Seems to me like the software ought to ask you to perform a short sequence of gestures with your face - this would be nigh on impossible without having your present and coerced. Not that you'd want the criminal to have an incentive to coerce you, but it'd certainly be more secure.
It's not hard to envision ways of doing this relatively easily. For a cumbersome example, you could transmit a photograph and its thumbnail. The data would be encoded in deviations of the thumbnail from what you get if you actually resize the photo with some simple algorithm. You'd have to find a way to hide software to automatically read this kind of encryption, but the process is still pretty simple.
They're only a minute or two long though, and generally I'm more likely to want to watch some other BBC program than I am to buy $BRAND shampoo $MAKE air freshener or $COMPANY loans/insurance/mortgage/whatever.
It is only discovered in the sense of discovering oneself. Maths involves discovering the intuitive notions that you use in the world to do every day math, using those as axioms, and seeing where it ends up. Thus you can say maths is discovered, but it's still all in our heads.
What do you measure energy in? What do you measure mass in? c is a constant, therefore c^2 is a constant - so if you measured energy in calories and mass in ounces, then you might get c^2.5981734 or whatever, but we don't, because then we'd get weird dimensions.
Not sure whether you realise but, as of recently, you can control exactly who can see what of your profile. Risks should be minimised if you have a private profile and don't let anyone but your proper friends see your drunken photographs and so on.
They might be synonymous, but the terms they are used to construct need not be. Supernatural doesn't merely mean "above" the natural, it has certain specific connotations which go with it. To be specific, supernatural implies, at least to me, extranatural, if we're going by the precise convention. God is not only "above" nature he is also apart from it, as far as I can gather. However, a natural law is, naturally, (pun intended) natural, as well as being "above" nature.
Not only does your experience not match mine, but your final two sentences seem somewhat odd. Is it "just another faith" to refuse to believe in the usual "atheist pantheon" of fairies, Santa Claus, the Cosmic Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is it intellectually dishonest to say you don't believe they exist, and is it really correct, in general conversation, to say you "aren't sure" whether they exist?
The problem is that God is almost unique in its vagueness. It doesn't make much sense to call these other things "God" when "God" has rather specific cultural connotations, and we already have pretty good words for describing these other things.
Firstly, it would be interesting to know just how many of those scientists are biologists, paleontologists, or those involved in other fields directly related to evolution. Secondly, it would be interesting to know how many of them are called Steve. that should tell us just how much of a controversy there really is! Thirdly, the only reason I know of that someone rejects evolution outright is due to a prior religious conviction. That is emphatically not science and so it is questionable whether they can be called scientists, at least in this instance.
Good advice! The answer is clearly to break the law and (if you believe the party line) endanger people unnecessarily rather than just stop tailgating.
There's nothing you can do about this. It's all about human stupidity coupled with the limited stretch of road each person can see. Each driver needs to break more than the car in front because they can't see past that car.
Which is why there's such a thing as a safe separation distance, which everyone ought to know (in the UK there are the "keep two chevrons apart" stretches with a terminating "keep your distance" sign) but it seems noone keeps to - and if you do, someone will probably cut in front of you and plug the gap. Let's face it - it's nothing really to do with limitations, it's just stupidity!
This already is taught, at least in the UK. Well, it's in the Highway Code, and my instructor drilled it into me, although from the tips everyone started giving me after I got my full license, perhaps they didn't think this was the norm. Problem is not that people aren't taught it, as far as I can see (unless my instructor was exceptional, which, I suppose, is possible) but that people ignore what they're taught.
The problems with merging and so on would essentially evaporate if people dropped back a bit from the vehicle in front, planned ahead and took action a bit earlier - it doesn't matter if someone hasn't had a chance to accelerate up the slip-road and causes you to slow down if the guy behind you isn't sniffing up your exhaust; they can smoothly brake to match speed with you.
As an aside, your talk of potentially building 20 lane motorways scares me - 8 lanes in total is large for a British motorway.
However, throwing the book at anyone who physically injures another while driving could have the same effect.
"I don't need to obey the speed limit, I can control my car." I'd prefer the dangerous drivers pay the government for the roads I drive on (or would, if I owned a car) so that I don't have to pay as much road tax.
You do you realise you can make qualitative predictions, don't you? If I burn calcium, I can predict it will burn red, even if I don't know what wavelength it will be. More relevant, Tiktaalik was a qualitative prediction, as was the appearance of human chromosome 2 - two qualitative predictions very important in the field of evolution.
I take it you had already worked this out before anyone else thought of it then. Even then, an important part of science is going out and testing whether what you believe is correct or not.
