How do people as dumb as you manage to survive? This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely interested in knowing by what miracle (curse?) you are still alive.
It appears that we have two possible interpretations. The question is, which one is correct? Does the Koran promise virgins or raisins as a reward for martyrdom? Prima facie it seems more likely that virgins are promised, since raisins are a laughable reward for self-immolation. The humorous nature of this interpretation probably aids in the promulgation of this meme. Let's examine the different interpretations more closely, though. First, let me note that the authors quoted in the link you provided ( http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogra mmer/?p=83399082 ) were clearly quite sure that their interpretation was correct. You would lose this debate if you counted assuredness as evidence though -those killing themselves are presumably more sure of the alternative.
The word under dispute is 'hur', which appears in several places in the Koran. The following was pointed out here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri:
"The word 'virgin' in Arabic does not translate perfectly into English. A closer translation is 'pure being'. As with the word 'virgin', the use of the word 'hur' is not always sexual."
"The hur may have a connotation of gender like the word "angel" in English but in general sense the hur can be male or female as does the word "angel" in English. The Arabic word "Hur", which occurs four times in the Qur'an, is plural of "Ahwar" for the masculine gender and "Huwra" (or houri) for the feminine. Thus, the huriyah may be male or female, either of which describes a person distinguished by "hawar", meaning "purity".[2][3]"
The following definition was taken from the site that you provided:
In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly.
The first thing we should take note of is that the koran was written in Arabic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an ). The virgin interpretation is an arabic definition. But the raisin definition, according to the very source you provided, is Syriac. This should be your first clue. This idea probably started as either a mistake or a joke, and spread because people like repeating it.
Next, let's assume for a moment that the raisin interpretation is correct, even though it is silly on the face of it, and that interpretation actually arises by translating using the wrong corpus. What do we do about all the other appearances of the word 'hur'? To remain consistent, let's replace all instances of the word 'hur' with the raisin interpretation. The following results:
"And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high: for, behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as raisins"
"We have created [their Companions] of special creation, and made them raisin-pure"
"If he divorces you, his Lord will substitute other wives in your place who are better than you; submitters (Muslims), believers (Mu'mins), obedient, repentant, worshipers, pious, either previously married, or raisins."
Okay then. I think it's safe to say that I have laid this myth to rest.
I am not so much interested in the origin of their beliefs (it's myth either way) as I am in the fact that people actually believe them.
I am familiar with the "young woman" mistake. It's also the case that the "forbidden fruit" was never actually identified as an apple. Are you sure about the "white raisins" mistake though? I have heard this before, but highly doubt that raisins would have been offered as a reward for martyrdom (even if they were white).
Are they any more wacky than Christians, or are we just attenuated to Christian absurdities? Let's consider some fundamental Christian beliefs: A magical man born of a virgin died on a cross, thus expunging "sin" from mankind -sin that was started by eating forbidden fruit in a magical garden with a talking snake (the notion of Jesus removing original sin is essential -this was Jesus' role. Thus, a Christian must also believe in original sin a la Adam and Eve, or the story makes no sense). Isn't that wacky enough for you? How about the Catholic belief that this magical mans flesh literally replaces a cracker when a priest performs a ritual in a temple(church). Given the fact that there are ~61,000,000 catholics in the US, and let's say half attend weekly services, then if the average weight of a cracker is 1 gram, in the USA alone the catholics eat more than 30,000kg of Jesus(66,000lbs) on a weekly basis! That's 1.5 million kgs (3.3mil lbs) of Jesus eaten per year! Wacky enough? If Scientology is wackier, it's not by much. Christianity has the upperhand in terms of cultural acceptance and strength in numbers -but both are nuts.
You make a good argument -it is indeed not a threat in the sense of "I intend to inflict suffering on you". But, there is a good point to be made that if someone in a position of authority (parent, community leader, whatever) actively tries to terrify people into mental submission with tales of eternal hellfire, that this person is guilty of mental abuse. Indeed, the effects of believing in hell can be comparable to mental trauma.
Don't like the software -it sucks that you have to finish a motion before the robot even begins that motion. It probably took a thousand takes before they managed to hit a tennis ball with the thing.
Ocean planet == planet entirely/mostly composed of water. The Earth is.02% water, so not quite a water planet. These planets oceans would have an "average depth [...] on the order of 100 kilometers".
The theorized micro-black-holes would have masses of about 1000 protons, the amount of energy available in the collision.
That's a neat trick -but it makes sense. Thanks.
I remember hearing about plans to use the LHC to produce and study miniature black holes. These are supposed to evaporate nearly instantanously due to Hawking radiation, but such radiation is only a theory without any experimental verification, and apparantly quite a few scientists are concerned it will just go ahead and gobble up the earth.
At least it will be quick:)
First of all the black holes being created by the LHC are not intentionally being created -they are a predicted (by some) consequence of smashing together protons at such high velocities (read 99.99999% the speed of light). The real purpose of the LHC is to attempt to create conditions where we can observe the predicted but as yet unobserved Higgs-Boson particle.
