It wasn't even all that funny. I figured it would get ignored like almost all my other posts, with maybe 1 comment by someone else who would also be ignored by the mods:/
"You would prefer another target, a military target? Then, name the system! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time. Where is the Rebel base?"
Not to be too trollish, but you can walk 3 miles in 15 minutes? that's 12 miles an hour. if I crank my treadmill up that high I can hardly count the action I must perform as "walking".
The problem with high-density urban areas is people. the higher the density is, the more people you have in a given area (by definition). Given the choice, I'd rather leave the planet a wasteland for the generations to come than deal with more people than I absolutely have to.
This attitude is incredibly selfish and quite possibly "evil" in some manner, but I'm not going to pretend to buy into some happy utopia where everyone has 4 feet of space for all their stuff to optimize for energy usage. (yes, I'm exaggerating. But sometimes it feels that way when I walk through my neighborhood, I don't even want to try to think about what thingswould be like if the density was any higher).
so something is wrong becuase you don't agree with it even though it brings no harm the the people participating or anyone else around them? How can that be? Does that make it "morally" wrong for me to read a book in my free time (an activity I enjoy and which has no harmful effect on myself or others)? is it "morally" wrong for me to own a gun or knife (things which pose a potential hazard to those around me but which I have yet to actually use in any manner directly threatening them)?
If those are morally wrong why are they accepted?
If they're not morally wrong, how is somebody's sexual orientation in any way morally wrong?
I see what you're getting at, but I just have one quesion: If you grant all rights and priviledges of "married" couples to what we shall temporarily call M2 couples, then in what way are "married" and M2 different?
apparently I lied, here's another question, sorry.
let's assume that in all ways Married and M2 are the same, except Married explicitly means "one man, one woman". Now, if some single man and single woman decided to M2 each other, would that not be permitted? why not? M2 is just a union defined for "2 consenting adults" isn't it? or does M2 specifically require a union of "2 men or 2 women" ?
I know you assume I'm just being difficult now, but I have one more question before I cease my troublemaking.
You said, "I don't support redefining marriage." However, you also said " I see no other example of a state which legalized gay marriage and lasted for a long time..." so, if other historical states have legalized it, then does that mean the definition has already been changed from "a union of 2 consenting adults" to "a union of 1 man and 1 woman"?
Questions about a First Cause or Prime Mover generally break down to the principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically says: if something happens then it didn't happen with no motivating factors. This is a nicely intuitive concept, but it only comes into play because people dislike the ideas of infinite regression (which all First Cause arguments eventually degenerate into). Infiite Recursion is only problematic for people because the idea of there being no beginning seems nonsensical and counter-intuitive.
wait... so.. God asked the devil to put the donosaurs there? He didn't put them there at the very beginning when he was creating the earth? Are you implying that God was unaware that he would need dinosaur bones in his creation to test the faithless of the future?
If there was a faith with a significant following that believed in pink unicorns in the context of the origin of life, sure, teach that it exists and here's what they believe.
but should it be part of a science class? or a religion or religous studies class?
"in those days?" Look around you, my friend. I refer you to the CAN-SPAM act, the USA-PATRIOT act, the CARE organization, and many other modern examples of this intellectually juvenile practice.
What you fail to account for is the fact that the poster is actually in the future, reading old slashdot articles (because after the Dupe-wars of 3109 duplicate articles are not allowed to exist, and so old stories are just recylcled to the front page). He then posted a reply to a comment, hoping to spark new heated debate in his time, but the constant striving for faster and faster computers has made machines that send commands backwards in time, and so the post became available for you to comment on.
So, what you really mean is that while you preach a damn good sermon, you're really sleeping with the devil, and the choir can go to hell for all you care.
Actually that sounds about right for most people (me included!) errr.. wait.. we're supposed to be against hipocrisy here at slash.. or.. are we?
You're assuming we'll drop dead so you can scavenge the meat from our corpses before we eat you without waiting for starvation to destroy the useful bits and kill you first. you'll also make far more quarter pounders than me.
uh, I mean. Yes. eat. fatten up and prepare yourself to survive the coming food crisis. you'll be fine. all the skinny freaks will drop dead before they even think about doing anything like that, and then you can survive to repopulate the earth. Eat.. eat... would you mind crawing into this oven and lighting it for me?
The headphone thing, and wirelessw controller bit seem like perfect applications for some bluetooth devices. have corded controlelr ports for people who want them, but have a bluetooth module built in.
There's always the possibility that Cain ran into Adam's former wife somewhere along the lines (yeah yeah, I know, Lilith is apocryphal and even then mentioned once, maybe twice).
I have always been interested in applying evolution to computer chips
I don't know about computer chips, but I seem to recall a Scientific American article sometime within the past 3 years (sorry can't be more specific, I only skimmed the issue and it was when I was working in a bookstore so we saw the magazines in and out all the time).
