Several women at Stanford's Delta Sigma Theta sorority have reported sightings of strange reptilian creatures crawling around and affixing themselves to the exterior windows of their campus bathroom facilities. Sally Railmane, a sophomore at the school, described a strange light burst, similar to a camera flash, coming from the window creatures as she stepped out of the shower this afternoon. "It was creepy" she said.
University officials were unavailable for comment.
It's probably just some guy standing out there waving around his nano-penis. On the other hand, I suppose it's an interesting twist on the "does size matter?" question.
This is probably offtopic, but I remember the part in the trilogy where an ambassador from another planet visited for 3 days. After he went home, the hosts ran everything he had said thru an analyzer and found that everything cancelled out; he'd effectively said nothing for three days.
Reminds me of many a meeting or sales call.
Same 20 year disclaimer applies here. I should probably reread it!
To claim that "Intelligent Design" is scientific...
I never claimed any such thing, in fact, I explicitly said that it was not scientific. I am fully aware of the deficiencies involved with eyewitness testimony, but I was countering the statement that there was "no evidence".
The irony in all this is that I feel like I'm arguing with myself of 10 years ago. I too had the overwhelming, knee-jerk disdain for mysticism, non-scientific methods, etc. But things have changed over time. I don't know why...
Beavis thats real cool, but you forgot the part about Santa and the Tooth Fairy crashing the party. Santa said "wazzup", and God said "nuthin". Tooth Fairy said "wazzup God-man?". God said "ain't nuthin" and BAM! there was a friggin red-nosed unicorn. Santa was like, "dude...you rock". God just said "yeah mon... I know."
He, he. You just took an obviously absurd suggestion, and said it's equivalent to intelligent design. And you wonder why so many people think ID is laughable?
He, he. you clearly didn't get (or didn't acknowledge) the intent.
Credit to you for [insert appropriate disclaimers] conceding that it is a valid subject. I'm not sure I understand the knee-jerk reaction against science class - do we not explore the unknown in science?
Thousands of years of common human history? common stories? anecdotal evidence? It's not that there is no evidence, just not scientific-method evidence.
Oh no! You must be right! The mysteries have all been solved! I'd better stop considering everything else right now!
Ah good, so you *do* believe its intelligent design. Welcome aboard.
The idea being discussed is either natural (it just happened) or intelligent (something driving it) evolution. The invisible pink elephants or guys with white beards stuff is simply an implementation detail.
Well, that is the first time in my 40+ years i've ever been referred to as a "religious nut". Congratulations.
I committed the grevious error of asking others to consider viewpoints outside of their own.
By the way, I never suggested that evolutionary theory was wrong. If anything, I suggested that science doesn't know everything. Booga booga booga!!! You scared now...dude??
You don't prove a negative, you present evidence for a positive
Says who? Why is contemporary evolutionary theory the only one I should consider? I can present any number of hypotheses that could alternately explain how the earth came to be, some using the existing evidence and others that do not. Why are you unwilling to consider those?
Funny that I got modded down as "overrated". What are you people afraid of? That legions of scientists will give up research in exchange for mysticism? Since when is considering all points of view unscientific?
but that curiosity is itself a survival mechanism - we all must learn from our environment to live. Robots could care less if they survive or not, get smarter or not, etc.
I always wondered what motivation robots have for "learning". Humans are driven by various needs (e.g. shelter/sex/food/beer) - what needs do the robots have? Why should they try to improve upon themselves? I'm doubtful that programming alone will ever make robots anything more than overglorified "hello world" programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. You should never ship the sofware with known bugs. Just change the documentation such that "known bugs" become "features".
Several women at Stanford's Delta Sigma Theta sorority have reported sightings of strange reptilian creatures crawling around and affixing themselves to the exterior windows of their campus bathroom facilities. Sally Railmane, a sophomore at the school, described a strange light burst, similar to a camera flash, coming from the window creatures as she stepped out of the shower this afternoon. "It was creepy" she said.
University officials were unavailable for comment.
It's probably just some guy standing out there waving around his nano-penis. On the other hand, I suppose it's an interesting twist on the "does size matter?" question.