Second of all, a miniature black hole, even if it didn't dissipate due to Hawking radiation, wouldn't gobble up the Earth. It would still have the gravity of a mere two protons, since that is what constitutes its mass. Furthermore, it would be only a tiny, tiny, fraction of the size of a proton -remember, in order to be a black hole, you must exceed a certain mass:size ratio, thus, for two protons to become a black hole you must have a very small size indeed. This black hole would be so tiny it would miss practically everything (remember that the subatomic world is mostly empty space.) At that size, I doubt it would be able to "gobble up" any detectable chunk of the Earth before our sun dies out. But, I haven't done the math so who knows.
We will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
You wish! I'm sorry I can't agree to disagree on this matter -it is far too important. Forgive me for wanting to continue this discussion in a rational manner. I hope that you were able to review the material in the links I provided, as I have reviewed yours. If you haven't, you should -you will find them very entertaining if not enlightening, although hopefully you will find both.
http://www.healingsandmiracles.org/ Yeah, she must be lying - it doesn't fit into your belief system, so that's the obvious answer. I can understand why you think the way you do. The church is supposed to walk in the power and miracles that Jesus himself displayed, you take that away and people wonder why the hell you believe in this God, and what is the point? I don't know why Jesus doesn't heal everyone. But I'm thankful for the incurable (to current science) diseases and illnesses that he does.
I reviewed that website, and it really doesn't seem like anything beyond the scope of science has happened here. lots of people have woken up after being pronounced dead before -that is the very origin of the "wake" at funerals -to wake people up. As for her leg "growing back", I looked very carefully at the photos, and couldn't see any evidence of anything miraculous happening. It is possible that there was some growth occuring on the amputated limb that was too small for me to see. If this is the case, it hardly suggests divine intervention. Do you really believe that an all-powerful god would take months to cause a bump of flesh to grow on a nub?
Another interesting point is why these supposed "miracles" are evidence that the myth of Jesus is true. Had this lady been a muslim, it would be evidence of the power of Allah. If she were a scientologist, perhaps this would be evidence for Xenu. Doesn't this give you pause?
I think it has a lot to do with your interpretation of 'better world'. Mabye it involves standard of living? It would appear at first glance that we live in a healthy, wealthy society, where owning your own home and (especially in Australia) car and home entertainment system is the achievable goal. But strangely, in general, people are less connected, more isolated by our technology, and scientific advances. Everyone has a mental illness these days, depression is a now a mere 'common cold', possibly because of an increase in correct diagnosis, but i don't believe so. It's a result of our 'better world' - our self centred better world.
What evidence are you sing to suggest that we live in a more "self-centered" world? Is this just your intuition? I suppose I don't need to point out that your intuition on matters of whether the world is a better place is not a reliable source of information -it takes sociologists and historians to answer the question of whether we are better off.
If you are a religious person who gauges the goodness of the world, or whether we are better off, by how religious our society is, then of course we are worse off, but this is a meaningless tautology. Be careful that your intuition on the goodness of our world is not informed by your understanding of our worlds religiosity.
"You have a blood clot in your brain - you've got 3 months to live" - Wow, lots of hope there. In fact after our church prayed for Mike a month after the doctors said that, they could find no blood clot. I could tell you at least 5 other stories from people i am directly connected with - millions over the globe. "where's the proof" i hear you say. Talk to them - oh, you don't know any of them? Well go to a church and ask around. http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
non thinking? I think and use my mind just as much as any/. er. I have a different ethical code, a different way of thinking - but I am no mindless drone. You are very quick to box all Christians in your box. Well sorry to say that we don't fit. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5752208690 443739173&q=dawkins
The heart of CHristianity is loving people, spreading the good news, living at peace with everyone - without compromising the gospel. If you truly interpret the Bible correctly, in context - you cannot go about killing for the IRA. That has nothing to do with Christ - merely done in his name. Defaming the very answer to the world's problems today.
According to you. Your interpretation is just as valid as the extremists, because they were arrived at by precisely the same process (faith, scripture), citing precisely the same "evidence". As I have noted earlier, fundamentalists are the only religious group which is more correct than any other, because all other groups are hypocritical insofar as they claim their holy text is of divine origin, and yet they pick and choose which passages they think are correct. Fundamentalists (try their best to) swallow it all.
I ask you: How better is society today because of the decline of religion and the rise of 'scientific thinking'? Sure there are a few more cures for diseases, but there are new viruses too that we have to develop more cure's for. How has society benefitted? Has the suicide rate decreased? Has crime subsided? Is the world a better place? Hardly.
Wow. I can't really help you, except to say that ask any historian worth half their weight in dirt and they'll tell you that the world is indeed a better place to live in today. If anything, there is a direct correlation between a nations religiosity and their suffering, or their atheism and their positive quality of life. http://www.samharris.org/appearances/ideacity-0624 2005.mov quicktime http://www.samharris.org/appearances/ideacity-0624 2005.wmv wmv
If you are really a rational person, and your views are based in critical thinking, then you will not be afraid to explore fully the links I have provided. Heck, if you are capable of defending yourself on logical grounds against all the force levelled against you by those three links, then I salute you. You will be better able to debate this issue from now on.