The article was about evolutionary techniques applied to electrical circuit design. Apparently, by providing a pool of sample circuit elements and some basic rules, researches can actually arrive at final circuits which can be as efficient, if not more efficient, than their human-designed variants.
Some googling found me This Article which is the one I seem to recall reading. Enjoy.
Nah, Tatooine was a barren wasteland of a desert world. Mos Eisley was supposed to be a thriving space-port city where scum, smugglers, pirates, and other low lifes could gather, exchange cargo, swap stories, and kill things without all the problems that more well developed planets have with those activities.
I think the point of agnosticism is: there's no way to test for god. without a way to test it I can't use the scientific method on it to either prove or disprove.
Then the agnostic goes on and says: For the moment, I chose to [believe/disbelieve] the existance of god pending the development of some method for reliably testing for the actual existance thereof.
As to my friend with invisible pink elephants, if he somehow came up with a way to prove they were their, and we tested it and found enough evidence to justify the posibility of them actually being there, then maybe he really does know something we didn't know before. If there is no test or no test comes back positive, then I would have to believe in the nonexistance of the invisible pink elephants, again pending the development of a new test that could actually prove/disprove their existance.
Referencing your pink elephant example again, you described a test for their actual presence, assuming they were merely invisible, you should have walked into one. When you didn't, unless we feel like changing the assumptions about the elephants (now they're also incoporeal and floating with incorporeal, invisible, non-odorous feces) we could assume they didn't exist.
Actually, in "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan he describes this very scenario(using a dragon instead of an elephant) and comes to the conclusion that There may be no difference between a floating, incorporeal, invisible dragon with heatless flame and no dragon at all, but if some one of the devisable current or future tests actually show something, then you might actually have something to consider a bit further than giving it an "unproveable, unknown" diagnosis.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't even all that funny. :/
I figured it would get ignored like almost all my other posts, with maybe 1 comment by someone else who would also be ignored by the mods
"You would prefer another target, a military target? Then, name the system! I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time. Where is the Rebel base?"
Ouch! This Exchange is killing me. Kindly stop comparing Notes.
You forgot " and liquidate nearly 100,000 people..."
:]
"... so they could be fed intravenously to the living"
I like your solution.
Not to be too trollish, but you can walk 3 miles in 15 minutes? that's 12 miles an hour. if I crank my treadmill up that high I can hardly count the action I must perform as "walking".
The problem with high-density urban areas is people. the higher the density is, the more people you have in a given area (by definition). Given the choice, I'd rather leave the planet a wasteland for the generations to come than deal with more people than I absolutely have to.
This attitude is incredibly selfish and quite possibly "evil" in some manner, but I'm not going to pretend to buy into some happy utopia where everyone has 4 feet of space for all their stuff to optimize for energy usage. (yes, I'm exaggerating. But sometimes it feels that way when I walk through my neighborhood, I don't even want to try to think about what thingswould be like if the density was any higher).
so something is wrong becuase you don't agree with it even though it brings no harm the the people participating or anyone else around them? How can that be? Does that make it "morally" wrong for me to read a book in my free time (an activity I enjoy and which has no harmful effect on myself or others)? is it "morally" wrong for me to own a gun or knife (things which pose a potential hazard to those around me but which I have yet to actually use in any manner directly threatening them)?
If those are morally wrong why are they accepted?
If they're not morally wrong, how is somebody's sexual orientation in any way morally wrong?
I see what you're getting at, but I just have one quesion:
If you grant all rights and priviledges of "married" couples to what we shall temporarily call M2 couples, then in what way are "married" and M2 different?
apparently I lied, here's another question, sorry.
let's assume that in all ways Married and M2 are the same, except Married explicitly means "one man, one woman". Now, if some single man and single woman decided to M2 each other, would that not be permitted? why not? M2 is just a union defined for "2 consenting adults" isn't it? or does M2 specifically require a union of "2 men or 2 women" ?
I know you assume I'm just being difficult now, but I have one more question before I cease my troublemaking.
You said, "I don't support redefining marriage." However, you also said " I see no other example of a state which legalized gay marriage and lasted for a long time..." so, if other historical states have legalized it, then does that mean the definition has already been changed from "a union of 2 consenting adults" to "a union of 1 man and 1 woman"?
In fact, forget the "Insensitive Clod"!
Questions about a First Cause or Prime Mover generally break down to the principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically says: if something happens then it didn't happen with no motivating factors.
This is a nicely intuitive concept, but it only comes into play because people dislike the ideas of infinite regression (which all First Cause arguments eventually degenerate into).
Infiite Recursion is only problematic for people because the idea of there being no beginning seems nonsensical and counter-intuitive.
wait... so.. God asked the devil to put the donosaurs there? He didn't put them there at the very beginning when he was creating the earth? Are you implying that God was unaware that he would need dinosaur bones in his creation to test the faithless of the future?
