able to access just about all of the devices hardware with my own code. Maybe convergence is a bad thing for some, but I have all that in one device that fits comfortably in the palm of one hand. It cost a little more than the kindle, but I bought this device 2 years ago and if I were to have individual devices for music/movies and GPS, and reading and programming, then the individual costs would be prohibitive.
You seem hellbent on making the point that science implies that the universe does not have a purpose. I disagree. Science makes no investigation into purpose of the type you mention. You are the one adding purpose to the equation. It is your implication. Science works just as well whether there is a purpose or not. Any purpose, if it exists, is outside the realm of science as it cannot be tested. So how can it imply anything about it ? You are imposing that implication, science isn't. Science is a technique, not a belief, nor a discrete entity.
Take this for an example of what I mean. An engineer designs and builds an engine. What does that engine imply about the purpose of the universe ? I would say that it does not concern itself with such ethereal matters merely practical, physical considerations. A scientist can look at an engine and work out how it was done. Working out why it was built has nothing to do with science, apart from what position in the hierarchy of other physical things it occupies. By analysing the construction of the engine, the scientist is not implying lack of universal purpose or evidence of universal purpose. Science has no stake in that game. What does 2+2 imply about god or the lack of ? Science cannot answer that question. If it cannot answer it, and shows no opinion on it, how are you getting that it is implying anything ? You may deduce that, but I think your deduction is wrong. as far as science is concerned 2+2 = 4. That's it. It does not say 2+2 = 4 therefore god does not exist. It is not being sneaky and underhanded by saying 2+2 = 4 (assuming god doesn't exist). Merely the facts. You are free to deduce whatever you want from the statement, but don't accuse science of planting that notion in your head.
What worries me about misunderstandings like this, is that the scientific method is under attack by certain religious elements of society who are in the mistaken belief that science has an agenda vis. God. They personalise it, they anthropomorphise a method into having a philosophical outlook that is fundamentally dedicated to destroying the notion of god. Because they have no evidence of god, any process that seeks to provide evidence of anything in the universe is automatically assumed to be "against" the idea of god. God doesn't need evidence remember, so why should we ? Add to that the fact that by ignoring anything that is not backed up by evidence, the scientific method has isolated the mechanisms by which everything exists, and suddenly god has much less credibility. This hurts religion. So they fight back, but because they eschew the scientific method they have nothing but human emotion and superstition as their weapons. When you attribute an implication to science, you are giving them more ammunition that is not valid.
My parting shot. Take a ruler, any ruler, it doesn't matter if it is marked in metric or inches. That ruler IS science. What does that ruler imply about purpose ? Nothing. You can use it to measure things accurately, but you could also use it to thwack someones head or bounce erasers across the room. But the ruler itself just sits there. It implies nothing about universal truth or god. If you see it as fundamentally at odds with the idea of god that is your interpretation, not the rulers. You may as well say that your computer hates you because it won't print a document correctly. Your computer has no concept of "you" or "hate" or "won't". Is it implying anything ? No, because that is a human concept, not a physical reality.
If I had a child enrolled there, with a $50,750 bill (2008-9), I would expect more careful, more effective support from the administration to fulfill the loco in parentis role.
What is the legal age of majority in the US ? In the UK it is 18, and nobody (other than prodigies) attends university before the age of 18. So the university is not responsible for any parental role.
So any old mass murderer can drive a taxi can they ? How about known paedophiles taking your kids to school ? Why are there so many pseudo 14 year olds on this site recently ?
I would imagine that if you enquire into the issue and dig right back to the beginning of the regulation, you will find that the public demanded some oversight of these private companies. Now ill-educated fools who think they have the answer to life itself (because they are 14 years and nearly 6 months old) are complaining about things that "we, the people" asked for. If you're not 14 years old, start acting like it.
Shut down the FAA, let the airlines self regulate. Shut down welfare, turn all the streets into a ghetto. Shut down medicare, let the disease spread. Shut down all these things because they cost me money. I don't see any benefit. Me me me me me ! It really is the American disease. What gets me is the fact that you have no excuse for complaining. You actually have enough space to just say "fuck it" pack your shit together and live in the woods. But no, you'd rather run the country (badly) from your armchair while taking a large advantage from all the benefits bestowed by the things you want to get rid of. When you get that problem sorted out, you might find the politicians reflecting the people in a better light. Yes, you heard me. The reason Bush got in was because there are millions of people who think like he does. If you think that's good, I'm sorry for your descendants.