This is probably offtopic, but I remember the part in the trilogy where an ambassador from another planet visited for 3 days. After he went home, the hosts ran everything he had said thru an analyzer and found that everything cancelled out; he'd effectively said nothing for three days.
Reminds me of many a meeting or sales call.
Same 20 year disclaimer applies here. I should probably reread it!
public boolean duiChecker(double perpAlcoholContent)
{
return (perpAlcoholContent > STATELIMIT);
}
Satisfied? You damn OSS people beat it out of us.
The ASIMO suit for the midget doesn't really cost all that much.
Heck, I already keep volatile nuclear material near my crotch all day every day.
Moderate -2 Too much information.
To claim that "Intelligent Design" is scientific...
I never claimed any such thing, in fact, I explicitly said that it was not scientific. I am fully aware of the deficiencies involved with eyewitness testimony, but I was countering the statement that there was "no evidence".
The irony in all this is that I feel like I'm arguing with myself of 10 years ago. I too had the overwhelming, knee-jerk disdain for mysticism, non-scientific methods, etc. But things have changed over time. I don't know why...
We send people to jail on stories and anecdotes. I believe they call it ....testimonial evidence (its described in painstaking detail here).
Perhaps you should reread what I said...naw...
Beavis thats real cool, but you forgot the part about Santa and the Tooth Fairy crashing the party. Santa said "wazzup", and God said "nuthin". Tooth Fairy said "wazzup God-man?". God said "ain't nuthin" and BAM! there was a friggin red-nosed unicorn. Santa was like, "dude...you rock". God just said "yeah mon... I know."
He, he. You just took an obviously absurd suggestion, and said it's equivalent to intelligent design. And you wonder why so many people think ID is laughable?
He, he. you clearly didn't get (or didn't acknowledge) the intent.
Credit to you for [insert appropriate disclaimers] conceding that it is a valid subject. I'm not sure I understand the knee-jerk reaction against science class - do we not explore the unknown in science?
Thousands of years of common human history? common stories? anecdotal evidence? It's not that there is no evidence, just not scientific-method evidence.
Oh no! You must be right! The mysteries have all been solved! I'd better stop considering everything else right now!
Ah good, so you *do* believe its intelligent design. Welcome aboard.
The idea being discussed is either natural (it just happened) or intelligent (something driving it) evolution. The invisible pink elephants or guys with white beards stuff is simply an implementation detail.
I find it impressive that it generates so much passion actually...it's almost...religious.
Well, that is the first time in my 40+ years i've ever been referred to as a "religious nut". Congratulations.
I committed the grevious error of asking others to consider viewpoints outside of their own.
By the way, I never suggested that evolutionary theory was wrong. If anything, I suggested that science doesn't know everything. Booga booga booga!!! You scared now...dude??
However when there is not a single shred of evidence to support the views they are discarded.
Utter nonsense. Theories are not discarded because of a lack of evidence, they are discarded when the evidence specifically refutes them.
Science isn't fair.
Now that's funny.
You don't prove a negative, you present evidence for a positive
Says who? Why is contemporary evolutionary theory the only one I should consider? I can present any number of hypotheses that could alternately explain how the earth came to be, some using the existing evidence and others that do not. Why are you unwilling to consider those?
Funny that I got modded down as "overrated". What are you people afraid of? That legions of scientists will give up research in exchange for mysticism? Since when is considering all points of view unscientific?
Please provide your proof to show there is no intelligent design. Thanks.
Do they share what the color palette for the blue screen is?
Well thanks for the psychoanalysis and technical enlightenment [yawn]. (My children might argue with some of your conclusions tho)
but that curiosity is itself a survival mechanism - we all must learn from our environment to live. Robots could care less if they survive or not, get smarter or not, etc.
I always wondered what motivation robots have for "learning". Humans are driven by various needs (e.g. shelter/sex/food/beer) - what needs do the robots have? Why should they try to improve upon themselves? I'm doubtful that programming alone will ever make robots anything more than overglorified "hello world" programs.
World Intellectual Property Day Was My Idea!
all Saddam has to do is show us where the missing files are.
They used to be 17, but got extended (and grandfathered) to 20 when the US signed up for the GATT treaty.