"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." While this is of course funny, it is also wrong.
It could be true if one would use the median instead of the average...
Simple example: 80 100 120, average IQ 100. 1 person is less smart, that is only 1/3rd... 80 100 100 120, now it is even worth... But that was not the point
80, 80, 80, 100, 200, 200, 200, if that is my distribution, then more than half of the people are less smart.
Of course you could now nitpick and say: yeah! but the definition of IQ is that the "value 100" is the average in the sense that half of the population is below that average and the other half above!
Anyway, by using the median, you would always be exactly in the middle of the distribution, and despite one or two data points: there would truly be half of the population above or below that point.
Many things have had their existence disproven in the course of history. Care to point one out?
You probably mean: some weird thing was proposed to be at point A and when one went there and did not find the weird thing, it was disproven? Actually it simply was not found at point A... that is not a prove about the existence of the "weird thing".
Faith is a kind of binary variable: you either have faith, or you have not. There are plenty of religions, that means the practitioners have faith.
And there is one exception: Atheism. That means the people don't practice anything, and: have no faith.
Atheism is as faith-based as religion is. So no: Atheism is not faith based. It is the absence of faith. You could as well say, a vacuum is based on gases as in an atmosphere just like all atmospheres are based on gases. Hint: there is no gas in a vacuum. And there is no faith in atheism.
And finally you might grasp it: Atheism is not a religion, hence it has nothing to do with faith anyway.
The problem with science and those who would use science and experimental evidence as a means of proving God doesn't exist is that they demand a reproducible sample. You seem not to know how science works: you can not prove a negative. It is impossible to make an experiment that proves "X does not exist". No scientist ever tried to disprove existence of God(s). It would be a waste of time.
But measuring over the entire base of Christianity, in a year, there are miracles that happen, healing that occurs, people who are delivered from addiction, and a host of messages to individuals or groups or churches from Him.
I know two miracle healers. Both are convinced that "a God" has nothing to do with it, it is a human trait to be able to "miracle heal" other humans or living things. And probably that trait is more active in the one receiving the treatment than the one giving it (as in placebo or "faith in healing").
And, yes: I saw them healing... with healing I mean: it worked.
Anectodeally speaking, mnay people use the word 'Agnostic' to mean 'i'm not sure, so but I believe there's nothing out there' Sorry, you seem to be retarded. So I fixed the comment for you...
and many/most/all atheists would become theists if presented with proof of god. Actually no. As soon as god is proven, there is no need to worship him/her anymore. We we simply would sleep with the warm feeling of knowing he is out there: and not the fuck caring at all about us! But perhaps he accepts us into an afterlife, perhaps not...
It only means that they know the evidence that has been put forth for and against and find the evidence for to be lacking. No it does not mean that at all.
Why are you americans always proclaiming that Atheists are a special breed of people who want to prove there is no god or are trying to convince other people that there is no god? We have no clue about evidence. I never search for evidence against "gods" why the fuck would I? I'm simply an atheist and regarding religious discussions, I simply want to be left alone. I have no faith which I have to defend. I have no faith at all, hence people call me atheist: a human with no faith. Is that so hard to grasp?
This does not mean that the atheist is claiming to have an absolute personal knowledge that no god exists. No atheist is claiming this. Atheists claim: we don't worship. And we are _convinced_ that there is no god there are no gods. Convinced, yes. But we easily can be proven wrong when god receives us in his heaven...
Heck you can be a theist agnostic. No you can't. Your definition of Agnosticism is simply wrong, and the one of gnosticism, as the opposite is wrong, too.
Agnostics is pretty simple: "I believe there are no gods, but I'm not sure about it." In contrast to that, an Atheist would say: "I'm convinced there is no god".
Gnosticism is parallel religion, more a mystic science than religion, coexisting and overlapping for a while with Christianity, and Judaism and influenced by Mithraism and a few other mono theistic religions.
In Gnosticism, people believe(d) that the universe is god, and what we see around us are his dreams. We are kind of space probes connected with parts of his consciousness, we exist to make him aware about himself and to explore him and hence the universe.
