I'm not sure what you're asking... there are no "known facts" about blackholes, as it's in the relm of theoretical physics. String theory suggests that hawkings radiation is produced by bits of string pinching themselves off the event horizon (this description is horrible, but it's not my domain). Susskind had argued Hawkins for a good 30 years, and this is one of the outcomes of this argument, along with the holographic principle.
Actually, time dilation would take its toll and the object will appear to be slowly fading away until undetectable, however, you can never actually observe an object crossing an event horizon. The photons will take longer and longer to reach you, but never cease.
Is this really all you can muster with your attention span? If I had said "divine being exists" would that change my point? Lets try:
And if you go east, you will find quickly that a whole lot of them would argue that time is spent better dealing with reality, rather than speculating whether some magic, imperceivable, divine being exists.
Holy shit, you're right... The whole thing reads like a regurgitation of Mr. Dawkins.
Language is a wonderful thing, and that you are unable to read the intended message through a colourful, and human description, is just sad.
Chess has very clearly defined rules, and playing it improves your ability to deal with planning and strategy in the general scense (you're flexing the same nurons, I'd imagine.). Philosophers, real philosophers, value logical arguments, not wild speculations. And if you go east, you will find quickly that a whole lot of them would argue that time is spent better dealing with reality, rather than speculating whether some magic, imperceivable, man sits on a cloud. Life is far too short for questions that do not lend themselves to any answers by their very nature.
I will say again, I do not hold either notion to be true, nor do I hold them to be false. It's a schrodinger's cat. Both states are valid and invalid for all phylosophical arguments, and matter not to the discussion. While I can believe that it rains in Zimbabwe, I cannot use that word when it comes to gods. I do not personally experience such a notion of belief, I only understand it as it is described in a dictionary. I cannot comprehend it.
For the love of... when did I say that? I said the Greeks had no influence? I can't seem to find that statement. You're reading beteen someone else's lines, not mine.
Actually, I love chess. It's a great game. Too bad I do not get to play often.
Philosophers have been debating the existence or non-existence of God for millenia, and no-one has come up with conclusive proof one way or the other.
And I think that they've been waisting a great deal of mental effort in asking a question that cannot be answered. Illogical questions breed inconsistent philosophies, and that's pretty much where we find ourselves now.
Most people resist the notion that it's possible to hold neither, but I can honestly say that is exactly what my position is. My conviction, and my contention, is that it is indeed irrelevant. Think about it this way: absolutely nothing would change in this thread whether I would to say that one exists, or not. No value added to the topic at hand. Now pick any other topic, and the same outcome will be inevitable.
Do you realize that the bible is the literary basis for pretty much all of the western hemisphere? Ignorance is NOT bliss, and it's an invaluable source of understanding the perticular predicements we are currently finding ourselves in too.
I wonder how this touches on someone like myself who is neither and conciders both the question and the answer absolutely irrelevant. I tend to find all 3 positions "silly". Much like I find dogs chasing their own tails "silly". Can't seem to break away from the obvious parallel there.
Not odd, just not your thing. If it's a fantasy then the subject is willing, and you cannot rape the willing. I never understood why the uninvolved feel the need to normalize everyone else's sexual preferences. Especially when there is no norm to speak of.
That business model relies on law, not supply and demand, as such is broken to begin with. The violation is merely perceived, and is non-factual. But hey, why not have an inflated sense of entitlement. It's obviously serving humanity so well...
Nah, just an overwhelmingly rediculous reply to a stupid comment. Fed the troll as it were. The crux of my argument is still true, it ain't colour that effects the outcome, and to propose that it does is beyond rediculous. It's enough to argue that we do not have enough data on how the brain works, that alone is a roadblock in determening how a particular cree would play a role in that respect (if indeed it does). Besides... all I did is call him stinky. For all intents and purposes, he may as well be.
The uncertainty principle called. It challenges your assertion of "essentially deterministic". If we can't trace the compononents we will not trace the outcome. It's statistical, not deterministic.
Funny how those same black students will perform in a statistically insignificant way if they didn't know they were black to begin with. That stench of shit by the way... that's God telling you to change your pants. You've seemed to have soiled yourself as the stress of your delusions overwhelmed you.
Smells like a design issue rather than a technical one. Global objects in C++ are their own general PITA. In short this isn't so much a construct/destruct as it is a general initialization sequencing problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank whatever god you wish that it still just takes one bullet to the head when things are bad enough. Who's head it'll be depends on the situation.
No, it does not mean that at all. That's pretty much all in your head. You're alone for another reason.
Don't think that's how dedications work. They are far more for the grieving than the stranger.
