given that a number of us read the xkcd strips, I would rather enjoy having a comment section on a number of the more intuitive / technical posts to allow for discussion.
You have to consider, however, that the prevailing model of the universe was that God did everything directly or through his angels. Mix this with Aristotelian "science" and they did base things off of observation (to a limited extent). It was not at the time considered solely a thing of religion but about proper use of the science of the day to interpret the reality around one. The objection that the people involved in Galileo's day were solely religious falls down under scrutiny far quicker (though I agree they had blinders on because the "science" in question had a faulty philosophical premise).
I don't think my point was about the RC church being right at all in the beginning - in fact, it was the people that were right (e.g., Galileo) who were forced to recant or worse. My point is rather that an historical example of the prevailing tradition being wrong contests the OP's post on numerical superiority being a good indicator on reliability (which he notes, but even his suggestion may be contestable).
He was referring to states that either had stringent rules or did not have "castle doctrine" laws. There was an article in the news a few years back about a guy in Michigan who was being tried for murder after shooting someone who entered his house with the intent to rob him (assault as well?). It is intriguing (and I do not know the outcome) but Wikipedia reports that Michigan only recently created a castle doctrine (2006).
the only problem with this is that depending on how he placed the spikes, caltrops are completely legal (parking lot entrances with one way spikes, etc.). I agree that he could have run into problems if he didn't follow local laws, but spikes in the road are not by their very nature illegal.
Yet this is precisely what happened in the case of heliocentrism. For years, the prevailing theory was against it. After a small number of researchers started objecting to the party line, people were burned, forced to recant, etc., but the end result was more research being done. The Roman Catholic Church changed its tune to the point that today it, one of few Christian denominations to officially do so, actually finds no disagreement with evolution (yes, I know, there are a large number of non-RC Christians out there that believe in evolution, but there are very few official statements of concord).
It just like saying that the entire world could explode if I crashed my car into a brick wall. Sure, I could create a model that would predict that outcome, but that wouldn't make it true...
I would like to see this - I think it would make for a good story.
The problem with this is that anyone can make a model for anything. Testing the reliability of the model should be part of any process. Has this been done? If so, then we should probably take things a bit more seriously.
This is why, though I use facebook as a free texting service, I have all the privacy settings turned to max and why there's little information other than my name on there. I've given up on avoiding general web tracking, but I do enjoy having a dynamic IP quite a bit more than when I was running my own server (yes, I know, I still could, but bandwidth eventually became an issue).
For those who block everything, this is also information. The 'evil' corporate data mining companies work hand in hand with advertising. Call them up and tell them to stop sending you meaningless junk? More information and suddenly your junk mail is more tailored to suit your personality (physical or via email). Privacy is an issue, but pursuing it on any level is simply more information - unless you go off grid completely, which I doubt anyone on slashdot will do, there is always going to be some give and take with information collectors.
Thank you - and like most lay people, asteroids tend to be my way of referring to any rock from outer space (though I do know that is not technically true). Your explanation on the rock origination was most helpful.
I have often wondered how this worked with the "martian" asteroids. The news articles never explained why the scientists involved were certain they came from Mars and why the bacteria in them had to have come from there - the answers to your post are somewhat helpful but I would still like to understand the methods behind it all a bit better.
This finally explains the planet of the apes movie in a way that doesn't involve multiple universes! hurrah, pure time travel without the quantum physics
If they were physical errors, it seems to me that you would have an impending problem - physical problems multiply like rabbits (or internet memes). One week you might have 2, the next week 8000... and then the hard drive dies in the middle of your lunch break Slashdot read... not fun.
I'd like to see them just seed Mars with the lichen now. If it turns out to be problematic, it isn't like it is our own planet (or like it even has life to speak of that we need be concerned about). Put some kudzu cells in the lichen and maybe we can even have Mars go all greenfly on us and then we can spend more on spaceflight in order to be able to flee the galaxy consuming super-lichen
This leads to the question of how to respond to any law. It is my understanding (and this may be wrong since I am not military) that when given an unlawful order an officer has two options - one to resign (which could be rescinded later when the issue is brought to a higher authority) and one to obey. There is no option for disobedience--order must be maintained. My point in the above comments was not that there needed to be a line of life/death necessarily (though as it is written, that is the only possible conclusion that should be reached about my post) but rather that working within the system is better, infinitely so, than working outside of it if working within it is at all possible.
so you'd still get hubs because it's more efficient than trying to build point-to-point connections between every star in the galaxy (some 10^22 routes needed).