I didn't mean to pick on Bush, he is in illustrious company. But let's face it, he is the poster boy for WTF ?
You also banged on about how unfair it is, that your parents who OWN 350 acres and rent some of it out, have to pay higher taxes than somebody who makes so little that they have to rent in a town. My heart bleeds.
You realise that the portion of your taxes that actually pays for NASA is tiny ? So you are prepared to snuff out the best blue sky project for the sake of a few dollars. You must be really tight. It's like people in the UK who complain about the cost of the monarchy. The cost to each individual is so low they wouldn't even be able to buy a drink with it. But that's the excuse these tight bastards use to justify their envy. The normal guy in the street earning average or just above wages is not even paying for NASAs coffee. It's the corporations who pay massive amounts of tax that the majority of the funds come from. And you don't really expect your firm to give you a raise if NASA were dropped, do you ?
Crap. It's more like buying a stereo and finding that your ford won't work with it, or your GM, unless you are using Shell gas. It's a fucking modem. If it comes on a card, that fits a standard slot, then it should function as a modem under any OS. What it's called is not relevant. I could call my new drink a pan-galactic gargleblaster, but if you buy it thinking you get to see the galaxy, then you have the problem not me. How many devices work under linux but don't have any accreditation to that fact written on the box ? Lots. But they all have Windows $version as the required OS, even if it's not required in real life. How many anti-ageing products do you see advertised on tv ? here's a little secret - not ONE of them do what they claim. Not one. They hide the signs of ageing, they do not stop it or even slow it down. But still they are known as anti-ageing, so maybe there is some new definition of the term anti that I'm unaware of. So winmodems were a con, they are a con, and it should be made much clearer on the packaging that they are not modems in any true sense of the term. All they are is an expensive add on to plug the phone cable into. If a device is specified to work with USB for example, then it should work with USB, no matter what the OS. Drivers are a separate issue, but hardware should be capable of what it claims.
A lot of cgi is protected by not accepting connections from anywhere other than the localhost, because you don't want people accessing scripts in ways other than those you expose. As a first line of defence it's quite useful. You must be able to control the input as much as possible. None of my mySQL DBs are accessible outside localhost for example (although that doesn't rely on headers, it's hard coded in the connection string).
If you don't have the guts to do it regardless of the law, then you probably don't have the inner strength to actually make it through the trip without freaking. It's not like riding a roller coaster, where after 30 seconds it's all over. Some trips can keep you going for 12 hours and more. Once you have started freaking, you are stuck with it. You need a very particular kind of attitude to be able to deal with that and not come out a shambling monkey. How much primal animal fear can you handle ? (hint if you're worried about breaking a law, then I'd guess not much) Imagine the very worst thing you can dream up - now amplify it and live through it. The mind is a very powerful thing, and not enough people know their own mind well enough when they're straight let alone when it has assumed the power that LSD can give. I've seen big hard men reduced to quivering crying babies after thinking they could handle LSD. I'm not saying that if you have the right attitude you won't freak, but when you freak (and everybody does sooner or later) you can handle it. I had to get someone to turn the stereo off once before the song reached a certain line, because I was so immersed that I felt that hearing the line in question was going to kill me. (Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb). Remember in the Matrix, Neo asked "if you die inside the Matrix, you die in real life too ?", Morpheus said "The body cannot live without the mind". This is quite possible. If I had been taking acid when the Matrix came out, I would probably never had taken as much as I did. As it happened, I stopped doing LSD a good decade before that film. Pro-tip : never trip by yourself, always share the experience with a friend (who is in the same state). Know when to say no. If you have even the slightest fear about doing it - don't do it. That fear is the seed of a Bad Trip. It IS pitch black, and you ARE likely to be eaten by a Grue. Beginners tip : just don't. But if you do, get as far away from civilisation as you can before you do it, and enjoy the stars or something. Avoid natural hazards (cliffs, ravines, rivers) and keep your clothes on ! Also, read the pro-tip.
My final word here is just to stress that hard drug taking is not like a funfair ride. You can't just get off the ride when you feel like it, and it will change you and your life, immediately and for ever more, even after just one trip. You will never be the same person ever again. None of what I just said is related to addiction, just the fallout from the experience. So, ask yourself - Do I feel lucky ?