Can anyone explain non-invasive EEG versus (I guess) invasive EEG?
They don't mean "non-invasive EEG", they mean "non-invasive", which means no surgery is requried. This happens to be an EEG helmet. The alternative, "invasive", involves of course the surgical implantation of some interfacing device.
Briefly, non-invasive currently sucks. It's nice in that it can work by just wearing a helmet, but you can only (currently) reliably get one bit of information out of it (I vaguely remember hearing about someone getting two, not sure). non-invasive systems are also bulky and require a lot of preparation to use. Also, they require training to use the system and some people are incapable of using it.
Invasive kind of sucks because you have to have your head opened up, but the results are quite impressive. They have trained a rat to mentally control a water dispensing robot, and they have gotten a monkey to control a robotic arm, for example. Read "the Body Electric" by James Geary. Obviously it's harder to get testing on humans for invasive technologies off the ground.
You're reading into this technology much more than you should be -there's nothing there to even suggest that we can interface meaningfully with these new chips at all, let alone consciously using them as storage devices.
If you're looking for something that will maintain information about yourself after your death, it's called a book and it's been around for awhile. Write a diary or a biography if you feel so inclined.
Actually if you do the math based on the numbers in the article, the discrepancy between going green and staying grey work outs to be only around 2500/year. So the government only needs to provide homeowners with a 2500 incentive per year to go green. Simple solution -1300 penalty to greys and 1300 incentive to greens. Now it's 100/year cheaper to be green.
The benefits if everyone were to switch to such a solution (helping to save the planet) probably outweighs the cost. However, from the point of view of the individual homeowner, it certainly doesn't seem worth it -let someone else use solar. This is an instance of the tragedy of the commons. We could wait for prices to drop, but I think it's safe to say that it is within the responsibilities of our government to subsidize the cost and thus provide incentive for people to make the switch. Based on current scientific understanding of global warming, subsidizing sustainable energy seems a much healthier option than sitting on our hands and waiting for prices on solar energy installations to drop -we don't have that much time.
you don't know exactly how far apart the microphones are and therefore don't know what the standard delay time is.
Oh come on. You seem like a smart guy. This is not a difficult problem. Let's see, you could use GPS as another poster mentioned. You could use laser range finders. You could sync the clocks on the individual relay devices and measure transmission delay time. You could have a system where one mic can ping another mic to figure out its relative distance. you could put two webcams on the soldiers and use stereopsis to figure out the distance to other soldiers. You could use a single webcam and just guess distance to other soldiers based on assumed size of soldier.
Some of those solutions are better than others, but they all cost over 140k less per group of soldiers. Also, they are less cumbersome than that robot (which reminds me of a projecter device). Admittedly, illuminating the sniper is a nice feature, as is the automation. Nevertheless, it's still hard to see where the 150k figure comes from.
I don't think the technology in this thing justifies the price tag. It sounds like the brunt of the work is done by four microphones and an algorithm to compare the data from the mics. Why not just have different soldiers carry mics on their persons and relay the data to a laptop? you can spend the 149900 dollars you saved on other things. If the mics are seperated (ie carried by different soldiers, or maybe just thrown) you will probably get more usable data too. I must be missing something.
Also, I don't know why the designer suggested it be used to enter dangerous areas. Maybe he wants to sell more of them, I guess, but it seems to me you don't want to send a 150k piece of equipment into dangerous territory. Here's a better idea -have a webcam attached to a wireless transmitter and huck it into the building. Yay -you now have eyes on the inside of the building for less than 50 bucks.
if you were close enough to hit an airplane with a shoulder fired rocket, couldn't you instead use explosives to damage the runway enough to cause a crash? The aftermath of a failed landing or even a failed takeoff is probably enough to serve the terrorists purpose. Anyone remember the failed takeoff of the Air France plane at Pearson international? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 Not to mention the fact that I can't find a single instance of a commercial aircraft being hit by a shoulder fired rocket.
This is a stupid waste of money. Of course, it will earn some weapons manufacturers some cash, and it will make some people feel safer -at least until they realize that the next commercial hijackers now control a high-powered laser, but hey, who am I to mock attempts at the "war on terror"? Who'd have thought that waging a war against an abstract noun could have been so tricky?
I believe that there is hope for everyone. Science and medicine has no hope for a lot of people with incurable diseases, mental illnesses. They have no hope. Contradiction aside ("there is hope for everyone" and "they have no hope"), science and medicine do hold the possibility for cures to diseases and mental illnesses which today are incurable. But, shouldn't you, as a Christian, feel that your all powerful god could cure these people? It seems I have more faith than you, only my faith is in science and yours is in religion. Admittedly, it is easier to have faith in facts than fairy tales.
