Just because someone chooses to use this technology does not make them cattle. Nor does it prevent them from trying to protect themselves with other means.
For those worried about potential abuse of this technology - good for you. All technology should be questions and protected against the possibility of abuse.
For those bitching and complaining against those that choose to use this technology.- go fuck yourselves. How dare you tell someone else what they can and cannot do of their own free will? This doesn not affect anyone that doesn't chose to become chipped, and as long as they understand the benefits and consequences, people can choose to do whatever they wish if they feel it protects them. For those that cannot see this as a positive thing then you have a lot to learn about personal freedom.
I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with your definition of faith.
Faith can be used in many cases interchangeably with belief or trust. For instance you can have faith in your friends that you can count on them when you need something. That doesn't fit with your definition of faith.
Don't you remember your star wars scenes?
Luke: Soon I'll be dead, and you with me.
The Emperor: [laughing] Perhaps you refer to the emminent attack of your rebel fleet? Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here.
The only "faith" involved would be if you continued to believe an axiom or principle after it was disproved
That's not faith, thats denial. You seem to think that if you have to merely believe something then it cannot be true.
I'm not saying that science is based on faith - you are missing my point. What I'm saying that the general population when told a scientific principle and simply believes it to be true without understanding the science that was used to create that principle, has no hope of an understanding on how to prove that principle (and this I'd guess is 90%+ of the population) simply believes that principle to be true without proof. This is the same as faith.
That proves that people are idiots, not that science and religion are equivalent.
No, it just shows that it is completely impractical to question everything and prove it to yourself before believing it (including the problem of researching the science behind the experiment then questioning those underlying assumptions as well).
I'm not saying that science and religion are equivalent, but that faith in scientific principles and faith in a higher power are essentially the same thing.
Science is taught to the masses in school and the majority of that (except for maybe a handful of outstanding teachers) is taught as 'this is what it is because this book says so'. Students are taught science at face value and even tested on it to ensure they retain that knowledge. Writing down an opposable theory on a test will invariably get marked as 'wrong' and have consequences (lower mark, no praise from the family, maybe even restricting college choices, etc).
There is research in religion too and for those that go to seminary school in college get to learn about it. One thing they learn for example is that the story of the three wisemen, the traditional Christmas story was completely made up without a shred of truth. This story was added to the bible long after the new testament was written to try and fill some holes in the life of Christ and to convert some of the original Roman pagan holidays to Christian ones. But most people take the story as truth on faith because they do not bother spending the time to research it.
Quite, actually. One huge difference being that science is verifiable while religion is not.
It's only verifiable by an extremely small percentage of people qualified to do the experiment and understand the underlying science. The average layman cannot do this. To them, is faith through believing what someone tells them about religion not exactly the same as believing in what someone tells them about science?
In other words, scientific facts are provable. Even if we do not demand that proof, it still exists. Religion, on the other hand, is not provable.
I agree with you, however:
Despite that proof exists for science, the vast majority or people will not look it up. It is enough for someone in supposed authority to simply say something and most will take it at face value. Is this not faith? And if they did look it up to 'prove' it (ignoring the fact that most the vast majority would not understand the science anyway), is this not the same as looking up something a priest says in the bible? Of course the two will match but that proves nothing.
I'd also put forward that even if it were possible to prove or disprove the existence of God, it would not matter as most people will not look at the proof, and most others will continue to believe what they already believe anyway regardless of the proof (look at the flat earth society or deniers of the holocaust and the moon landing).
For instance most people will agree that exposure to sunlight creates Vitamin D in your body. But logically think about this: a ball of burning hydrogen 8 light seconds away somehow magically creates vitamins in our body.
Laughable really, and while most people take that as truth, almost no layman can say exactly how that happens. They were just told that it does and they believe it. Is religion any different?
You know, the summary was great right up until the rhetorical barbs at the end.
I agree, the last bit was uncalled for and unprofessional. The choices given clearly show the bias in the poster.
You might as well ask 'did she beat her children, or just her dog?' or 'Mr President, are your attempts to destroy the economy intentional or unintentional. Or are you just plain stupid?'