Disclaimer : I am not a doctor, I am not your doctor. I post here to redress the imbalance of information between people who think drugs are cool and spout off bullshit, and those who have actually been down that road and survived (just). I will never and have never encouraged anybody to take drugs.
The question you have to ask yourself is not whether Science or religion offers the most accurate philosophy but which would make you live a happier more enjoyable life
Neither. Religion denies definition, so accuracy is meaningless, and science is not a philosophy. I'd have to go with science there, as I like living in a modern house with tv and pc and water laid on. I can even crap inside the house now !
Would you rather know how everything works and be miserable about the pointlessness and brief nature of life or would you rather have a happier and somewhat more ignorant life lived with hope and happiness, even to looking forward to your inevitable demise.
I would love to know how everything works, and live a full and happy life knowing that nature achieves such amazing things using some very very basic principles, and I'm part of it. Worrying what is going to happen to me after I die is a bit morbid thanks.
Even if religion is completely wrong and a complete fiction, adopting and truly believing it is the right philosophical life choice choice for a very great many of folks and has been for thousands of years.
Who cares ! Science does not care what you think about it. It is not an entity, we do not worship it. It is a tool for understanding. The only reason scientists have started speaking out is due to religion making claims it cannot live up to. And also to try to educate those who spend their lives following something that's completely wrong and a complete fiction. If you knew something wasn't true, wouldn't you bring it to the attention of someone who was relying on it being true ? Do you support scientology ? Would you try to help a cult member by showing how ridiculous their claims were ? Unfortunately they have as much hard evidence as you do - none. Ironically it was St Peter who suggested building your house on the rock. He got the idea right, but apparently no-ones allowed to check the rock, to see if it is actually a rock or even if it's still there. So all you have is the house, which may be baseless.
Does a computer need a higher purpose to function ? Some philosophy to get it through the next thread ? When you replace a stick of RAM, do you thank the lord for the mysteries of the universe ? Science is about structure, not intent. Science does not seek to disprove god, it merely cannot disprove a notion, a philosophy, or an idea outside the physical world. So why bother trying. There may well be a god, but that does not advance understanding of the structure of the universe one jot. We don't "believe" in science, we use it. We have steel widely available in the world. You may even drive a car that uses it somewhere. That is because of science, not because some mexican guy found the blueprints for the Bessemer converter inside a mango. That is the significant value of science, not dreaming about what it all means in the long run, but defining what it "is" NOW.
Reminds me of Vroomfondel and Magickthize. "We'll go on strike ! Is that what you want, a philosophers strike ?" Deep Thought : "And whom will that inconvenience?"
Considering he produces his own films I don't think that's relevant. He doesn't actually need an acting career anymore. But plenty of other actors need exposure.
No they don't. You are free to use it. It is not "a product", it is a solution to a problem. "Here's the way I solved that problem". Not "use this software for nothing (snigger)". What you're saying is "if my straw man is irrelevant, I win the argument". BTW, I know you beat your wife - if that's not true you should wear a sign declaring that. If open source "sells" itself, it does so in the way you "sell" yourself to that pretty girl you just met at the bar. It does not sell itself in the sense of good advert = more money. So it does not have the same obligations as Heinz do when they promise the best damn beans in the known universe (at participating stores, subject to coupon, may be withdrawn at any time, see planetary alignment for further details). Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't make them liable for your misunderstanding.
The TCO fallacy bandied about by microsoft will soon be exposed for what it is (I hope). I spent hours hacking windows in the past. I must have re-installed win98se and XP at least 100 times for such meaningless things as new mainboards, bigger drives, crap operating system errors, etc etc. Yeah I have had to hack around in linux too, much more in fact, the difference being that on linux it is productive hacking to get it doing exactly what I want, rather than just hacking windows to tread water AND be subject to their ideas of what I need from it AND pay for the privilege.
Who said they wanted users ? Open source is about scratching YOUR itch. If others want to use your new found knowledge, then fine, they can have the benefit without contributing. But if the users want something that you're not interested in providing, they can scratch their own damn itch. Their desires have no authority over your obligations whatsoever. Closed source proprietary code usually requires payment, and that is where obligations start. Some people volunteer to pick up litter. Do we have the right to DEMAND they continue doing it ? Those bastard volunteers are only out for themselves ! </sarcasm>
I used to give a guy a lift to work. I asked him for money a few times, but none was ever forthcoming. I let it slide as I was already going that way, but it grated on my nerves. So one day I asked him for payment on pain of no more lifts. His response was one of amazement: "Why are you asking for money ? No-one forced you to give me a lift !"