Just like muslims plead with us that their religion is not a violent religion (and I agree) I ask you that you not judge Christianity by one person's view. Muslim is as muslim does. The 911 hijackers were muslim, and their deeds were done in the name of islam. Those attacks were part and parcel of what it means to be a muslim -their interpretation of the scriptures was a valid one of many. There are of course peaceful muslims -they are practicing an alternative interpretation. Some interpretations have better effects on the world than others, but they are all equally valid. All these interpretations are based on faith, which is, by definition, believing without a good reason to do so, so they all stand on equal ground. I would also add that it is a majority of muslims who sympathize with the hijackers. Where are the muslims denouncing the actions of 911? oh wait, they were cheering in the streets.
So before you condemn me, my Jesus, and my faith - take a look around you at the millions of Christians who are not nuts - and who are having an incredible positive impact on our society and planet. It's always the extremists who get the press First and foremost, being a Christian in and of itself should immediately qualify someone as being "nuts", if we take "nuts" to mean dellusional. Christians believe in fairy tales, myths, and magic -if it weren't for the fact that so many others are suffering the same dellusions, we would immediately identify them as "nuts" (just as readily as we identify scientologists as nuts). there are several problems with religion, one being that there is no way to tell the "correct" interpretation, since the process of "having faith" is synonymous with "not thinking". All interpretations are equally valid, so the terrorist christian (look at ireland) and the humanitarian christian stand on equal footing. If anything, it is the fundamentalists who are the most correct, because they don't pick and choose their passages -they swallow their bible whole and act on it appropriately.
As a Christian, you support the process of non-thinking that allowed the hijackers to kill thousands of people and believe they were going to be rewarded for it. You similarly support other christians who are actively harming the world. Some examples today include opposition to stem cell research, opposition to STD vaccination, abstinence only sex-ed programs (especially problematic in africa), opposition to a womans right to choose, and screwy relations with the middle east. where you stand on each of these issues is somewhat irrelevant -you support the process whereby a person can hold a position for or against something that has genuine consequences for human quality of life simply as a matter of faith. this is problematic -moral concerns should be subject to rational discourse, not butting heads as a matter of faith based assertion. Your conviction that A is wrong because it says so in a holy book is not an argument, but it is accepted as such in todays discourse, and has drastic consequences for humankind.
the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz (among other prominent republicans) places among its goals, the proposal to "control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- U.S. Space Forces -- with the mission of space control." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A merican_Century
So what makes you a christian? You don't believe what christians are supposed to believe (creation story for example), so maybe you should stop flying under their banner. Do you believe there was a magic man named jesus, who was nailed to a cross thus removing "sin" from humankind (and that "original sin" was started by eating an apple, and this sin was passed down through the male line)? If you don't believe this nonsense, then why call yourself a christian? Is it because you believe in so called "christian values"? Well guess what, all those values are available to non-christians as well -nothing about doing good to others, and not lying, cheating, or stealing, is inherently christian. I think you should stop supporting this backwards religious thinking. You are supporting their nonsense by flying under their banner by calling yourself a christian. If you don't believe this christian nonsense, then you are not a christian -you are a christianity-flag waving hypocrit. You are a christian by name only, probably because you were raised by christians. By continuing to call yourself a christian, you support their backwards thinking that admittedly you disagree with. You can't have your cake and eat it too -either the christians are right, or they are wrong- so pick a side. You are committing intellectual dishonesty of the most egregious kind.
See after denying global warming exists (because heathen liberals lie about everything) they will finally acquiesce and proudly proclaim that it won't matter anyway. Jesus is coming, repent! The End Is Nigh, save yourselves! Look at the melting icecaps we used to think were a figment of your imaginations, now they are melting and it's because endtimes prophecy is being fulfilled.
Why was this comment modded flamebait? I thought it was an insightful and important post. Half the American population (45%) believes jesus is coming within their lifetimes. Furthermore, they believe A)this will be the best thing that could happen to them, and B) many of them believe, because it says so in the bible, that the end will eb accompanied by a warming of the earth. Given this, why should we expect them to care a whit about global warming? global warming is gods will, and furthermore it is a signal of the final (glorious) chapter in a prophecy laid down by god.
I think it is easy for slashdot users to look at a post such as the one quoted above and declare "thats flamebait -it was only intended to annoy people", because most of them are incapable of understanding where the christian nuts in the US are coming from -their views are so ridiculous that it is hard to fathom that they actualy believe what they say they do -but they do! And furthermore, so does George Bush, who sees himself as a warrior for God, appointed by divine prophecy.
Wake up and smell the coffee slashdot users. Christian beliefs are a big problem. How can you expect someone to do anything about the end of the world when, not only do they not care, they think it would be a good thing, and a fulfillment of their prophecy. This is a self-fullfilling prophecy of the worst kind imaginable.
Slashdot Mirror
How do people as dumb as you manage to survive? This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely interested in knowing by what miracle (curse?) you are still alive.