Sue for what? Its not imposible to keep a dedication professional. Honestly, wtf is this?
He's not a boss, he just sees himself as one despite all evidence to the contrary. Besides, it's hard to be a boss at 13.
I'm not sure what you're asking... there are no "known facts" about blackholes, as it's in the relm of theoretical physics. String theory suggests that hawkings radiation is produced by bits of string pinching themselves off the event horizon (this description is horrible, but it's not my domain). Susskind had argued Hawkins for a good 30 years, and this is one of the outcomes of this argument, along with the holographic principle.
Actually, time dilation would take its toll and the object will appear to be slowly fading away until undetectable, however, you can never actually observe an object crossing an event horizon. The photons will take longer and longer to reach you, but never cease.
And have hair...
Objects in an Innermost stable orbit are still visible. Objects at or beyond the event horizon are undetectable.
Is this really all you can muster with your attention span? If I had said "divine being exists" would that change my point? Lets try:
Holy shit, you're right... The whole thing reads like a regurgitation of Mr. Dawkins.
Language is a wonderful thing, and that you are unable to read the intended message through a colourful, and human description, is just sad.
Chess has very clearly defined rules, and playing it improves your ability to deal with planning and strategy in the general scense (you're flexing the same nurons, I'd imagine.). Philosophers, real philosophers, value logical arguments, not wild speculations. And if you go east, you will find quickly that a whole lot of them would argue that time is spent better dealing with reality, rather than speculating whether some magic, imperceivable, man sits on a cloud. Life is far too short for questions that do not lend themselves to any answers by their very nature.
I will say again, I do not hold either notion to be true, nor do I hold them to be false. It's a schrodinger's cat. Both states are valid and invalid for all phylosophical arguments, and matter not to the discussion. While I can believe that it rains in Zimbabwe, I cannot use that word when it comes to gods. I do not personally experience such a notion of belief, I only understand it as it is described in a dictionary. I cannot comprehend it.
And no influence from the Greeks ever transposed into the Biblical world view? It's not exactly an exclusive club, and I never said that it was.
For the love of... when did I say that? I said the Greeks had no influence? I can't seem to find that statement. You're reading beteen someone else's lines, not mine.
Actually, I love chess. It's a great game. Too bad I do not get to play often.
And I think that they've been waisting a great deal of mental effort in asking a question that cannot be answered. Illogical questions breed inconsistent philosophies, and that's pretty much where we find ourselves now.
Most people resist the notion that it's possible to hold neither, but I can honestly say that is exactly what my position is. My conviction, and my contention, is that it is indeed irrelevant. Think about it this way: absolutely nothing would change in this thread whether I would to say that one exists, or not. No value added to the topic at hand. Now pick any other topic, and the same outcome will be inevitable.
Do you realize that the bible is the literary basis for pretty much all of the western hemisphere? Ignorance is NOT bliss, and it's an invaluable source of understanding the perticular predicements we are currently finding ourselves in too.
You're trying to cater to an intelect. I'm sure you understand why that doesn't actually work in real life...
I wonder how this touches on someone like myself who is neither and conciders both the question and the answer absolutely irrelevant. I tend to find all 3 positions "silly". Much like I find dogs chasing their own tails "silly". Can't seem to break away from the obvious parallel there.
Not odd, just not your thing. If it's a fantasy then the subject is willing, and you cannot rape the willing. I never understood why the uninvolved feel the need to normalize everyone else's sexual preferences. Especially when there is no norm to speak of.
That business model relies on law, not supply and demand, as such is broken to begin with. The violation is merely perceived, and is non-factual. But hey, why not have an inflated sense of entitlement. It's obviously serving humanity so well...
Nah, just an overwhelmingly rediculous reply to a stupid comment. Fed the troll as it were. The crux of my argument is still true, it ain't colour that effects the outcome, and to propose that it does is beyond rediculous. It's enough to argue that we do not have enough data on how the brain works, that alone is a roadblock in determening how a particular cree would play a role in that respect (if indeed it does). Besides... all I did is call him stinky. For all intents and purposes, he may as well be.
The uncertainty principle called. It challenges your assertion of "essentially deterministic". If we can't trace the compononents we will not trace the outcome. It's statistical, not deterministic.
Funny how those same black students will perform in a statistically insignificant way if they didn't know they were black to begin with. That stench of shit by the way... that's God telling you to change your pants. You've seemed to have soiled yourself as the stress of your delusions overwhelmed you.
Smells like a design issue rather than a technical one. Global objects in C++ are their own general PITA. In short this isn't so much a construct/destruct as it is a general initialization sequencing problem.