I don't code (publicly) but I do use all varieties of open source so I mirror files for others. The day somebody who merely uses the code I mirror complains because I withdraw the facility, is the day they go in the DNS blacklist. I pay good money to keep those files online, don't tell me how long I must pay it for.
In my capacity as truck driver, I have had occasion to visit Felixstowe container terminal. They have been trying to get a similar system going for years. I have a photo card that contains the data and I have to place my hand on a pad up against metal posts. This system has never worked reliably, and so far other than when I went through the initial process, I have never had to use it. The terminals are always out of order. So we just wave the card instead.
I always expected all humans to be like that. The only definition of left or right handedness is, what is your default when there are no other variables. As a car mechanic, there are places you can't get to right handed, and others you can't reach left handed. The situation defines the preference. Writing is mainly governed by politics (small p), that is to say, education. When writing was big (dark ages/middle ages), writing used slow drying inks that would smudge if you wrote from right to left when using the "pen" right handed. So they started top left. The monks did the most writing, and they also did the most teaching, so naturally the way they did it predominated. The oriental/eastern way of columns from bottom right was partly due to using long handled brushes - no smudges. I'm not saying this is how it happened, but it does make sense. Neither is "correct".
Except you fail to take into account the fact that although a carrot is more efficient at converting solar energy than a cow, eating a cow is more efficient than eating carrots. It takes longer to digest vegetation than meat. So unless you want to spend your waking hours grazing, it's more efficient for humans to eat meat. (Not to mention the lack of several stomachs in humans). That is why we are at the top of the food chain. Or do you suggest that everything on the planet eat algae ? The time and effort involved in collecting enough algae to make it energy positive is prohibitive. Far easier to eat something that has already done it for you.
And on the subject of "peak food", yes you can grow hydroponically, but you still need the minerals that the soil would have provided. They must come from somewhere, so hydroponics just shifts things around without changing the basic principle. I have a hydroponic system, and I have to supply nutrients regularly, and also remove toxins otherwise things don't grow. The nutrients don't magically appear from somewhere, they are manufactured from raw materials. Which in turn come from the soil - somewhere.
Agreed. Also the quote you gave provided examples of marketing not science. The White Star Shipping Line "claimed" the Titanic was unsinkable, an idiot "claimed" the earth was flat, and religion had a *vested interest* in keeping people scared of a big guy in the sky. Not a sign of science.
BTB, the geologist himself was a Christian, but firmly believes that evolution happened. His main goal in talking to us was to convince us not to dismiss evolution out-of-hand, and that we would do a lot better to avoid evolution altogether, and instead focus on Jesus' resurrection, an argument where we're on a lot firmer ground.
Firmer ground ? FIRMER GROUND ??? If resurrection is firmer ground than physical evidence, then you have no argument.
I really need to get a splash screen for my monitor !
Hmmm, a "real" scientist who thinks a theory equals a fact. Not only that, but as falsification is not allowed, a fact that cannot intrinsically be relied upon. Way to go, gobshite.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm conflating two different areas of "quantum" here, but here goes.
:
At the quantum level of physics, if you observe something, the very act of observing will cause the quantum state to collapse, meaning you can't directly observe what ever it is you are trying to observe !?
If you can create a filter that effectively only allows you to observe things that can pass through that filter, doesn't that mean that a quantum objects state can now be defined without direct observation ? The filter has already defined what may be observed, so any results acquired through that filter must be equivalent to what you defined as the filter. More positive hits ?
The only way my tiny mind can demonstrate this is something like
If you are in a room, with the door locked and the lights out, you do not need to observe the door opening to detect that it has opened, and to thereby infer that a person has opened it, and further that that person has a key to the door.
That reminds me, I have to drop the kids off at the pool !