The word under dispute is 'hur', which appears in several places in the Koran. The following was pointed out here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri:
- "The word 'virgin' in Arabic does not translate perfectly into English. A closer translation is 'pure being'. As with the word 'virgin', the use of the word 'hur' is not always sexual."
- "The hur may have a connotation of gender like the word "angel" in English but in general sense the hur can be male or female as does the word "angel" in English. The Arabic word "Hur", which occurs four times in the Qur'an, is plural of "Ahwar" for the masculine gender and "Huwra" (or houri) for the feminine. Thus, the huriyah may be male or female, either of which describes a person distinguished by "hawar", meaning "purity".[2][3]"
The following definition was taken from the site that you provided:- In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly.
The first thing we should take note of is that the koran was written in Arabic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an ). The virgin interpretation is an arabic definition. But the raisin definition, according to the very source you provided, is Syriac. This should be your first clue. This idea probably started as either a mistake or a joke, and spread because people like repeating it.Next, let's assume for a moment that the raisin interpretation is correct, even though it is silly on the face of it, and that interpretation actually arises by translating using the wrong corpus. What do we do about all the other appearances of the word 'hur'? To remain consistent, let's replace all instances of the word 'hur' with the raisin interpretation. The following results:
- "And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high: for, behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as raisins"
- "We have created [their Companions] of special creation, and made them raisin-pure"
- "If he divorces you, his Lord will substitute other wives in your place who are better than you; submitters (Muslims), believers (Mu'mins), obedient, repentant, worshipers, pious, either previously married, or raisins."
Okay then. I think it's safe to say that I have laid this myth to rest.I am not so much interested in the origin of their beliefs (it's myth either way) as I am in the fact that people actually believe them.
I am familiar with the "young woman" mistake. It's also the case that the "forbidden fruit" was never actually identified as an apple. Are you sure about the "white raisins" mistake though? I have heard this before, but highly doubt that raisins would have been offered as a reward for martyrdom (even if they were white).
Scientologists really are as wacky as they claim.
Are they any more wacky than Christians, or are we just attenuated to Christian absurdities? Let's consider some fundamental Christian beliefs: A magical man born of a virgin died on a cross, thus expunging "sin" from mankind -sin that was started by eating forbidden fruit in a magical garden with a talking snake (the notion of Jesus removing original sin is essential -this was Jesus' role. Thus, a Christian must also believe in original sin a la Adam and Eve, or the story makes no sense). Isn't that wacky enough for you? How about the Catholic belief that this magical mans flesh literally replaces a cracker when a priest performs a ritual in a temple(church). Given the fact that there are ~61,000,000 catholics in the US, and let's say half attend weekly services, then if the average weight of a cracker is 1 gram, in the USA alone the catholics eat more than 30,000kg of Jesus(66,000lbs) on a weekly basis! That's 1.5 million kgs (3.3mil lbs) of Jesus eaten per year! Wacky enough? If Scientology is wackier, it's not by much. Christianity has the upperhand in terms of cultural acceptance and strength in numbers -but both are nuts.
You make a good argument -it is indeed not a threat in the sense of "I intend to inflict suffering on you". But, there is a good point to be made that if someone in a position of authority (parent, community leader, whatever) actively tries to terrify people into mental submission with tales of eternal hellfire, that this person is guilty of mental abuse. Indeed, the effects of believing in hell can be comparable to mental trauma.
Don't like the software -it sucks that you have to finish a motion before the robot even begins that motion. It probably took a thousand takes before they managed to hit a tennis ball with the thing.
Only objects weighing at least three times as much as our Sun can turn into black holes.
I know you were just making a joke (btw good one) but objects of any size can become black holes, including individual protons.
Ummm...what about EARTH?
.02% water, so not quite a water planet. These planets oceans would have an "average depth [...] on the order of 100 kilometers".
RTFA.
Ocean planet == planet entirely/mostly composed of water. The Earth is
The theorized micro-black-holes would have masses of about 1000 protons, the amount of energy available in the collision. That's a neat trick -but it makes sense. Thanks.
I remember hearing about plans to use the LHC to produce and study miniature black holes. These are supposed to evaporate nearly instantanously due to Hawking radiation, but such radiation is only a theory without any experimental verification, and apparantly quite a few scientists are concerned it will just go ahead and gobble up the earth. At least it will be quick :)
First of all the black holes being created by the LHC are not intentionally being created -they are a predicted (by some) consequence of smashing together protons at such high velocities (read 99.99999% the speed of light). The real purpose of the LHC is to attempt to create conditions where we can observe the predicted but as yet unobserved Higgs-Boson particle.
Second of all, a miniature black hole, even if it didn't dissipate due to Hawking radiation, wouldn't gobble up the Earth. It would still have the gravity of a mere two protons, since that is what constitutes its mass. Furthermore, it would be only a tiny, tiny, fraction of the size of a proton -remember, in order to be a black hole, you must exceed a certain mass:size ratio, thus, for two protons to become a black hole you must have a very small size indeed. This black hole would be so tiny it would miss practically everything (remember that the subatomic world is mostly empty space.) At that size, I doubt it would be able to "gobble up" any detectable chunk of the Earth before our sun dies out. But, I haven't done the math so who knows.