That is, unless you happen to live in one of the Hamilton universes that involves "paths" and spacegates (though the spacegates tended to have hubs, the paths apparently... at least as far as I've gotten, did not). You've also got the more amusing (albeit on a popular level) series by Ringo that involves "looking glass" gateways. If I had to pick one of them, I think I'd go with Hamilton's scenario but...
Legally, yes. Should the law have existed, no. Just because Rosa Parks was used as a banner for a movement that needed to happen does not mean that her individual crime was good. The law must be upheld or we have chaos (I know, some of you would like this). I am glad that there is now greater equality between people (largely as a result of citizens acting within the law rather than, as with Rosa Parks, against it, however unjust - lawful assemblies, petitions, freedom marches, etc. - and even some of these were assaulted, though this was usually outside the law).
Are there times when breaking the law is appropriate? Definitely - but over music or which seat/not-seat you are going to be on in a bus? I think not. If it is a matter of life or death (for instance with those who are oppressed in China, then breaking the law, which will have consequences, strikes me as appropriate).
And yes, sadly I don't match my own standard, but we have to start somewhere.
I believe we usually call "fixes" requiring people to "hack" their phones "firmware upgrades" - The fact that many of us hack our phones with other firmware / software doesn't change what the company is going to call it. It would seem to me to be fairly easy to set up even cheap phones for such a firmware upgrade. Any old phone would need to be replaced at end of contract or it simply would stop functioning. While this won't immediately solve the privacy issues, it would provide for a workable solution. For those with smartphones, firmware upgrades can be pushed or dl'ed via itunes/whatever.
No, no, they changed all the names to protect the identities of the characters. Doc Brown's real name is not so important... he's just the Doctor to most folks anyway... and you have seen the fictionalized version of that part of his life, right? He's way better at creating time machines than anybody might have guessed... phone booths and all
Thank you - while I am not sure I agree that it is a creation myth in the sense of others of the period (it has many unique points and the NT appears to take it as fully historical despite its form), I do agree to its purpose. I originally jumped on the op comment as referring to the whole of the Bible, the discussion did start with reference to Genesis. The Bible's many genres should certainly be interpreted according to their specific requirements. Poetry should indeed be taken as poetry and history as history but the lines can be blurred, particularly in the ancient period when the words were written to convey truth that could also be easily memorized.
I will take issue with the "It is a fairly recent trend" comment. While it is certainly true that there has (as near as I can tell) always been debate over whether or not it was an historical account (Origen, and even before him among Jewish commentators, Philo, upheld more allegorical readings while others held that it was more literal - the writers of the gospels, etc.), I don't think we can go so far as to say that the recent trend towards a literal-historical read is "new."
What might fit is that the current literal historical read has its foundations in the creationist movements of the late 1800s (though these faltered in part because of the plurality of potential readings and the focus on science in the period) with continuance in the 1920s (though these again faltered in part because of the negative societal view on 7th day adventists who made up the core of the viewpoint), and conclusion more recently under Henry Morris-style creationists (though again, the focus is not so much on biblical interpretation with these as is tying the established interpretation to research--whatever one's opinions on the quality of it).
This is an intriguing statement - if one accepts the Bible as an accurate account of God's work, how can it be inaccurate historically? Does God work outside of history? While a divine being should be regarded as capable of something of this sort (I would suspect He might be less than divine otherwise), his work in history is the only thing a human can interact with.
From another angle, if it was not intended to be a historical account, it can at least be trusted as much as those rare "historical" accounts out there from the ancient period. Thucydides has a great deal of fiction within it.
Perhaps you are coming at the Bible from a different perspective, however. What is the basis for the statement that defining "historical events" through the Bible is "foolish." First hand accounts from multiple sources are compiled into an anthology all the time to make it easier for readers to understand the general historical trend of an event fairly regularly. Pretty much all we know of the life of Jesus comes from the four gospel accounts (each known to have been written within a hundred years of the individual). Only with a few other documents do we have such an opportunity (Josephus' histories are one example). Were they compiled quickly into a religious document? Yes. Does this diminish their historical accuracy? Possibly. If that religious document presents truth (and you can take this in an absolute or a relative sense), then the historical accuracy should probably be regarded as high. If, on the other hand, the religious document is patently false even internally, then the historical accuracy should probably be treated with some skepticism. This is aided by having multiple accounts by various individuals in the case of the gospels.
makes sense - the Christian bias is likely due to Christians being the more vocal party in the US (the only country I know of with the possible exceptions of S. Korea and the Central American countries) that have issues between Theistic creation and long-term development of the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
given that a number of us read the xkcd strips, I would rather enjoy having a comment section on a number of the more intuitive / technical posts to allow for discussion.