You HERETIC!
If there was a faith with a significant following that believed in pink unicorns in the context of the origin of life, sure, teach that it exists and here's what they believe.
but should it be part of a science class? or a religion or religous studies class?
Great story! I would almost have believed it except for one little detail: ... "
" My ex-girlfriend
Slashdotters dont' have girlfriends, ex or otherwise.
"in those days?" Look around you, my friend. I refer you to the CAN-SPAM act, the USA-PATRIOT act, the CARE organization, and many other modern examples of this intellectually juvenile practice.
What you fail to account for is the fact that the poster is actually in the future, reading old slashdot articles (because after the Dupe-wars of 3109 duplicate articles are not allowed to exist, and so old stories are just recylcled to the front page). He then posted a reply to a comment, hoping to spark new heated debate in his time, but the constant striving for faster and faster computers has made machines that send commands backwards in time, and so the post became available for you to comment on.
The maintenance crew at Area 51 painted the roofs with invisible paint, so you won't see anything.
Hah! The fools fell for it! That special formulation of invisible paint will make the roofs invisible, thus allowing us to see inside easily!
This once my plot has been succesful!
So, what you really mean is that while you preach a damn good sermon, you're really sleeping with the devil, and the choir can go to hell for all you care.
Actually that sounds about right for most people (me included!) errr.. wait.. we're supposed to be against hipocrisy here at slash.. or.. are we?
Screw this! Chaotic Neutral time. oooo shiney!!
Heh, mine's better; it's painted with a super intelligent shade of blue.
are you saying your Toshiba laptop is painted a brilliant blue?
You're assuming we'll drop dead so you can scavenge the meat from our corpses before we eat you without waiting for starvation to destroy the useful bits and kill you first. you'll also make far more quarter pounders than me.
uh, I mean. Yes. eat. fatten up and prepare yourself to survive the coming food crisis. you'll be fine. all the skinny freaks will drop dead before they even think about doing anything like that, and then you can survive to repopulate the earth. Eat.. eat... would you mind crawing into this oven and lighting it for me?
The headphone thing, and wirelessw controller bit seem like perfect applications for some bluetooth devices. have corded controlelr ports for people who want them, but have a bluetooth module built in.
no no.. you have it backwards. all Aliens are IT guys. not all IT guys are aliens. some of us are just sociopaths and/or assholes.
There's always the possibility that Cain ran into Adam's former wife somewhere along the lines (yeah yeah, I know, Lilith is apocryphal and even then mentioned once, maybe twice).
So we'll get open-source cars, then?
No, we'll get open source beer that is both Free as in speach, -AND- Free as in Beer!
now how's that for progress?
I have always been interested in applying evolution to computer chips
I don't know about computer chips, but I seem to recall a Scientific American article sometime within the past 3 years (sorry can't be more specific, I only skimmed the issue and it was when I was working in a bookstore so we saw the magazines in and out all the time).
The article was about evolutionary techniques applied to electrical circuit design. Apparently, by providing a pool of sample circuit elements and some basic rules, researches can actually arrive at final circuits which can be as efficient, if not more efficient, than their human-designed variants.
Some googling found me This Article which is the one I seem to recall reading. Enjoy.
Nah, Tatooine was a barren wasteland of a desert world. Mos Eisley was supposed to be a thriving space-port city where scum, smugglers, pirates, and other low lifes could gather, exchange cargo, swap stories, and kill things without all the problems that more well developed planets have with those activities.
And there goes the very last of my credibility...
I think the point of agnosticism is: there's no way to test for god. without a way to test it I can't use the scientific method on it to either prove or disprove.
Then the agnostic goes on and says: For the moment, I chose to [believe/disbelieve] the existance of god pending the development of some method for reliably testing for the actual existance thereof.
As to my friend with invisible pink elephants, if he somehow came up with a way to prove they were their, and we tested it and found enough evidence to justify the posibility of them actually being there, then maybe he really does know something we didn't know before. If there is no test or no test comes back positive, then I would have to believe in the nonexistance of the invisible pink elephants, again pending the development of a new test that could actually prove/disprove their existance.
Referencing your pink elephant example again, you described a test for their actual presence, assuming they were merely invisible, you should have walked into one. When you didn't, unless we feel like changing the assumptions about the elephants (now they're also incoporeal and floating with incorporeal, invisible, non-odorous feces) we could assume they didn't exist.
Actually, in "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan he describes this very scenario(using a dragon instead of an elephant) and comes to the conclusion that There may be no difference between a floating, incorporeal, invisible dragon with heatless flame and no dragon at all, but if some one of the devisable current or future tests actually show something, then you might actually have something to consider a bit further than giving it an "unproveable, unknown" diagnosis.
You know what, my other post sounds rather argumentative. ignore it.
thanks