We will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
You wish! I'm sorry I can't agree to disagree on this matter -it is far too important. Forgive me for wanting to continue this discussion in a rational manner. I hope that you were able to review the material in the links I provided, as I have reviewed yours. If you haven't, you should -you will find them very entertaining if not enlightening, although hopefully you will find both.
http://www.healingsandmiracles.org/ Yeah, she must be lying - it doesn't fit into your belief system, so that's the obvious answer. I can understand why you think the way you do. The church is supposed to walk in the power and miracles that Jesus himself displayed, you take that away and people wonder why the hell you believe in this God, and what is the point? I don't know why Jesus doesn't heal everyone. But I'm thankful for the incurable (to current science) diseases and illnesses that he does.
I reviewed that website, and it really doesn't seem like anything beyond the scope of science has happened here. lots of people have woken up after being pronounced dead before -that is the very origin of the "wake" at funerals -to wake people up. As for her leg "growing back", I looked very carefully at the photos, and couldn't see any evidence of anything miraculous happening. It is possible that there was some growth occuring on the amputated limb that was too small for me to see. If this is the case, it hardly suggests divine intervention. Do you really believe that an all-powerful god would take months to cause a bump of flesh to grow on a nub?
Another interesting point is why these supposed "miracles" are evidence that the myth of Jesus is true. Had this lady been a muslim, it would be evidence of the power of Allah. If she were a scientologist, perhaps this would be evidence for Xenu. Doesn't this give you pause?
I think it has a lot to do with your interpretation of 'better world'. Mabye it involves standard of living? It would appear at first glance that we live in a healthy, wealthy society, where owning your own home and (especially in Australia) car and home entertainment system is the achievable goal. But strangely, in general, people are less connected, more isolated by our technology, and scientific advances. Everyone has a mental illness these days, depression is a now a mere 'common cold', possibly because of an increase in correct diagnosis, but i don't believe so. It's a result of our 'better world' - our self centred better world.
What evidence are you sing to suggest that we live in a more "self-centered" world? Is this just your intuition? I suppose I don't need to point out that your intuition on matters of whether the world is a better place is not a reliable source of information -it takes sociologists and historians to answer the question of whether we are better off.
If you are a religious person who gauges the goodness of the world, or whether we are better off, by how religious our society is, then of course we are worse off, but this is a meaningless tautology. Be careful that your intuition on the goodness of our world is not informed by your understanding of our worlds religiosity.
"You have a blood clot in your brain - you've got 3 months to live" - Wow, lots of hope there. In fact after our church prayed for Mike a month after the doctors said that, they could find no blood clot. I could tell you at least 5 other stories from people i am directly connected with - millions over the globe. "where's the proof" i hear you say. Talk to them - oh, you don't know any of them? Well go to a church and ask around.
/. er. I have a different ethical code, a different way of thinking - but I am no mindless drone. You are very quick to box all Christians in your box. Well sorry to say that we don't fit. 0 443739173&q=dawkins
4 2005.mov quicktime4 2005.wmv wmv
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
non thinking? I think and use my mind just as much as any
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-575220869
The heart of CHristianity is loving people, spreading the good news, living at peace with everyone - without compromising the gospel. If you truly interpret the Bible correctly, in context - you cannot go about killing for the IRA. That has nothing to do with Christ - merely done in his name. Defaming the very answer to the world's problems today.
According to you. Your interpretation is just as valid as the extremists, because they were arrived at by precisely the same process (faith, scripture), citing precisely the same "evidence". As I have noted earlier, fundamentalists are the only religious group which is more correct than any other, because all other groups are hypocritical insofar as they claim their holy text is of divine origin, and yet they pick and choose which passages they think are correct. Fundamentalists (try their best to) swallow it all.
I ask you: How better is society today because of the decline of religion and the rise of 'scientific thinking'? Sure there are a few more cures for diseases, but there are new viruses too that we have to develop more cure's for. How has society benefitted? Has the suicide rate decreased? Has crime subsided? Is the world a better place? Hardly.
Wow. I can't really help you, except to say that ask any historian worth half their weight in dirt and they'll tell you that the world is indeed a better place to live in today. If anything, there is a direct correlation between a nations religiosity and their suffering, or their atheism and their positive quality of life.
http://www.samharris.org/appearances/ideacity-062
http://www.samharris.org/appearances/ideacity-062
If you are really a rational person, and your views are based in critical thinking, then you will not be afraid to explore fully the links I have provided. Heck, if you are capable of defending yourself on logical grounds against all the force levelled against you by those three links, then I salute you. You will be better able to debate this issue from now on.
Can anyone explain non-invasive EEG versus (I guess) invasive EEG?
They don't mean "non-invasive EEG", they mean "non-invasive", which means no surgery is requried. This happens to be an EEG helmet. The alternative, "invasive", involves of course the surgical implantation of some interfacing device.