You have to consider, however, that the prevailing model of the universe was that God did everything directly or through his angels. Mix this with Aristotelian "science" and they did base things off of observation (to a limited extent). It was not at the time considered solely a thing of religion but about proper use of the science of the day to interpret the reality around one. The objection that the people involved in Galileo's day were solely religious falls down under scrutiny far quicker (though I agree they had blinders on because the "science" in question had a faulty philosophical premise).
Self-Defense Act The law was apparently specifically enacted to get the guy out of jail and overrule the Michigan Supreme Court. More power to them.
I don't think my point was about the RC church being right at all in the beginning - in fact, it was the people that were right (e.g., Galileo) who were forced to recant or worse. My point is rather that an historical example of the prevailing tradition being wrong contests the OP's post on numerical superiority being a good indicator on reliability (which he notes, but even his suggestion may be contestable).
somehow I don't see you making much in profit - you are going to have to hire a lawyer even if it is declared justified homicide
He was referring to states that either had stringent rules or did not have "castle doctrine" laws. There was an article in the news a few years back about a guy in Michigan who was being tried for murder after shooting someone who entered his house with the intent to rob him (assault as well?). It is intriguing (and I do not know the outcome) but Wikipedia reports that Michigan only recently created a castle doctrine (2006).
the only problem with this is that depending on how he placed the spikes, caltrops are completely legal (parking lot entrances with one way spikes, etc.). I agree that he could have run into problems if he didn't follow local laws, but spikes in the road are not by their very nature illegal.
Yet this is precisely what happened in the case of heliocentrism. For years, the prevailing theory was against it. After a small number of researchers started objecting to the party line, people were burned, forced to recant, etc., but the end result was more research being done. The Roman Catholic Church changed its tune to the point that today it, one of few Christian denominations to officially do so, actually finds no disagreement with evolution (yes, I know, there are a large number of non-RC Christians out there that believe in evolution, but there are very few official statements of concord).
It just like saying that the entire world could explode if I crashed my car into a brick wall. Sure, I could create a model that would predict that outcome, but that wouldn't make it true...
I would like to see this - I think it would make for a good story.
The problem with this is that anyone can make a model for anything. Testing the reliability of the model should be part of any process. Has this been done? If so, then we should probably take things a bit more seriously.
This is why, though I use facebook as a free texting service, I have all the privacy settings turned to max and why there's little information other than my name on there. I've given up on avoiding general web tracking, but I do enjoy having a dynamic IP quite a bit more than when I was running my own server (yes, I know, I still could, but bandwidth eventually became an issue).
For those who block everything, this is also information. The 'evil' corporate data mining companies work hand in hand with advertising. Call them up and tell them to stop sending you meaningless junk? More information and suddenly your junk mail is more tailored to suit your personality (physical or via email). Privacy is an issue, but pursuing it on any level is simply more information - unless you go off grid completely, which I doubt anyone on slashdot will do, there is always going to be some give and take with information collectors.
Thank you - and like most lay people, asteroids tend to be my way of referring to any rock from outer space (though I do know that is not technically true). Your explanation on the rock origination was most helpful.
I have often wondered how this worked with the "martian" asteroids. The news articles never explained why the scientists involved were certain they came from Mars and why the bacteria in them had to have come from there - the answers to your post are somewhat helpful but I would still like to understand the methods behind it all a bit better.
This finally explains the planet of the apes movie in a way that doesn't involve multiple universes! hurrah, pure time travel without the quantum physics
yes, but the latency is awful!
If they were physical errors, it seems to me that you would have an impending problem - physical problems multiply like rabbits (or internet memes). One week you might have 2, the next week 8000... and then the hard drive dies in the middle of your lunch break Slashdot read... not fun.
We already have been - Wensleydale. It is great in flavor but a poor substitute for any melting cheese.
I'd like to see them just seed Mars with the lichen now. If it turns out to be problematic, it isn't like it is our own planet (or like it even has life to speak of that we need be concerned about). Put some kudzu cells in the lichen and maybe we can even have Mars go all greenfly on us and then we can spend more on spaceflight in order to be able to flee the galaxy consuming super-lichen
This leads to the question of how to respond to any law. It is my understanding (and this may be wrong since I am not military) that when given an unlawful order an officer has two options - one to resign (which could be rescinded later when the issue is brought to a higher authority) and one to obey. There is no option for disobedience--order must be maintained. My point in the above comments was not that there needed to be a line of life/death necessarily (though as it is written, that is the only possible conclusion that should be reached about my post) but rather that working within the system is better, infinitely so, than working outside of it if working within it is at all possible.
so you'd still get hubs because it's more efficient than trying to build point-to-point connections between every star in the galaxy (some 10^22 routes needed).