I don't have a kindle or whatever the sony device is called. I am not at college or any other educational establishment. But I like reading, and I end up in some odd places, and am away from home a lot of the time. So I use my phone. (HTC Trinity)
Ok, I can see the "screen too small" arguments already, but it does ok for me (320x240 or 60mm x 45mm). With font smoothing turned on, and the backlight set just as I like it, and using my preferred font at my preferred size (all these are fully adjustable), I can read just as well as I can a normal book. I'm only reading truly literary stuff, no diagrams, although things like the maps from LOTR display fine. I only need to gently touch the RH of the screen with my thumb to turn the page, and can annotate, bookmark, highlight and refer to a dictionary where necessary. I have hundreds of ebooks on an SD card, some bought and others from manybooks.net which has the gutenberg library available in all the main formats.
My phone fits in 1 hand, if I get a call it switches to that mode by itself and doesn't "lose" my place. In fact I can have several books on the go at once. As soon as I open any book, it returns to the page I was last on, I don't have to enable that or specifically bookmark anything. The kindle type devices apart from being too large (for my purposes) and being single purpose, have one major flaw when compared to real paper books. You can only have 1 book open at once. I'm not sure how it goes these days, but when I was at school, I would normally have at least 2 books open at once when doing any kind of research. Unless you buy two (or 3) kindles then you will never have that capability. Also, I don't think paper books are replaceable by electronics. The library would becomes a fairly empty souless place once that happened. Part of the appeal of a library to me, is being surrounded by millions of documents that contain the majority of the worlds knowledge and dreams. A couple of servers wouldn't have the same gravitas.
Viewing a single page of text is an unusual way of reading (for me anyway), and if I were to get a full size document reader, it would have to display 2 pages at once, just like a real book. But then it would likely not fit in my pocket, it wouldn't play games, mp3s or movie files, it wouldn't have GPS or 3G internet or a calculator, or stereo bluetooth, or SMS, or email. I would need SSH access to my servers, and be able to program my own software and be able to access just about all of the devices hardware with my own code. Maybe convergence is a bad thing for some, but I have all that in one device that fits comfortably in the palm of one hand. It cost a little more than the kindle, but I bought this device 2 years ago and if I were to have individual devices for music/movies and GPS, and reading and programming, then the individual costs would be prohibitive.
But that's just me, YMMV.
Not squall, squeal. Squall is a nasty patch of bad weather.
You seem hellbent on making the point that science implies that the universe does not have a purpose. I disagree. Science makes no investigation into purpose of the type you mention. You are the one adding purpose to the equation. It is your implication. Science works just as well whether there is a purpose or not. Any purpose, if it exists, is outside the realm of science as it cannot be tested. So how can it imply anything about it ? You are imposing that implication, science isn't. Science is a technique, not a belief, nor a discrete entity.
Take this for an example of what I mean. An engineer designs and builds an engine. What does that engine imply about the purpose of the universe ? I would say that it does not concern itself with such ethereal matters merely practical, physical considerations. A scientist can look at an engine and work out how it was done. Working out why it was built has nothing to do with science, apart from what position in the hierarchy of other physical things it occupies. By analysing the construction of the engine, the scientist is not implying lack of universal purpose or evidence of universal purpose. Science has no stake in that game. What does 2+2 imply about god or the lack of ? Science cannot answer that question. If it cannot answer it, and shows no opinion on it, how are you getting that it is implying anything ? You may deduce that, but I think your deduction is wrong. as far as science is concerned 2+2 = 4. That's it. It does not say 2+2 = 4 therefore god does not exist. It is not being sneaky and underhanded by saying 2+2 = 4 (assuming god doesn't exist). Merely the facts. You are free to deduce whatever you want from the statement, but don't accuse science of planting that notion in your head.
What worries me about misunderstandings like this, is that the scientific method is under attack by certain religious elements of society who are in the mistaken belief that science has an agenda vis. God. They personalise it, they anthropomorphise a method into having a philosophical outlook that is fundamentally dedicated to destroying the notion of god. Because they have no evidence of god, any process that seeks to provide evidence of anything in the universe is automatically assumed to be "against" the idea of god. God doesn't need evidence remember, so why should we ? Add to that the fact that by ignoring anything that is not backed up by evidence, the scientific method has isolated the mechanisms by which everything exists, and suddenly god has much less credibility. This hurts religion. So they fight back, but because they eschew the scientific method they have nothing but human emotion and superstition as their weapons. When you attribute an implication to science, you are giving them more ammunition that is not valid.
My parting shot.