Briefly, non-invasive currently sucks. It's nice in that it can work by just wearing a helmet, but you can only (currently) reliably get one bit of information out of it (I vaguely remember hearing about someone getting two, not sure). non-invasive systems are also bulky and require a lot of preparation to use. Also, they require training to use the system and some people are incapable of using it.
Invasive kind of sucks because you have to have your head opened up, but the results are quite impressive. They have trained a rat to mentally control a water dispensing robot, and they have gotten a monkey to control a robotic arm, for example. Read "the Body Electric" by James Geary. Obviously it's harder to get testing on humans for invasive technologies off the ground.
You're reading into this technology much more than you should be -there's nothing there to even suggest that we can interface meaningfully with these new chips at all, let alone consciously using them as storage devices.
If you're looking for something that will maintain information about yourself after your death, it's called a book and it's been around for awhile. Write a diary or a biography if you feel so inclined.
Actually if you do the math based on the numbers in the article, the discrepancy between going green and staying grey work outs to be only around 2500/year. So the government only needs to provide homeowners with a 2500 incentive per year to go green. Simple solution -1300 penalty to greys and 1300 incentive to greens. Now it's 100/year cheaper to be green.
The benefits if everyone were to switch to such a solution (helping to save the planet) probably outweighs the cost. However, from the point of view of the individual homeowner, it certainly doesn't seem worth it -let someone else use solar. This is an instance of the tragedy of the commons. We could wait for prices to drop, but I think it's safe to say that it is within the responsibilities of our government to subsidize the cost and thus provide incentive for people to make the switch. Based on current scientific understanding of global warming, subsidizing sustainable energy seems a much healthier option than sitting on our hands and waiting for prices on solar energy installations to drop -we don't have that much time.
you don't know exactly how far apart the microphones are and therefore don't know what the standard delay time is.
Oh come on. You seem like a smart guy. This is not a difficult problem. Let's see, you could use GPS as another poster mentioned. You could use laser range finders. You could sync the clocks on the individual relay devices and measure transmission delay time. You could have a system where one mic can ping another mic to figure out its relative distance. you could put two webcams on the soldiers and use stereopsis to figure out the distance to other soldiers. You could use a single webcam and just guess distance to other soldiers based on assumed size of soldier.
Some of those solutions are better than others, but they all cost over 140k less per group of soldiers. Also, they are less cumbersome than that robot (which reminds me of a projecter device). Admittedly, illuminating the sniper is a nice feature, as is the automation. Nevertheless, it's still hard to see where the 150k figure comes from.
I don't think the technology in this thing justifies the price tag. It sounds like the brunt of the work is done by four microphones and an algorithm to compare the data from the mics. Why not just have different soldiers carry mics on their persons and relay the data to a laptop? you can spend the 149900 dollars you saved on other things. If the mics are seperated (ie carried by different soldiers, or maybe just thrown) you will probably get more usable data too. I must be missing something.
Also, I don't know why the designer suggested it be used to enter dangerous areas. Maybe he wants to sell more of them, I guess, but it seems to me you don't want to send a 150k piece of equipment into dangerous territory. Here's a better idea -have a webcam attached to a wireless transmitter and huck it into the building. Yay -you now have eyes on the inside of the building for less than 50 bucks.
You say that as if it weren't reason enough to go ahead with this.
You sound sarcastic but there are economists and traders cheering somewhere.
if you were close enough to hit an airplane with a shoulder fired rocket, couldn't you instead use explosives to damage the runway enough to cause a crash? The aftermath of a failed landing or even a failed takeoff is probably enough to serve the terrorists purpose. Anyone remember the failed takeoff of the Air France plane at Pearson international? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358
Not to mention the fact that I can't find a single instance of a commercial aircraft being hit by a shoulder fired rocket.
This is a stupid waste of money. Of course, it will earn some weapons manufacturers some cash, and it will make some people feel safer -at least until they realize that the next commercial hijackers now control a high-powered laser, but hey, who am I to mock attempts at the "war on terror"? Who'd have thought that waging a war against an abstract noun could have been so tricky?
I believe that there is hope for everyone. Science and medicine has no hope for a lot of people with incurable diseases, mental illnesses. They have no hope.
Contradiction aside ("there is hope for everyone" and "they have no hope"), science and medicine do hold the possibility for cures to diseases and mental illnesses which today are incurable. But, shouldn't you, as a Christian, feel that your all powerful god could cure these people? It seems I have more faith than you, only my faith is in science and yours is in religion. Admittedly, it is easier to have faith in facts than fairy tales.
Just like muslims plead with us that their religion is not a violent religion (and I agree) I ask you that you not judge Christianity by one person's view.
