I'll leave others to pick apart the rest of your post and just say this: please try applying the same level of skepticism to your Bible that you do to the theory of evolution. The latter has a mind-bogglingly thorough body of evidence in support of it, the former has no evidence of any kind, at all, ever in support of it and quite a lot of contradictory evidence to support dismissing it. If you were uniformly skeptical I think you'd turn out alright.
In the interest of open dialog that truly allows learning and discovery, I pray the opposite of you. I pray that a teacher will actually question the so called science of evolution, as something not observable or repeatable.
Can't tell if trolling.... or just very stupid....
In BSD licensing and states which permit slavery, you have the freedom to take freedom away from others. In GPL licensing and non-slavery states, the freedom to take freedom away from others is denied.
And if that's not close enough (or if goombah99 objects to being described as left; I don't know the person), I'll weigh in as a self-described lefty. I think the app was stupid, bigoted and should have had no attention paid. But the fact that an app even _can_ be banned for being offensive, the fact that that's even an allowed move in this game, bothers me a great deal more.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-nod- I agree. As is often the case when discussing cosmology, I think Carl Sagan said it best. We are star stuff, contemplating the stars. We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.
Special to you, special to me, but not special to physics. There's no evidence I've seen to suggest that a universe with complex, intelligent life is any more the physics equivalent of rolling a natural 20 than any randomly selected one of the amorphous goo outcomes would be.
To insist otherwise is to flatly assert that the universe cares about you, meant for you to be here and might miss you when you're gone. If you would like me to believe that, I'm just going to have to ask you to provide some evidence.
At hand is whether the 1 attempt at 1 rather-specific outcome suggests Design.
You're begging the question. (Hope Slashdot doesn't implode by using that phrase to mean what it actually means... I don't think it's ever been tested before.)
You're starting from the assumption that the potential universe in which you and I are having this exchange is distinct in some cosmic way from all the spacetime goo universes, and that it's either unique in that respect or at least a member of a very small subset of possible outcomes described by some characteristic that YOU consider important, say the emergence of complex and eventually intelligent life.
The point of the Anthropic Principal is that there isn't any evidence that the outcome we got IS special in any cosmic sense, but that it only seems that way because we're here, as one of the kinds of intelligent life that is compatible with this universe, making observations about it.
By starting the conversation as "We made ONE try and nailed the desired outcome (this universe) on the first go!", you're presupposing both the "specialness" of our universe, and some conscious intent to make exactly this universe happen, and that's exactly what you're being called on to support.
> That is the only question at hand in either argument. > The results speak none whatsoever to those odds.
Your argument falls because your entire conception is based in viewing the universe we have today as a goal and working backwards, noting (quite correctly) that it's fantastically unlikely things would have unfolded exactly as they did.
Suppose you flip a coin 30 times, and you get HHTTHTHHTTTHTHHTHTTHHTHTHTHHHT. You could then say to yourself "Self, what are the odds of throwing a coin 30 times and getting HHTTHTHHTTTHTHHTHTTHHTHTHTHHHT. Why, they're 1 in 1,073,741,824. That's fantastically unlikely, and yet it just happened. A miracle!"
And you'd be right about the odds, but obviously wrong about the miracle.
Will the simulation completely model the effects of the Living Earth computer itself on the Earth? That is to say, will it contain a complete Living Earth Simulator simulator ?
SMBW is just a different game with multiple players; there are more than enough mechanical perks to offset the getting-in-the-way. For instance, did you know if you lift up somebody with a propeller hat, you can use it to fly yourself?
If there's one thing I don't do, it's buy software that isn't written yet. Maybe under some limited conditions in custom software both otherwise, let me know when you're done and what you're charging for it and I'll consider it.
Then you've missed out on round about a year of the most fun gaming I can remember since I was playing Yar's Revenge on the Atari 2600 with my parents.
So its results are unquestionably incorrect and/or irrelevant?
Are you just posting this to be contrary?
Seriously, are you advocating that, when we see a study paid for by Microsoft which shows an _overwhelmingly_ lopsided result in Microsoft's favor in a product space where they would generally be expected by experts in the field to be the worst performer, we should take it at face value?
Slashdot Mirror
Corporatism stifles the free market
And what would libertarians do to prevent that, hmmmmmmmm?
For me, what my political leanings might be are about making the world better in the little way that I can as a person who can vote.
Then you are a liberal.
Beyond that? We don't have the tech. Not yet.
But if we don't get going, will we ever create the tech? Nothing spurs innovation like a target and a very public deadline.
I'll leave others to pick apart the rest of your post and just say this: please try applying the same level of skepticism to your Bible that you do to the theory of evolution. The latter has a mind-bogglingly thorough body of evidence in support of it, the former has no evidence of any kind, at all, ever in support of it and quite a lot of contradictory evidence to support dismissing it. If you were uniformly skeptical I think you'd turn out alright.