Take a ruler, any ruler, it doesn't matter if it is marked in metric or inches. That ruler IS science. What does that ruler imply about purpose ? Nothing. You can use it to measure things accurately, but you could also use it to thwack someones head or bounce erasers across the room. But the ruler itself just sits there. It implies nothing about universal truth or god. If you see it as fundamentally at odds with the idea of god that is your interpretation, not the rulers. You may as well say that your computer hates you because it won't print a document correctly. Your computer has no concept of "you" or "hate" or "won't". Is it implying anything ? No, because that is a human concept, not a physical reality.
What is the legal age of majority in the US ? In the UK it is 18, and nobody (other than prodigies) attends university before the age of 18. So the university is not responsible for any parental role.
So any old mass murderer can drive a taxi can they ? How about known paedophiles taking your kids to school ?
Why are there so many pseudo 14 year olds on this site recently ?
I would imagine that if you enquire into the issue and dig right back to the beginning of the regulation, you will find that the public demanded some oversight of these private companies. Now ill-educated fools who think they have the answer to life itself (because they are 14 years and nearly 6 months old) are complaining about things that "we, the people" asked for.
If you're not 14 years old, start acting like it.
Shut down the FAA, let the airlines self regulate. Shut down welfare, turn all the streets into a ghetto. Shut down medicare, let the disease spread. Shut down all these things because they cost me money. I don't see any benefit. Me me me me me !
It really is the American disease. What gets me is the fact that you have no excuse for complaining. You actually have enough space to just say "fuck it" pack your shit together and live in the woods. But no, you'd rather run the country (badly) from your armchair while taking a large advantage from all the benefits bestowed by the things you want to get rid of. When you get that problem sorted out, you might find the politicians reflecting the people in a better light. Yes, you heard me. The reason Bush got in was because there are millions of people who think like he does. If you think that's good, I'm sorry for your descendants.
I didn't mean to pick on Bush, he is in illustrious company. But let's face it, he is the poster boy for WTF ?
More like - yep, that's a government worker alright !
You also banged on about how unfair it is, that your parents who OWN 350 acres and rent some of it out, have to pay higher taxes than somebody who makes so little that they have to rent in a town.
My heart bleeds.
You realise that the portion of your taxes that actually pays for NASA is tiny ? So you are prepared to snuff out the best blue sky project for the sake of a few dollars. You must be really tight. It's like people in the UK who complain about the cost of the monarchy. The cost to each individual is so low they wouldn't even be able to buy a drink with it. But that's the excuse these tight bastards use to justify their envy.
The normal guy in the street earning average or just above wages is not even paying for NASAs coffee. It's the corporations who pay massive amounts of tax that the majority of the funds come from. And you don't really expect your firm to give you a raise if NASA were dropped, do you ?
Crap.
It's more like buying a stereo and finding that your ford won't work with it, or your GM, unless you are using Shell gas. It's a fucking modem. If it comes on a card, that fits a standard slot, then it should function as a modem under any OS. What it's called is not relevant. I could call my new drink a pan-galactic gargleblaster, but if you buy it thinking you get to see the galaxy, then you have the problem not me. How many devices work under linux but don't have any accreditation to that fact written on the box ? Lots. But they all have Windows $version as the required OS, even if it's not required in real life.
How many anti-ageing products do you see advertised on tv ? here's a little secret - not ONE of them do what they claim. Not one. They hide the signs of ageing, they do not stop it or even slow it down. But still they are known as anti-ageing, so maybe there is some new definition of the term anti that I'm unaware of.
So winmodems were a con, they are a con, and it should be made much clearer on the packaging that they are not modems in any true sense of the term. All they are is an expensive add on to plug the phone cable into. If a device is specified to work with USB for example, then it should work with USB, no matter what the OS. Drivers are a separate issue, but hardware should be capable of what it claims.
A lot of cgi is protected by not accepting connections from anywhere other than the localhost, because you don't want people accessing scripts in ways other than those you expose. As a first line of defence it's quite useful. You must be able to control the input as much as possible. None of my mySQL DBs are accessible outside localhost for example (although that doesn't rely on headers, it's hard coded in the connection string).