So Agnostics are people who can not be convinced to follow a religion but don't dare to say: "there is no god". And they are not the opposite of "Gnostics", they have nothing to do with each other.
I dunno, I lost friends for like 5 years due to "raid night" That is why you play on servers that are in a "significant" different timezone, so at least on weekends you can play during daytime... while your team mates play at night, muhuhuhuaa!
Yes, they are. Or would you throw away a piece of hardware which's value in raw materials is approximately 50% of its retail price? Batteries get recycled, all over the planet, since decades.
Although I doubt it's worth it as Fuel is incredibly cheap for these ships, Nevertheless it is still one of the main contributions to running costs.
And "time is money" especially in the shipping business and in the grand scheme of things, shipping emissions are no more than a rounding error compared to aircraft transport. That is completely wrong. Shipping emissions are the main emissions on the plant. And will stay so for minimum 50 years... at least regarding SOx emissions. The reason behind that is pretty simple: if we had not increased SOx emissions so boldly in the last decades, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 would already be a runaway effect.
They also demand less pay because they don't have to leave their families and be stuck at sea. No, they likely demand more pay.
A crew on ship is considered working "extra territorially", hence they don't pay income tax. If they work on shore, they have to pay taxes, and depending on tax percentage that will add 20 - 30% on the wages.
The war in Ethiopia and Eritrea is over since decades. There were some border clashes, up to 2016, but since mid 2018 they have a formal peace treaty and work on improving relationships.
It has a crew of 31. Assuming the crew consists of 100kg heavy hard working muscle men, they would weight 3.1t.
Considering that hot water usually is made from waste heat of the engines, and cooking is done with gas stoves or electric, considering that the ship probably carries 100 times more water as ballast than freshwater for the crew, it is in no way plausible that such a small crew in relation to the size of the ship and cargo would save 15% fuel. They hardly will need so much light aka electricity for their TVs and room lighting either...
Interesting - you train martial arts and think that those differences are insignificant? Mkay. Yes they are.
A woman with ten years martial arts training will beat the shit out of a man with 1 year or 3 years.
Is a woman with 10 years martial arts training equal to a man with 10 years training? In raw power likely not, in technique: yes. Hitting a target 400 yards away with a gun or a bow is a matter of training, not a matter of raw physical power.
Hitting your yaw at the point where you are knocked out, is a matter of speed mostly. And on a distance of about one yard, the jab of a woman is fast enough to knock out every man. Regardless of his martial art training. Being stronger (30%?) and faster (10%?) makes you not invulnerable to a hit.
And topping this: never underestimate a woman with a dagger or a sword... she simply slices and dices you as quickly as a man would.
"Yeah... Europe had 2 million inhabitants at that time... perhaps less."
That completely orthogonal point doesn't change the fact that regions of agricultural use expanded. Why would it?
Because for a population of 2million that perhaps covers less than 1% of the area it is super easy to expand its agriculture to lets say 2% of the area? With or without "medieval warms period".
The fact that you don't grasp this and your nitpicking about the difference between a Jungle and a Rain Forest simply makes you look like an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
While this is of course funny, it is also wrong.
It could be true if one would use the median instead of the average ...
Simple example: ... ... But that was not the point
80 100 120, average IQ 100. 1 person is less smart, that is only 1/3rd
80 100 100 120, now it is even worth
80, 80, 80, 100, 200, 200, 200, if that is my distribution, then more than half of the people are less smart.
Of course you could now nitpick and say: yeah! but the definition of IQ is that the "value 100" is the average in the sense that half of the population is below that average and the other half above!
Anyway, by using the median, you would always be exactly in the middle of the distribution, and despite one or two data points: there would truly be half of the population above or below that point.
Many things have had their existence disproven in the course of history.
Care to point one out?
You probably mean: some weird thing was proposed to be at point A and when one went there and did not find the weird thing, it was disproven? Actually it simply was not found at point A ... that is not a prove about the existence of the "weird thing".