Muslim is as muslim does. The 911 hijackers were muslim, and their deeds were done in the name of islam. Those attacks were part and parcel of what it means to be a muslim -their interpretation of the scriptures was a valid one of many. There are of course peaceful muslims -they are practicing an alternative interpretation. Some interpretations have better effects on the world than others, but they are all equally valid. All these interpretations are based on faith, which is, by definition, believing without a good reason to do so, so they all stand on equal ground. I would also add that it is a majority of muslims who sympathize with the hijackers. Where are the muslims denouncing the actions of 911? oh wait, they were cheering in the streets.
So before you condemn me, my Jesus, and my faith - take a look around you at the millions of Christians who are not nuts - and who are having an incredible positive impact on our society and planet. It's always the extremists who get the press
First and foremost, being a Christian in and of itself should immediately qualify someone as being "nuts", if we take "nuts" to mean dellusional. Christians believe in fairy tales, myths, and magic -if it weren't for the fact that so many others are suffering the same dellusions, we would immediately identify them as "nuts" (just as readily as we identify scientologists as nuts). there are several problems with religion, one being that there is no way to tell the "correct" interpretation, since the process of "having faith" is synonymous with "not thinking". All interpretations are equally valid, so the terrorist christian (look at ireland) and the humanitarian christian stand on equal footing. If anything, it is the fundamentalists who are the most correct, because they don't pick and choose their passages -they swallow their bible whole and act on it appropriately.
As a Christian, you support the process of non-thinking that allowed the hijackers to kill thousands of people and believe they were going to be rewarded for it. You similarly support other christians who are actively harming the world. Some examples today include opposition to stem cell research, opposition to STD vaccination, abstinence only sex-ed programs (especially problematic in africa), opposition to a womans right to choose, and screwy relations with the middle east. where you stand on each of these issues is somewhat irrelevant -you support the process whereby a person can hold a position for or against something that has genuine consequences for human quality of life simply as a matter of faith. this is problematic -moral concerns should be subject to rational discourse, not butting heads as a matter of faith based assertion. Your conviction that A is wrong because it says so in a holy book is not an argument, but it is accepted as such in todays discourse, and has drastic consequences for humankind.
Just what the world needs...
...another cold war.
A merican_Century
; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconic; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samos_(satellite); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar_(satellite); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_(satellite).
c e).
you can thank the USA for that.
the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz (among other prominent republicans) places among its goals, the proposal to "control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- U.S. Space Forces -- with the mission of space control." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_
Of course, we're talking about military control and that means in large part getting the upper hand in terms of information (WWII was won because of information). Hence the US fascination with spy satellites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrosse_(satellite)
and let's not forget the National Missile Defense program, which will cost 53b US from the years 2005 to 2009 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaponization_of_spa
So what makes you a christian? You don't believe what christians are supposed to believe (creation story for example), so maybe you should stop flying under their banner. Do you believe there was a magic man named jesus, who was nailed to a cross thus removing "sin" from humankind (and that "original sin" was started by eating an apple, and this sin was passed down through the male line)? If you don't believe this nonsense, then why call yourself a christian? Is it because you believe in so called "christian values"? Well guess what, all those values are available to non-christians as well -nothing about doing good to others, and not lying, cheating, or stealing, is inherently christian. I think you should stop supporting this backwards religious thinking. You are supporting their nonsense by flying under their banner by calling yourself a christian. If you don't believe this christian nonsense, then you are not a christian -you are a christianity-flag waving hypocrit. You are a christian by name only, probably because you were raised by christians. By continuing to call yourself a christian, you support their backwards thinking that admittedly you disagree with. You can't have your cake and eat it too -either the christians are right, or they are wrong- so pick a side. You are committing intellectual dishonesty of the most egregious kind.
See after denying global warming exists (because heathen liberals lie about everything) they will finally acquiesce and proudly proclaim that it won't matter anyway. Jesus is coming, repent! The End Is Nigh, save yourselves! Look at the melting icecaps we used to think were a figment of your imaginations, now they are melting and it's because endtimes prophecy is being fulfilled.
Why was this comment modded flamebait? I thought it was an insightful and important post. Half the American population (45%) believes jesus is coming within their lifetimes. Furthermore, they believe A)this will be the best thing that could happen to them, and B) many of them believe, because it says so in the bible, that the end will eb accompanied by a warming of the earth. Given this, why should we expect them to care a whit about global warming? global warming is gods will, and furthermore it is a signal of the final (glorious) chapter in a prophecy laid down by god.
I think it is easy for slashdot users to look at a post such as the one quoted above and declare "thats flamebait -it was only intended to annoy people", because most of them are incapable of understanding where the christian nuts in the US are coming from -their views are so ridiculous that it is hard to fathom that they actualy believe what they say they do -but they do! And furthermore, so does George Bush, who sees himself as a warrior for God, appointed by divine prophecy.
Wake up and smell the coffee slashdot users. Christian beliefs are a big problem. How can you expect someone to do anything about the end of the world when, not only do they not care, they think it would be a good thing, and a fulfillment of their prophecy. This is a self-fullfilling prophecy of the worst kind imaginable.
I didn't get that impression at all. It is not so obvious that it was tongue-in-cheek (if that is even that case). Why, then, should it be worrisome?