If you don't have the guts to do it regardless of the law, then you probably don't have the inner strength to actually make it through the trip without freaking. It's not like riding a roller coaster, where after 30 seconds it's all over. Some trips can keep you going for 12 hours and more. Once you have started freaking, you are stuck with it. You need a very particular kind of attitude to be able to deal with that and not come out a shambling monkey. How much primal animal fear can you handle ? (hint if you're worried about breaking a law, then I'd guess not much) Imagine the very worst thing you can dream up - now amplify it and live through it. The mind is a very powerful thing, and not enough people know their own mind well enough when they're straight let alone when it has assumed the power that LSD can give.
I've seen big hard men reduced to quivering crying babies after thinking they could handle LSD.
I'm not saying that if you have the right attitude you won't freak, but when you freak (and everybody does sooner or later) you can handle it. I had to get someone to turn the stereo off once before the song reached a certain line, because I was so immersed that I felt that hearing the line in question was going to kill me. (Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb).
Remember in the Matrix, Neo asked "if you die inside the Matrix, you die in real life too ?", Morpheus said "The body cannot live without the mind". This is quite possible. If I had been taking acid when the Matrix came out, I would probably never had taken as much as I did. As it happened, I stopped doing LSD a good decade before that film.
Pro-tip : never trip by yourself, always share the experience with a friend (who is in the same state). Know when to say no. If you have even the slightest fear about doing it - don't do it. That fear is the seed of a Bad Trip. It IS pitch black, and you ARE likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Beginners tip : just don't. But if you do, get as far away from civilisation as you can before you do it, and enjoy the stars or something. Avoid natural hazards (cliffs, ravines, rivers) and keep your clothes on ! Also, read the pro-tip.
My final word here is just to stress that hard drug taking is not like a funfair ride. You can't just get off the ride when you feel like it, and it will change you and your life, immediately and for ever more, even after just one trip. You will never be the same person ever again. None of what I just said is related to addiction, just the fallout from the experience. So, ask yourself - Do I feel lucky ?
Disclaimer : I am not a doctor, I am not your doctor. I post here to redress the imbalance of information between people who think drugs are cool and spout off bullshit, and those who have actually been down that road and survived (just). I will never and have never encouraged anybody to take drugs.
Neither. Religion denies definition, so accuracy is meaningless, and science is not a philosophy.
I'd have to go with science there, as I like living in a modern house with tv and pc and water laid on. I can even crap inside the house now !
I would love to know how everything works, and live a full and happy life knowing that nature achieves such amazing things using some very very basic principles, and I'm part of it. Worrying what is going to happen to me after I die is a bit morbid thanks.
Who cares ! Science does not care what you think about it. It is not an entity, we do not worship it. It is a tool for understanding. The only reason scientists have started speaking out is due to religion making claims it cannot live up to. And also to try to educate those who spend their lives following something that's completely wrong and a complete fiction. If you knew something wasn't true, wouldn't you bring it to the attention of someone who was relying on it being true ? Do you support scientology ? Would you try to help a cult member by showing how ridiculous their claims were ? Unfortunately they have as much hard evidence as you do - none.
Ironically it was St Peter who suggested building your house on the rock. He got the idea right, but apparently no-ones allowed to check the rock, to see if it is actually a rock or even if it's still there. So all you have is the house, which may be baseless.
Does a computer need a higher purpose to function ? Some philosophy to get it through the next thread ? When you replace a stick of RAM, do you thank the lord for the mysteries of the universe ?
Science is about structure, not intent. Science does not seek to disprove god, it merely cannot disprove a notion, a philosophy, or an idea outside the physical world. So why bother trying. There may well be a god, but that does not advance understanding of the structure of the universe one jot. We don't "believe" in science, we use it. We have steel widely available in the world. You may even drive a car that uses it somewhere. That is because of science, not because some mexican guy found the blueprints for the Bessemer converter inside a mango. That is the significant value of science, not dreaming about what it all means in the long run, but defining what it "is" NOW.
Reminds me of Vroomfondel and Magickthize. "We'll go on strike ! Is that what you want, a philosophers strike ?"
Deep Thought : "And whom will that inconvenience?"
Considering he produces his own films I don't think that's relevant. He doesn't actually need an acting career anymore. But plenty of other actors need exposure.
They are welcome, but they must leave the crap behind. They can't have both.
No they don't. You are free to use it. It is not "a product", it is a solution to a problem. "Here's the way I solved that problem". Not "use this software for nothing (snigger)".
What you're saying is "if my straw man is irrelevant, I win the argument". BTW, I know you beat your wife - if that's not true you should wear a sign declaring that.