In the interest of open dialog that truly allows learning and discovery, I pray the opposite of you. I pray that a teacher will actually question the so called science of evolution, as something not observable or repeatable.
Can't tell if trolling....
or just very stupid....
Feh, that was a LONG time ago. There was one much more recently in the Kolaran system.
-nod- We could get back on track in no time by just building a library in every town in America.
Exactly the point.
In BSD licensing and states which permit slavery, you have the freedom to take freedom away from others.
In GPL licensing and non-slavery states, the freedom to take freedom away from others is denied.
Which is more free ?
And banning slavery restricts what sorts of property you're allowed to own, therefore a state that doesn't allow slave ownership is not free.
And if that's not close enough (or if goombah99 objects to being described as left; I don't know the person), I'll weigh in as a self-described lefty. I think the app was stupid, bigoted and should have had no attention paid. But the fact that an app even _can_ be banned for being offensive, the fact that that's even an allowed move in this game, bothers me a great deal more.
Two posts above yours, in the same thread...
Come on, Slashdot, seriously.
These are two characteristics America is not known for.
That's because both redundancy and planning are properties of Communism. Please make a note of it.
Right. If only we had some sort of giant fusion reactor constantly sending us more energy... but what would we CALL it ?
An up-to-date complete treatise of all the basic evidence that demonstrates the foundations of evolutionary theory.
You'll find tons of good stuff here:
http://talkorigins.org/
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/4.html
-nod- I agree. As is often the case when discussing cosmology, I think Carl Sagan said it best. We are star stuff, contemplating the stars. We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.
Special to you, special to me, but not special to physics. There's no evidence I've seen to suggest that a universe with complex, intelligent life is any more the physics equivalent of rolling a natural 20 than any randomly selected one of the amorphous goo outcomes would be.
To insist otherwise is to flatly assert that the universe cares about you, meant for you to be here and might miss you when you're gone. If you would like me to believe that, I'm just going to have to ask you to provide some evidence.
At hand is whether the 1 attempt at 1 rather-specific outcome suggests Design.
You're begging the question. (Hope Slashdot doesn't implode by using that phrase to mean what it actually means... I don't think it's ever been tested before.)
You're starting from the assumption that the potential universe in which you and I are having this exchange is distinct in some cosmic way from all the spacetime goo universes, and that it's either unique in that respect or at least a member of a very small subset of possible outcomes described by some characteristic that YOU consider important, say the emergence of complex and eventually intelligent life.
The point of the Anthropic Principal is that there isn't any evidence that the outcome we got IS special in any cosmic sense, but that it only seems that way because we're here, as one of the kinds of intelligent life that is compatible with this universe, making observations about it.
By starting the conversation as "We made ONE try and nailed the desired outcome (this universe) on the first go!", you're presupposing both the "specialness" of our universe, and some conscious intent to make exactly this universe happen, and that's exactly what you're being called on to support.
> That is the only question at hand in either argument.
> The results speak none whatsoever to those odds.
Your argument falls because your entire conception is based in viewing the universe we have today as a goal and working backwards, noting (quite correctly) that it's fantastically unlikely things would have unfolded exactly as they did.
Suppose you flip a coin 30 times, and you get HHTTHTHHTTTHTHHTHTTHHTHTHTHHHT. You could then say to yourself "Self, what are the odds of throwing a coin 30 times and getting HHTTHTHHTTTHTHHTHTTHHTHTHTHHHT. Why, they're 1 in 1,073,741,824. That's fantastically unlikely, and yet it just happened. A miracle!"
And you'd be right about the odds, but obviously wrong about the miracle.
For those wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication
Will the simulation completely model the effects of the Living Earth computer itself on the Earth? That is to say, will it contain a complete Living Earth Simulator simulator ?
Yeah? And how'd you spend your weekend, King Dingaling ?
So just go into your bubble, you'll be fine.
SMBW is just a different game with multiple players; there are more than enough mechanical perks to offset the getting-in-the-way. For instance, did you know if you lift up somebody with a propeller hat, you can use it to fly yourself?
If there's one thing I don't do, it's buy software that isn't written yet. Maybe under some limited conditions in custom software both otherwise, let me know when you're done and what you're charging for it and I'll consider it.
Then you've missed out on round about a year of the most fun gaming I can remember since I was playing Yar's Revenge on the Atari 2600 with my parents.
Your call bro.
So its results are unquestionably incorrect and/or irrelevant?
Are you just posting this to be contrary?
Seriously, are you advocating that, when we see a study paid for by Microsoft which shows an _overwhelmingly_ lopsided result in Microsoft's favor in a product space where they would generally be expected by experts in the field to be the worst performer, we should take it at face value?
If not, what _are_ you saying?