Closer to home, I had posted a listing of all the court cases of a local real estate agency. Some of them arbitration cases, and some of them small claims cases. All that was posted was an exact copy of the information from the court website.
Ignoring the legality of you posting this and their response, what was your motivation to do such a thing in the first place?
know nothing about God. I also don't know anyone who knows anything about God. When no one knows anything about some entity, and no one can propose a way to get any verifiable knowledge about it, a reasonable conclusion is that the entity does not exist in reality.
That logic does not follow at all. You know nothing about the weather on planets around suns other than ours, and there is no way to get it. But it doesn't mean weather on other planets doesn't exist.
The same can be said about what is in my pocket. Neither you nor anyone you know can know anything about what is in my pocket, or in fact if I even have a pocket. But you cannot reasonably conclude that what may or may not be in my pocket doesn't exist.
Since I didn't move the scent didn't change. The only change was him seeing the come here signal given by me in the mirror.
He must have known that was me in the mirror. If you are saying he would just go to the real person when he saw an image of me telling him to come, that could easily be tested by playing a recoding of me on TV giving the come gesture. If he actually comes to me physically then your hypothesis would be correct, however I highly doubt that he would.
The mirror test is fundamentally flawed. It is skewed towards animals with high visual acuity (dogs see motion much better than static images), and colour contrast (dogs are red-green colour blind). Also it presumes the dogs actually care that there is a mark on them (mine dont). It also doesn't prove self awareness in the slightest, just a recognition of what a mirror is.
I've posted my test elsewhere but I'll repeat it here:
1) First introduce your dog to the mirror and get him to look at himself
2) Stand directly behind the dog, ensuring he cannot see you (dogs typically have +/-120 view so you have to be directly behind them)
3) Now silently wave at the dog so he directs his attention at your 'reflection' and not you directly
4) Silently give him the 'come here' hand signal (he must know this). My dogs *without any hesitation* turn around and come directly to me. If the dog thought that what he saw in the mirror was in any way real, then presumably he would have started towards the mirror instead of directly towards me. This shows he gets the concept of a mirror.
Re:Publicizing trolls? You're worse than hitler!
on
Slashdot's Disagree Mail
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You amateur..
1) Guns are for people with small penises and short man syndrome. They've done nothing but increase the crime rate not lower it.
2) For those religious nutjobs that don't believe in evolution or the world is older than 8000 years, get over it. If you believe God not only created the world for our sole enjoyment, but created it in one big magic flash with light from distant stars and galaxies already in transit to trick us or test our faith, then you must have a very small opinion of God or an over inflated sense of self presence in the universe.
3) A womans body is her own and its her choice with what to do with it. However after the first trimester abortion should be illegal as the fetus now has consciousness and is considered a human with rights of its own. (got both sides with that one)
4) You're a jackass if you vote Republican. Republican politicians fundamentally lie and pander to the religious right to deceive them into voting Republican. They don't actually believe any of that nonsense.
5) Windows, Linux and Macs ALL suck. In fact computer operating systems are just a fundamentally flawed and bad idea.
5) Dogs are FAR FAR smarter than cats.
6) All religions in the world fundamentally talk about and believe in the same thing. Variations and disagreements are simply individual people projecting their own beliefs and warping the intent of the religion to suit their own twisted views.
Well my older dog now has no interest in the mirror whatsoever either. This shouldn't be surprising now that he's figured it out.
Babies show the same interest in a mirror but when they've become old enough to comprehend what they are seeing they should lose interest. If you have a 10 year old that is constantly fascinated by his reflection in the mirror, then maybe he's a few bulbs short of a Christmas tree.
Slashdot Mirror
But they still let a guilty man free.
I agree with zsau.
Just because someone chooses to use this technology does not make them cattle. Nor does it prevent them from trying to protect themselves with other means.
For those worried about potential abuse of this technology - good for you. All technology should be questions and protected against the possibility of abuse.
For those bitching and complaining against those that choose to use this technology.- go fuck yourselves. How dare you tell someone else what they can and cannot do of their own free will? This doesn not affect anyone that doesn't chose to become chipped, and as long as they understand the benefits and consequences, people can choose to do whatever they wish if they feel it protects them. For those that cannot see this as a positive thing then you have a lot to learn about personal freedom.