If open source "sells" itself, it does so in the way you "sell" yourself to that pretty girl you just met at the bar. It does not sell itself in the sense of good advert = more money. So it does not have the same obligations as Heinz do when they promise the best damn beans in the known universe (at participating stores, subject to coupon, may be withdrawn at any time, see planetary alignment for further details). Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't make them liable for your misunderstanding.
The TCO fallacy bandied about by microsoft will soon be exposed for what it is (I hope). I spent hours hacking windows in the past. I must have re-installed win98se and XP at least 100 times for such meaningless things as new mainboards, bigger drives, crap operating system errors, etc etc. Yeah I have had to hack around in linux too, much more in fact, the difference being that on linux it is productive hacking to get it doing exactly what I want, rather than just hacking windows to tread water AND be subject to their ideas of what I need from it AND pay for the privilege.
Who said they wanted users ? Open source is about scratching YOUR itch. If others want to use your new found knowledge, then fine, they can have the benefit without contributing. But if the users want something that you're not interested in providing, they can scratch their own damn itch. Their desires have no authority over your obligations whatsoever. Closed source proprietary code usually requires payment, and that is where obligations start.
Some people volunteer to pick up litter. Do we have the right to DEMAND they continue doing it ?
Those bastard volunteers are only out for themselves ! </sarcasm>
I used to give a guy a lift to work. I asked him for money a few times, but none was ever forthcoming. I let it slide as I was already going that way, but it grated on my nerves. So one day I asked him for payment on pain of no more lifts. His response was one of amazement: "Why are you asking for money ? No-one forced you to give me a lift !"
I don't code (publicly) but I do use all varieties of open source so I mirror files for others. The day somebody who merely uses the code I mirror complains because I withdraw the facility, is the day they go in the DNS blacklist. I pay good money to keep those files online, don't tell me how long I must pay it for.
In my capacity as truck driver, I have had occasion to visit Felixstowe container terminal. They have been trying to get a similar system going for years. I have a photo card that contains the data and I have to place my hand on a pad up against metal posts. This system has never worked reliably, and so far other than when I went through the initial process, I have never had to use it. The terminals are always out of order. So we just wave the card instead.
I always expected all humans to be like that. The only definition of left or right handedness is, what is your default when there are no other variables. As a car mechanic, there are places you can't get to right handed, and others you can't reach left handed. The situation defines the preference. Writing is mainly governed by politics (small p), that is to say, education. When writing was big (dark ages/middle ages), writing used slow drying inks that would smudge if you wrote from right to left when using the "pen" right handed. So they started top left. The monks did the most writing, and they also did the most teaching, so naturally the way they did it predominated. The oriental/eastern way of columns from bottom right was partly due to using long handled brushes - no smudges. I'm not saying this is how it happened, but it does make sense. Neither is "correct".
Except you fail to take into account the fact that although a carrot is more efficient at converting solar energy than a cow, eating a cow is more efficient than eating carrots. It takes longer to digest vegetation than meat. So unless you want to spend your waking hours grazing, it's more efficient for humans to eat meat. (Not to mention the lack of several stomachs in humans). That is why we are at the top of the food chain. Or do you suggest that everything on the planet eat algae ? The time and effort involved in collecting enough algae to make it energy positive is prohibitive. Far easier to eat something that has already done it for you.
And on the subject of "peak food", yes you can grow hydroponically, but you still need the minerals that the soil would have provided. They must come from somewhere, so hydroponics just shifts things around without changing the basic principle. I have a hydroponic system, and I have to supply nutrients regularly, and also remove toxins otherwise things don't grow. The nutrients don't magically appear from somewhere, they are manufactured from raw materials. Which in turn come from the soil - somewhere.
Agreed. Also the quote you gave provided examples of marketing not science. The White Star Shipping Line "claimed" the Titanic was unsinkable, an idiot "claimed" the earth was flat, and religion had a *vested interest* in keeping people scared of a big guy in the sky. Not a sign of science.
Firmer ground ? FIRMER GROUND ??? If resurrection is firmer ground than physical evidence, then you have no argument.
I really need to get a splash screen for my monitor !
Hmmm, a "real" scientist who thinks a theory equals a fact. Not only that, but as falsification is not allowed, a fact that cannot intrinsically be relied upon.
Way to go, gobshite.