The more I read about carbon dating, and how little science is actually involved
The principles of radioactive decay were established more than a century ago, and tens of thousands of experiments have been performed that verify it. How much science do you need?
Well, strictly speaking, science is about filtering out bullshit. What is left may be truth, or it may be that some bullshit remains. Faith, on the other hand, is about saying "I just know it's true", even when you don't.
And what if the Pope at the time had sided with Descartes? Would Pascal have had the balls to claim the reality of vacuum, knowing that he could be burned at the stake for saying so?
If you read an accurate (i.e. non-worshipfull) biography of pretty well any "great man", you will find that they were all egotistical, self-promoting assholes. Otherwise, you would have probably never heard of them.
There is nothing that goes out of the body during an OBE
That we know of.
This is the null hypothesis, and it is a reasonable assumption as there is no evidence (that I am aware of) to the contrary, . However, a true skeptic must always remember:absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absense.
Even easier:
Guardian creates a secure-submission app that contains the Guardian's public key, and all the software needed to send encrypted data to the paper. User just downloads the app, starts it up, enters the location of the data to be sent, and clicks SEND.
Of course this drug could be an important aid for those with muscle and joint problems, or for the sick or elderly. The problem comes when it is abused by those who could do real exercise, but can't be bothered to.
No need for a conspiracy.
Money drives everything in U.S. politics, because political campaigns are so expensive. Oil and corn producers have lots of campaign $$ to spend, so politicians listen to them.
Certainly processed food can be healthy. One problem is that the unhealthy stuff is both addictive and cheap to make. And so, the bulk of the marketing dollars goes to promoting it, especially to children.
Don't bash the good laws that actually serve their purpose
Nobody was bashing a law, only the misuse of that law to avoid transparency.
The point that CohibaVancouver was making is that the authorities continue to use the "privacy" excuse even after the individuals involved have spoken out publicly. It's just another way of saying "no comment".
Turing never suggested that any particular test could establish that a machine possesses human-like intelligence.
If a machine fails a Turing-type test (because people can easily tell that it is a machine) then the current design can be discarded. But, if the machine passes the test, that only means that the system can then go on to try another, harder test.
Where does this end? Maybe never, since there may always exist a future test that it will fail. However, if a system goes, say, ten years without failing, a lot of people will probably be satisfied with that.
Slashdot Mirror
The principles of radioactive decay were established more than a century ago, and tens of thousands of experiments have been performed that verify it.
How much science do you need?
The role of philosophy is to raise interesting questions, and that is important.
However, philosophy is not equipped to answer anything.
Well, strictly speaking, science is about filtering out bullshit. What is left may be truth, or it may be that some bullshit remains.
Faith, on the other hand, is about saying "I just know it's true", even when you don't.
That is not a flying car! It is a plain old-fashioned prop plane with folding wings. Big deal.
If it isn't VTOL, it isn't a flying car.
Because he backed down, unlike Bruno, who was burned to death by "his Holiness". Gee, I wonder why?
Yeah! And the earth looks pretty flat around here!
And what if the Pope at the time had sided with Descartes? Would Pascal have had the balls to claim the reality of vacuum, knowing that he could be burned at the stake for saying so?
If you read an accurate (i.e. non-worshipfull) biography of pretty well any "great man", you will find that they were all egotistical, self-promoting assholes. Otherwise, you would have probably never heard of them.
That we know of.
This is the null hypothesis, and it is a reasonable assumption as there is no evidence (that I am aware of) to the contrary, .
However, a true skeptic must always remember:absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absense.
Even easier:
Guardian creates a secure-submission app that contains the Guardian's public key, and all the software needed to send encrypted data to the paper.
User just downloads the app, starts it up, enters the location of the data to be sent, and clicks SEND.
That doesn't stop you swimming.
Some consider exercise to be more like play than work.
Of course this drug could be an important aid for those with muscle and joint problems, or for the sick or elderly. The problem comes when it is abused by those who could do real exercise, but can't be bothered to.
Which they admitted, in the latest update.
No need for a conspiracy.
Money drives everything in U.S. politics, because political campaigns are so expensive.
Oil and corn producers have lots of campaign $$ to spend, so politicians listen to them.
Certainly processed food can be healthy.
One problem is that the unhealthy stuff is both addictive and cheap to make. And so, the bulk of the marketing dollars goes to promoting it, especially to children.
Finally, I know what "karma" is.
Do you know how tiny (and simple) a rabbit kidney is compared to a human brain?
Foolproof?
It's fool guaranteed.
Given that the SF fire chief is a woman, there might be better places to kick.
Isn't there a way to say "don't show me any Roblimo posts anymore"?
Nobody was bashing a law, only the misuse of that law to avoid transparency.
The point that CohibaVancouver was making is that the authorities continue to use the "privacy" excuse even after the individuals involved have spoken out publicly. It's just another way of saying "no comment".
That's why Eliza, written in a few lines of SNOBOL nearly 50 years ago, fooled so many people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA/.
Turing never suggested that any particular test could establish that a machine possesses human-like intelligence.
If a machine fails a Turing-type test (because people can easily tell that it is a machine) then the current design can be discarded.
But, if the machine passes the test, that only means that the system can then go on to try another, harder test.
Where does this end? Maybe never, since there may always exist a future test that it will fail.
However, if a system goes, say, ten years without failing, a lot of people will probably be satisfied with that.
And no one can understand you!