That is, unless you happen to live in one of the Hamilton universes that involves "paths" and spacegates (though the spacegates tended to have hubs, the paths apparently... at least as far as I've gotten, did not). You've also got the more amusing (albeit on a popular level) series by Ringo that involves "looking glass" gateways. If I had to pick one of them, I think I'd go with Hamilton's scenario but...
Legally, yes. Should the law have existed, no. Just because Rosa Parks was used as a banner for a movement that needed to happen does not mean that her individual crime was good. The law must be upheld or we have chaos (I know, some of you would like this). I am glad that there is now greater equality between people (largely as a result of citizens acting within the law rather than, as with Rosa Parks, against it, however unjust - lawful assemblies, petitions, freedom marches, etc. - and even some of these were assaulted, though this was usually outside the law).
Are there times when breaking the law is appropriate? Definitely - but over music or which seat/not-seat you are going to be on in a bus? I think not. If it is a matter of life or death (for instance with those who are oppressed in China, then breaking the law, which will have consequences, strikes me as appropriate).
And yes, sadly I don't match my own standard, but we have to start somewhere.
I believe we usually call "fixes" requiring people to "hack" their phones "firmware upgrades" - The fact that many of us hack our phones with other firmware / software doesn't change what the company is going to call it. It would seem to me to be fairly easy to set up even cheap phones for such a firmware upgrade. Any old phone would need to be replaced at end of contract or it simply would stop functioning. While this won't immediately solve the privacy issues, it would provide for a workable solution. For those with smartphones, firmware upgrades can be pushed or dl'ed via itunes/whatever.
No, no, they changed all the names to protect the identities of the characters. Doc Brown's real name is not so important ... he's just the Doctor to most folks anyway... and you have seen the fictionalized version of that part of his life, right? He's way better at creating time machines than anybody might have guessed... phone booths and all
Thank you - while I am not sure I agree that it is a creation myth in the sense of others of the period (it has many unique points and the NT appears to take it as fully historical despite its form), I do agree to its purpose. I originally jumped on the op comment as referring to the whole of the Bible, the discussion did start with reference to Genesis. The Bible's many genres should certainly be interpreted according to their specific requirements. Poetry should indeed be taken as poetry and history as history but the lines can be blurred, particularly in the ancient period when the words were written to convey truth that could also be easily memorized.
I will take issue with the "It is a fairly recent trend" comment. While it is certainly true that there has (as near as I can tell) always been debate over whether or not it was an historical account (Origen, and even before him among Jewish commentators, Philo, upheld more allegorical readings while others held that it was more literal - the writers of the gospels, etc.), I don't think we can go so far as to say that the recent trend towards a literal-historical read is "new."
What might fit is that the current literal historical read has its foundations in the creationist movements of the late 1800s (though these faltered in part because of the plurality of potential readings and the focus on science in the period) with continuance in the 1920s (though these again faltered in part because of the negative societal view on 7th day adventists who made up the core of the viewpoint), and conclusion more recently under Henry Morris-style creationists (though again, the focus is not so much on biblical interpretation with these as is tying the established interpretation to research--whatever one's opinions on the quality of it).
This is an intriguing statement - if one accepts the Bible as an accurate account of God's work, how can it be inaccurate historically? Does God work outside of history? While a divine being should be regarded as capable of something of this sort (I would suspect He might be less than divine otherwise), his work in history is the only thing a human can interact with.
From another angle, if it was not intended to be a historical account, it can at least be trusted as much as those rare "historical" accounts out there from the ancient period. Thucydides has a great deal of fiction within it.
Perhaps you are coming at the Bible from a different perspective, however. What is the basis for the statement that defining "historical events" through the Bible is "foolish." First hand accounts from multiple sources are compiled into an anthology all the time to make it easier for readers to understand the general historical trend of an event fairly regularly. Pretty much all we know of the life of Jesus comes from the four gospel accounts (each known to have been written within a hundred years of the individual). Only with a few other documents do we have such an opportunity (Josephus' histories are one example). Were they compiled quickly into a religious document? Yes. Does this diminish their historical accuracy? Possibly. If that religious document presents truth (and you can take this in an absolute or a relative sense), then the historical accuracy should probably be regarded as high. If, on the other hand, the religious document is patently false even internally, then the historical accuracy should probably be treated with some skepticism. This is aided by having multiple accounts by various individuals in the case of the gospels.
it's been fun.
makes sense - the Christian bias is likely due to Christians being the more vocal party in the US (the only country I know of with the possible exceptions of S. Korea and the Central American countries) that have issues between Theistic creation and long-term development of the universe.