If you reply "I don't know, and we can never tell" to everything, you won't get anywhere. Atheists say "There is no god." and based on that assumption have made great advances in science. Theists say "There is a God." and have made great advances in philosophy. Agnostics say "Maybe there is nothing, maybe I'm still asleep... mmm sleep I'm going to go sleep." I doubt there are more than a handful of true Strong Agnostics, and there are far far too many weak agnostics "Who cares I want a burger."
I choose theism because if you run the equation, I like the answer. I'm a believer because I want to be.
I agree, if you simply answer every question with "magic", you'll never try to dig deeper. The mind of a scientist should always question and always explore further into the unkown. A scientist is an explorer of knowledge, if we believe we have explored everything we will not venture futher into the unknown.
Having said that, it doesn't remove the possibility that somthing could be 'magic'. Although it would take intensive scientific study to conclude this, and even then would most likely be proven later that the testing methods simply weren't accurate enough. God is in the unknowns, therefore shouldn't religion explore the unknowns further? I disagree with your conclusion that religion defaults scientific exploration. There needs to be a balance. Somthing IDists can't seem to grasp.
Couldn't agree with you more. I don't think micromanaging an entire universe would be very stimulating. If there is a diety (and I believe there is) the most likely means of creation (in my mind) would be the one with the least intervention necessary, just get the ball rolling so to speak...
That being said. That would fall under the 'random' although perhaps planned event that was the beginning of life. If it was planned it must have been one hell of a 'shot' through time to setup the universe so this planet formed etc etc... However that is all nothing more than one persons guess work and idle speculation. The intention still stands. Life either started through natural process, or direct formation.
Well once it all got going, there is an infinite number of ways in which life could have developed (Evolution as we know it today seems the most probable). I was refering to the spark. While if the original spark was "random", I mean that only in the sense that it was universally improbable, but naturally destined to occur thanks to natural laws.
I did not mean to sudgest that positive mutation and selection was a purely random process, although there is an element of chance in what mutations will arise, and whether a positive one will meet an unfortunate end before it can breed.
Intelligent Design also provides no scientific basis for itself. Intelligent design is simply an Anti-Theory. It states that evolution is wrong, therefore it's right. It is legitimate for a theory to be questioned, it is not a logical practice to assume that because A is wrong B is correct unless there are only two choices. If intelligent design could prove that random processes in general COULD NOT create life it would have a leg to stand on. It may make a small case against evolution, but it makes no case against improbable events.
So what are you sudgesting? Creatures only died in bursts? There are only two logical conclusions based on your complaint. A) There were NO species during these gaps in the fossil record or B) No creatures left fossils during these gaps. A is rediculous so B must be the conclusion. There have been intermediates, we just can't conclude with absolute certainty which are actually intermediates. Just like we can't conclusively track the lineage from wolves to Pit Bulls.
Technically I would have to say that Strong Agnosticism is the only logical conclusion. With the number of unknowns in the universe, nobody can ever conclusively find somthing to be true. Assuming infinite universes and infinite time, everything nomatter how improbbable has happened. Seeing as we can't prove how many universes there are, we can't conclude whether or not there is a God called Yahweh/Alah/etc.. somewhere in some universe. Atheism, while I would say isn't a religion, isn't necessarily that rational itself, and it's definetely not very fun. Agnosticism, is dull and bland, non commital and borderline dishonorable. So rationally I would say theism/deism is the best choice. You get the best bang for your buck.
Isn't there a third option? That this universe was created through a random process by an intelligent designer?
I don't know about you, but if I was going to create a universe, I wouldn't want to micro-manage it. It would be much more intrigueing to use varrying explosive charges and create universes from a single singularity and just see what shit happens.
You make a valid point, except that it is simply irrelevant in relation to this article. By 2006 (most likely 2007) every PC will have a Pixel shader 2 card. I remember when windows 2k was coming out everyone was worried about the menu shadows being only accessible on DX7 cards. Now nobody things anything of shadows and translucent windows.
Disclaimer: It may have been DX8... point is the same either way.
Sorry but you only have two choices. If it wasn't by chance. Then you must accept it was of divine origins. The 'third' option: life is alien to this world, is simply pushing back the debate chronologically because that alien life must have come into being somehow.. which brings you back to random or divine. Divine can cirumvent the alien paradox since it could plausibily be beyond time etc etc...