Come talk to us again if you child gets kidnapped and the cops say they have no idea where they are.
There are many good reasons for being able to find someone besides the paranoid delusions of governments watching your every move.
Maybe if you stopped fucking with the login and just used the browser like a normal non-insane person it would actually work.
No, it started of with a discussion about 'belief' then weather on other planets. The discussion was in no way limited to religion.
I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with your definition of faith.
Faith can be used in many cases interchangeably with belief or trust. For instance you can have faith in your friends that you can count on them when you need something. That doesn't fit with your definition of faith.
Don't you remember your star wars scenes?
Luke: Soon I'll be dead, and you with me.
The Emperor: [laughing] Perhaps you refer to the emminent attack of your rebel fleet? Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here.
Luke: Your overconfidence is your weakness.
The Emperor: Your faith in your friends is yours.
The only "faith" involved would be if you continued to believe an axiom or principle after it was disproved
That's not faith, thats denial. You seem to think that if you have to merely believe something then it cannot be true.
I'm not saying that science is based on faith - you are missing my point. What I'm saying that the general population when told a scientific principle and simply believes it to be true without understanding the science that was used to create that principle, has no hope of an understanding on how to prove that principle (and this I'd guess is 90%+ of the population) simply believes that principle to be true without proof. This is the same as faith.
That proves that people are idiots, not that science and religion are equivalent.
No, it just shows that it is completely impractical to question everything and prove it to yourself before believing it (including the problem of researching the science behind the experiment then questioning those underlying assumptions as well).
I'm not saying that science and religion are equivalent, but that faith in scientific principles and faith in a higher power are essentially the same thing.
Science is taught to the masses in school and the majority of that (except for maybe a handful of outstanding teachers) is taught as 'this is what it is because this book says so'. Students are taught science at face value and even tested on it to ensure they retain that knowledge. Writing down an opposable theory on a test will invariably get marked as 'wrong' and have consequences (lower mark, no praise from the family, maybe even restricting college choices, etc).
There is research in religion too and for those that go to seminary school in college get to learn about it. One thing they learn for example is that the story of the three wisemen, the traditional Christmas story was completely made up without a shred of truth. This story was added to the bible long after the new testament was written to try and fill some holes in the life of Christ and to convert some of the original Roman pagan holidays to Christian ones. But most people take the story as truth on faith because they do not bother spending the time to research it.
Quite, actually. One huge difference being that science is verifiable while religion is not.
It's only verifiable by an extremely small percentage of people qualified to do the experiment and understand the underlying science. The average layman cannot do this. To them, is faith through believing what someone tells them about religion not exactly the same as believing in what someone tells them about science?
In other words, scientific facts are provable. Even if we do not demand that proof, it still exists. Religion, on the other hand, is not provable.
I agree with you, however:
Despite that proof exists for science, the vast majority or people will not look it up. It is enough for someone in supposed authority to simply say something and most will take it at face value. Is this not faith? And if they did look it up to 'prove' it (ignoring the fact that most the vast majority would not understand the science anyway), is this not the same as looking up something a priest says in the bible? Of course the two will match but that proves nothing.
I'd also put forward that even if it were possible to prove or disprove the existence of God, it would not matter as most people will not look at the proof, and most others will continue to believe what they already believe anyway regardless of the proof (look at the flat earth society or deniers of the holocaust and the moon landing).
Belief is a funny thing, even when it is correct.
For instance most people will agree that exposure to sunlight creates Vitamin D in your body. But logically think about this: a ball of burning hydrogen 8 light seconds away somehow magically creates vitamins in our body.
Laughable really, and while most people take that as truth, almost no layman can say exactly how that happens. They were just told that it does and they believe it. Is religion any different?
You know, the summary was great right up until the rhetorical barbs at the end.
I agree, the last bit was uncalled for and unprofessional. The choices given clearly show the bias in the poster.
You might as well ask 'did she beat her children, or just her dog?' or 'Mr President, are your attempts to destroy the economy intentional or unintentional. Or are you just plain stupid?'
Closer to home, I had posted a listing of all the court cases of a local real estate agency. Some of them arbitration cases, and some of them small claims cases. All that was posted was an exact copy of the information from the court website.