Faith is a kind of binary variable: you either have faith, or you have not.
There are plenty of religions, that means the practitioners have faith.
And there is one exception: Atheism. That means the people don't practice anything, and: have no faith.
Atheism is as faith-based as religion is.
So no: Atheism is not faith based. It is the absence of faith. You could as well say, a vacuum is based on gases as in an atmosphere just like all atmospheres are based on gases. Hint: there is no gas in a vacuum. And there is no faith in atheism.
And finally you might grasp it: Atheism is not a religion, hence it has nothing to do with faith anyway.
The problem with science and those who would use science and experimental evidence as a means of proving God doesn't exist is that they demand a reproducible sample.
You seem not to know how science works: you can not prove a negative. It is impossible to make an experiment that proves "X does not exist". No scientist ever tried to disprove existence of God(s). It would be a waste of time.
But measuring over the entire base of Christianity, in a year, there are miracles that happen, healing that occurs, people who are delivered from addiction, and a host of messages to individuals or groups or churches from Him.
I know two miracle healers. Both are convinced that "a God" has nothing to do with it, it is a human trait to be able to "miracle heal" other humans or living things. And probably that trait is more active in the one receiving the treatment than the one giving it (as in placebo or "faith in healing").
And, yes: I saw them healing ... with healing I mean: it worked.
Anectodeally speaking, mnay people use the word 'Agnostic' to mean 'i'm not sure, so but I believe there's nothing out there' ...
Sorry, you seem to be retarded. So I fixed the comment for you
and many/most/all atheists would become theists if presented with proof of god. ...
Actually no. As soon as god is proven, there is no need to worship him/her anymore. We we simply would sleep with the warm feeling of knowing he is out there: and not the fuck caring at all about us! But perhaps he accepts us into an afterlife, perhaps not
You seem to have failed the challenge.
You can not prove a negative! If you think otherwise, show us a proof.
It only means that they know the evidence that has been put forth for and against and find the evidence for to be lacking.
No it does not mean that at all.
Why are you americans always proclaiming that Atheists are a special breed of people who want to prove there is no god or are trying to convince other people that there is no god? We have no clue about evidence. I never search for evidence against "gods" why the fuck would I? I'm simply an atheist and regarding religious discussions, I simply want to be left alone. I have no faith which I have to defend. I have no faith at all, hence people call me atheist: a human with no faith. Is that so hard to grasp?
This does not mean that the atheist is claiming to have an absolute personal knowledge that no god exists. ...
No atheist is claiming this. Atheists claim: we don't worship. And we are _convinced_ that there is no god there are no gods. Convinced, yes. But we easily can be proven wrong when god receives us in his heaven
I agree and freely admit that my atheism is faith-based and not grounded in science.
Then you are not an Atheist. Atheists have no faith!
Heck you can be a theist agnostic.
No you can't.
Your definition of Agnosticism is simply wrong, and the one of gnosticism, as the opposite is wrong, too.
Agnostics is pretty simple: "I believe there are no gods, but I'm not sure about it."
In contrast to that, an Atheist would say: "I'm convinced there is no god".
Gnosticism is parallel religion, more a mystic science than religion, coexisting and overlapping for a while with Christianity, and Judaism and influenced by Mithraism and a few other mono theistic religions.
In Gnosticism, people believe(d) that the universe is god, and what we see around us are his dreams. We are kind of space probes connected with parts of his consciousness, we exist to make him aware about himself and to explore him and hence the universe.
So Agnostics are people who can not be convinced to follow a religion but don't dare to say: "there is no god". And they are not the opposite of "Gnostics", they have nothing to do with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I dunno, I lost friends for like 5 years due to "raid night" ... while your team mates play at night, muhuhuhuaa!
That is why you play on servers that are in a "significant" different timezone, so at least on weekends you can play during daytime
Batteries are so not environmentally friendly
Yes, they are. Or would you throw away a piece of hardware which's value in raw materials is approximately 50% of its retail price? Batteries get recycled, all over the planet, since decades.