Slashdot Mirror
"Open in new tab" would be my preferred method.
The study was performed in Bristol, UK, and includes reports of headaches and so on.
Seems to me like the software ought to ask you to perform a short sequence of gestures with your face - this would be nigh on impossible without having your present and coerced. Not that you'd want the criminal to have an incentive to coerce you, but it'd certainly be more secure.
This is interesting. Belief just means giving your assent to a proposition.
It's not hard to envision ways of doing this relatively easily. For a cumbersome example, you could transmit a photograph and its thumbnail. The data would be encoded in deviations of the thumbnail from what you get if you actually resize the photo with some simple algorithm. You'd have to find a way to hide software to automatically read this kind of encryption, but the process is still pretty simple.
Or maybe you'll be just as screwed, if not more so, because only the zealots went to the polling station.
No...
They're only a minute or two long though, and generally I'm more likely to want to watch some other BBC program than I am to buy $BRAND shampoo $MAKE air freshener or $COMPANY loans/insurance/mortgage/whatever.
The minor improvement was statistically insignificant though. You can't validly conclude any improvement from these data.
It is only discovered in the sense of discovering oneself. Maths involves discovering the intuitive notions that you use in the world to do every day math, using those as axioms, and seeing where it ends up. Thus you can say maths is discovered, but it's still all in our heads.
What do you measure energy in? What do you measure mass in? c is a constant, therefore c^2 is a constant - so if you measured energy in calories and mass in ounces, then you might get c^2.5981734 or whatever, but we don't, because then we'd get weird dimensions.
That ruling seems to imply that the ROM site would be in trouble, not necessarily the user.
Not sure whether you realise but, as of recently, you can control exactly who can see what of your profile. Risks should be minimised if you have a private profile and don't let anyone but your proper friends see your drunken photographs and so on.
You do realise that the quoted section in the summary was pointing out that the choice is increasingly rare?
They might be synonymous, but the terms they are used to construct need not be. Supernatural doesn't merely mean "above" the natural, it has certain specific connotations which go with it. To be specific, supernatural implies, at least to me, extranatural, if we're going by the precise convention. God is not only "above" nature he is also apart from it, as far as I can gather. However, a natural law is, naturally, (pun intended) natural, as well as being "above" nature.
A law of nature is still a natural law. Perhaps we might call it "meta-natural" but not supernatural.
Not only does your experience not match mine, but your final two sentences seem somewhat odd. Is it "just another faith" to refuse to believe in the usual "atheist pantheon" of fairies, Santa Claus, the Cosmic Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is it intellectually dishonest to say you don't believe they exist, and is it really correct, in general conversation, to say you "aren't sure" whether they exist?
The problem is that God is almost unique in its vagueness. It doesn't make much sense to call these other things "God" when "God" has rather specific cultural connotations, and we already have pretty good words for describing these other things.
Firstly, it would be interesting to know just how many of those scientists are biologists, paleontologists, or those involved in other fields directly related to evolution. Secondly, it would be interesting to know how many of them are called Steve. that should tell us just how much of a controversy there really is! Thirdly, the only reason I know of that someone rejects evolution outright is due to a prior religious conviction. That is emphatically not science and so it is questionable whether they can be called scientists, at least in this instance.
Good advice! The answer is clearly to break the law and (if you believe the party line) endanger people unnecessarily rather than just stop tailgating.
Which is why there's such a thing as a safe separation distance, which everyone ought to know (in the UK there are the "keep two chevrons apart" stretches with a terminating "keep your distance" sign) but it seems noone keeps to - and if you do, someone will probably cut in front of you and plug the gap. Let's face it - it's nothing really to do with limitations, it's just stupidity!
The problems with merging and so on would essentially evaporate if people dropped back a bit from the vehicle in front, planned ahead and took action a bit earlier - it doesn't matter if someone hasn't had a chance to accelerate up the slip-road and causes you to slow down if the guy behind you isn't sniffing up your exhaust; they can smoothly brake to match speed with you.
As an aside, your talk of potentially building 20 lane motorways scares me - 8 lanes in total is large for a British motorway.
You do you realise you can make qualitative predictions, don't you? If I burn calcium, I can predict it will burn red, even if I don't know what wavelength it will be. More relevant, Tiktaalik was a qualitative prediction, as was the appearance of human chromosome 2 - two qualitative predictions very important in the field of evolution.
I take it you had already worked this out before anyone else thought of it then. Even then, an important part of science is going out and testing whether what you believe is correct or not.