Ignoring the legality of you posting this and their response, what was your motivation to do such a thing in the first place?
know nothing about God. I also don't know anyone who knows anything about God. When no one knows anything about some entity, and no one can propose a way to get any verifiable knowledge about it, a reasonable conclusion is that the entity does not exist in reality.
That logic does not follow at all. You know nothing about the weather on planets around suns other than ours, and there is no way to get it. But it doesn't mean weather on other planets doesn't exist.
The same can be said about what is in my pocket. Neither you nor anyone you know can know anything about what is in my pocket, or in fact if I even have a pocket. But you cannot reasonably conclude that what may or may not be in my pocket doesn't exist.
Owe kAY. Weel all just speel lyke freeken reetards then and it will bee owe kay.
I've stopped coding a long time ago. See point 5 above.
Lol - actually I've always loved vi, but found the convenience of emacs too hard to ignore for general purpose editing.
Since I didn't move the scent didn't change. The only change was him seeing the come here signal given by me in the mirror.
He must have known that was me in the mirror. If you are saying he would just go to the real person when he saw an image of me telling him to come, that could easily be tested by playing a recoding of me on TV giving the come gesture. If he actually comes to me physically then your hypothesis would be correct, however I highly doubt that he would.
The mirror test is fundamentally flawed. It is skewed towards animals with high visual acuity (dogs see motion much better than static images), and colour contrast (dogs are red-green colour blind). Also it presumes the dogs actually care that there is a mark on them (mine dont). It also doesn't prove self awareness in the slightest, just a recognition of what a mirror is.
I've posted my test elsewhere but I'll repeat it here:
1) First introduce your dog to the mirror and get him to look at himself
2) Stand directly behind the dog, ensuring he cannot see you (dogs typically have +/-120 view so you have to be directly behind them)
3) Now silently wave at the dog so he directs his attention at your 'reflection' and not you directly
4) Silently give him the 'come here' hand signal (he must know this). My dogs *without any hesitation* turn around and come directly to me. If the dog thought that what he saw in the mirror was in any way real, then presumably he would have started towards the mirror instead of directly towards me. This shows he gets the concept of a mirror.
You amateur..
1) Guns are for people with small penises and short man syndrome. They've done nothing but increase the crime rate not lower it.
2) For those religious nutjobs that don't believe in evolution or the world is older than 8000 years, get over it. If you believe God not only created the world for our sole enjoyment, but created it in one big magic flash with light from distant stars and galaxies already in transit to trick us or test our faith, then you must have a very small opinion of God or an over inflated sense of self presence in the universe.
3) A womans body is her own and its her choice with what to do with it. However after the first trimester abortion should be illegal as the fetus now has consciousness and is considered a human with rights of its own. (got both sides with that one)
4) You're a jackass if you vote Republican. Republican politicians fundamentally lie and pander to the religious right to deceive them into voting Republican. They don't actually believe any of that nonsense.
5) Windows, Linux and Macs ALL suck. In fact computer operating systems are just a fundamentally flawed and bad idea.
5) Dogs are FAR FAR smarter than cats.
6) All religions in the world fundamentally talk about and believe in the same thing. Variations and disagreements are simply individual people projecting their own beliefs and warping the intent of the religion to suit their own twisted views.
How about that?
Well my older dog now has no interest in the mirror whatsoever either. This shouldn't be surprising now that he's figured it out.
Babies show the same interest in a mirror but when they've become old enough to comprehend what they are seeing they should lose interest. If you have a 10 year old that is constantly fascinated by his reflection in the mirror, then maybe he's a few bulbs short of a Christmas tree.
That's not being a grammar nazi - he used the wrong word so that the sentence no longer makes sense.
Wood ewe be a grammar nazi to point out that the first two words of this sentence are wrong even though they happen to *sound* like the right words?
How the hell can you say what anybody 'should be looking at' when you don't even know what question it is they are trying to address?
He's looking at the relationship between brain volumetrics and cognition in humans. He's already stated it.
By the way brain volume is a very important measure of cognitive function
It's important but not definitive. Otherwise whales and elephants would rule the world.
Bush couldn't have had anything to do with this - he's just way too stupid.