Penrose bases all of his ideas on the assumption that there are limits on computational methods that apply to machines but not to humans. There is no basis for that assumption.
I think the "Top Secret" message on the screen is misleading, as places that handle top-secret data are all Tempest shielded. The real issue would be where a malicious employee adds the keylogging code to a PC used by an IT staff member, which would then allow anyone using their app to read anything typed in, including the superuser password.
Once you have that, you can do pretty well anything.
My experience is that if you are looking for people who readily accepts, even embraces, every kind of mindless superstition from Astrology to Homeopathy, you will find them among Liberal Arts grads.
Which, of course, is the exact opposite of "critical thinking".
Noe received his PhD from Harvard in 1995 and is a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, where he is also a member of the Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences and the Center for New Media. He previously was a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has been philosopher-in-residence with The Forsythe Company and has recently begun a performative-lecture collaboration with Deborah Hay. Noà is a 2012 recipient of a Guggenheim fellowship.
Which illustrates the pathetic state of academic philosophy.
If you tell me something that's true, but you can't be bothered to try persuading me of it, shall I flatly refuse to believe it?
Yes, but not believing that the assertion is true, does not mean that you believe it to be false.
It just means that, for the moment, you must reserve judgement.
Regardless of the idea's underlying merit?
Who says the idea has any underlying merit? And why?
I meet so many people claiming to be atheist who say god doesn't exist and then attempt to impress that belief onto you by citing where they think science proves religion unnecessary because they found natural ways to understand nature without the need of a creator or God.
FTFY Once again, there has never been a more apt username than yours.
Nonsense. Entropy affects the physical properties of everything in the universe.
In a closed system, entropy will always rise, while in an open system, entropy may rise or it may fall. Which is the case is determined by the net flow of energy into or out of a system. If the net flow of energy is out of a system (i.e. "cooling") then its overall entropy will go down. On the other hand, if the net flow of energy is into a system (i.e. "warming") then its overall entropy will go up over time.
That being the case, the example of the sun bombarding the earth with radiant energy will cause the entropy of the sun to go down over time, while the entropy of the earth and everything on it to go up. How life manages to overcome this tendency is one of the most fascinating problems in science, one where information theory / complexity theory may offer important insights.
Fine. The very latest technology-laden freighters are a lot better. That only leaves the 10's of thousands of older ships that are indeed producing a large share of the world's air pollution.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it ever valuable? /. mods. Pictures of them jerking off to Hentai?
Clearly, Haselton has something over the
Penrose bases all of his ideas on the assumption that there are limits on computational methods that apply to machines but not to humans.
There is no basis for that assumption.
Waiting half an hour to buy a ticket for about ten bucks, then suffering for 3 hours in 100+ degrees heat to ensure you need to buy something to drink
What country do you live in?
I haven't had an experience like that since I was a kid in the 1960's.
I think the "Top Secret" message on the screen is misleading, as places that handle top-secret data are all Tempest shielded.
The real issue would be where a malicious employee adds the keylogging code
to a PC used by an IT staff member, which would then allow anyone using their app
to read anything typed in, including the superuser password.
Once you have that, you can do pretty well anything.
Regardless of what else you think he is, he is clearly also a Patriot.
FTFY
you really are not winning points with anyone
ISIS isn't trying to win points with anyone. They just kill anybody who may have more points than they do, which amounts to the same thing.
I guess you have to have a LibArts degree to understand a reference to item #5 in a 4-item list.
FYI critical thinking skills are developed through courses in logic.
But not English, PoliSci, or pretty well anything ending in "Studies". Which accounts for about 95% of Liberal Arts grads.
My experience is that if you are looking for people who readily accepts, even embraces, every kind of mindless superstition from
Astrology to Homeopathy, you will find them among Liberal Arts grads.
Which, of course, is the exact opposite of "critical thinking".
Damn I loved that game!
Anybody know of anything similar that's still available?
Which illustrates the pathetic state of academic philosophy.
You can be religious and an atheist: there are many atheistic religions.
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
That is exactly what atheism isn't.
Well, Zoe Saldana is an alien to him.
Atheism is a belief that there are no supernatural deities.
Wrong!
Atheism isn't a belief at all. Atheism is the acceptance that these is no evidence that any supernatural deity exists.
Prove that, without any bald "everybody knows" assertions.
If you tell me something that's true, but you can't be bothered to try persuading me of it, shall I flatly refuse to believe it?
Yes, but not believing that the assertion is true, does not mean that you believe it to be false.
It just means that, for the moment, you must reserve judgement.
Regardless of the idea's underlying merit?
Who says the idea has any underlying merit? And why?
it's just a common thing philosophers do when they like being right.
FTFY.
Best summary here.
Thank you.
I meet so many people claiming to be atheist who say god doesn't exist and then attempt to impress that belief onto you by citing where they think science proves religion unnecessary because they found natural ways to understand nature without the need of a creator or God.
FTFY
Once again, there has never been a more apt username than yours.
You have to ignore a ton of evidence about what you cannot explain, to actively deny that there is a God.
Only if you define "evidence" as "anything that makes me feel that I am right".
Nonsense. Entropy affects the physical properties of everything in the universe.
In a closed system, entropy will always rise, while in an open system, entropy may rise or it may fall.
Which is the case is determined by the net flow of energy into or out of a system. If the net flow of energy is out of a system (i.e. "cooling") then its overall entropy will go down.
On the other hand, if the net flow of energy is into a system (i.e. "warming") then its overall entropy will go up over time.
That being the case, the example of the sun bombarding the earth with radiant energy will cause the entropy of the sun
to go down over time, while the entropy of the earth and everything on it to go up.
How life manages to overcome this tendency is one of the most fascinating problems in science,
one where information theory / complexity theory may offer important insights.
Except you can't "prove" a fantasy.
You repeatedly misspelled "steel" as "steal".
Fine. The very latest technology-laden freighters are a lot better. That only leaves the 10's of thousands of older ships that are indeed producing a large share of the world's air pollution.
or unless the US wants to ban gross-polluting ships from its waters and ports
And that is exactly what needs to be done.