Although I doubt it's worth it as Fuel is incredibly cheap for these ships,
Nevertheless it is still one of the main contributions to running costs.
And "time is money" especially in the shipping business and in the grand scheme of things, shipping emissions are no more than a rounding error compared to aircraft transport. ... at least regarding SOx emissions. The reason behind that is pretty simple: if we had not increased SOx emissions so boldly in the last decades, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 would already be a runaway effect.
That is completely wrong. Shipping emissions are the main emissions on the plant. And will stay so for minimum 50 years
No the ship is not abandoned.
Those "laws are abandoned" and changed since decades, if not even a century meanwhile.
They also demand less pay because they don't have to leave their families and be stuck at sea.
No, they likely demand more pay.
A crew on ship is considered working "extra territorially", hence they don't pay income tax. If they work on shore, they have to pay taxes, and depending on tax percentage that will add 20 - 30% on the wages.
A crew is not 8h consecutively on watch.
It is 4h on watch, has 8h break, and is another 4h on watch and has another 8h break.
Yeah,
that is obvious if you consider that 99% of the ocean is basically never traveled by a ship ...
However if you look at typical freight routes, then the percentage of piracy affected segments jumps up considerably.
Here you have an overview about the 10 most dangerous areas: https://www.marineinsight.com/...
Here you have a life view: https://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy...
The war in Ethiopia and Eritrea is over since decades.
There were some border clashes, up to 2016, but since mid 2018 they have a formal peace treaty and work on improving relationships.
The biggest cargo ship in operation at the moment is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
180kt.
It has a crew of 31. Assuming the crew consists of 100kg heavy hard working muscle men, they would weight 3.1t.
Considering that hot water usually is made from waste heat of the engines, and cooking is done with gas stoves or electric, considering that the ship probably carries 100 times more water as ballast than freshwater for the crew, it is in no way plausible that such a small crew in relation to the size of the ship and cargo would save 15% fuel. They hardly will need so much light aka electricity for their TVs and room lighting either ...
Interesting - you train martial arts and think that those differences are insignificant? Mkay.
Yes they are.
A woman with ten years martial arts training will beat the shit out of a man with 1 year or 3 years.
Is a woman with 10 years martial arts training equal to a man with 10 years training? In raw power likely not, in technique: yes. Hitting a target 400 yards away with a gun or a bow is a matter of training, not a matter of raw physical power.
Hitting your yaw at the point where you are knocked out, is a matter of speed mostly. And on a distance of about one yard, the jab of a woman is fast enough to knock out every man. Regardless of his martial art training. Being stronger (30%?) and faster (10%?) makes you not invulnerable to a hit.
And topping this: never underestimate a woman with a dagger or a sword ... she simply slices and dices you as quickly as a man would.
Luxembourg has less population than NYC ...
The parent is just an idiot.
Renewables don't have "back up systems". ... but I doubt it.
When whole Europe is 100% renewable you probably will grasp it
Yes, in 2017. In the winter. Before that and after wards they had all great success in reducing emissions. Idiot ...
The last "big computer" I worked on was a Sun E10k. It had 64 CPUs with 4 cores. And one terrabyte of RAM.
Or it may be more fertile.
And why would it?
Thawing permafrost has the characteristics of a swamp. Not very fertile.
The whole point of shifting north is that the growing seasons are getting longer
But they don't. Where did you get this idea from?
Also the hours of summer daylight needed for photosynthesis increases as you go north. ...
Yes. But the "summer" is shorter
You sound like the guy who suggested that 9 women will produce one child after one month ...
"Yeah ... Europe had 2 million inhabitants at that time ... perhaps less."
That completely orthogonal point doesn't change the fact that regions of agricultural use expanded. Why would it?
Because for a population of 2million that perhaps covers less than 1% of the area it is super easy to expand its agriculture to lets say 2% of the area? With or without "medieval warms period".
The fact that you don't grasp this and your nitpicking about the difference between a Jungle and a Rain Forest simply makes you look like an idiot.
When I read bullshit like this, I have to open another beer ...