Actually the internet is fundamentally different in the regulatory problems. The reason the government was able to deregulate the internet is because it is potentially limited in size only by the network that it is composed of. The FCC needs to regulate the airwaves so that the limited spectrum of radio frequencies don't get cluttered and useless.
Unless of course you're sudgesting you have found a new subspace trasmission model in which a near infinite number of channels can be created.
Actually your response isn't entirely accurate. While the FCC is mandating "HDTV" broadcasting, their definition of HDTV isn't what you would normally think of HDTV to be. All broadcasters are required to broadcast in Digital 480p. 1080i Broadcasting would be prohibitively expensive for many markets, and the hardware end would be prohibitively expensive for consumers. Infact while the standard requires broadcasters to broadcast at 480p, TVs will still be able to display at 480i. The only significant change of the HDTV legislation will be that broadcasters are required to broadcast in Digital. And as someone said earlier, you can fit 6 digital channels into one analog one. Therefore I personally believe this move is as much a move to "clear the airwaves" as it is to improve consumer experience.
I see a case mod in the near future. Seems easy enough take a 15" cheap LCD. mount it onto a hard surface with hinges. Mount a keyboard on the opposite side. Intall a screen protector.
The solution to many of life's problems is the ability to make a solution.
Once on hold for half an hour, I just swore at them for 15 minutes... in the off chance that the little message meant they listen to on hold time as well. I also sang songs for a while. Read to them from a book. I gave up after an hour. Good times....
I demoed Windows 2k3 on my system. All of my graphics applications blazed. I ran some games and literally saw a 100% performance increase across the board. Windows 2k3 is like a miracle drug, too bad it's year is also the lowend price $2,003.
Of course my work is always better when I'm doing it for the sake of doing it. But let me tell you somthing, I know for a fact I get a hell of a lot more work DONE when I'm getting payed to do it.
Me:"I should design a really cool character model and rig it."
OtherSideofMe:"But you worked all day already just take a break and watch some TV."
Me:"That makes sense... ok."
Don't believe me? Look at the sheer volume of OSS that never gets out of beta. Deadlines, profits and wages have a funny way of at least getting somthing to a mostly functional point. I think alot of minor software will always be OSS, like somebody mentioned about corporations releasing the little modules they design, an example of this would be the Blur Studios 3D Studio Max Plugins. Just stuff they work on and are willing to share with the world since they could never make money off of it. But let me guarantee you somthing, if ANY piece of software could be sold, somebody will find a way to sell it.
One could also argue that Microsoft never had a monopoly on the browser market because you could always buy Netscape, or Netscape could always develop a competing operating system.
Of course that doesn't make any sense because microsoft is evil and apple isn't. It's as clear as that... right?
Just when I thought that Slashdot News Posters couldn't interpret news more bizzarely this gem comes along.
"I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs. "
Really? Because I have never in my LIFE had to replace a motherboard to accomadate a new drive. I'm not even sure WHY you would need to buy a new MotherBoard for a larger drive unless you want a new bus, which could also be accomadated through an expansion card. I have bought a scsi card before for just such a purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
If you reply "I don't know, and we can never tell" to everything, you won't get anywhere. Atheists say "There is no god." and based on that assumption have made great advances in science. Theists say "There is a God." and have made great advances in philosophy. Agnostics say "Maybe there is nothing, maybe I'm still asleep... mmm sleep I'm going to go sleep." I doubt there are more than a handful of true Strong Agnostics, and there are far far too many weak agnostics "Who cares I want a burger."
I choose theism because if you run the equation, I like the answer. I'm a believer because I want to be.
Good point. I'll add a condition to make it accurate.
"... " Assuming there was an origin to life "..."
I agree, if you simply answer every question with "magic", you'll never try to dig deeper. The mind of a scientist should always question and always explore further into the unkown. A scientist is an explorer of knowledge, if we believe we have explored everything we will not venture futher into the unknown.
Having said that, it doesn't remove the possibility that somthing could be 'magic'. Although it would take intensive scientific study to conclude this, and even then would most likely be proven later that the testing methods simply weren't accurate enough. God is in the unknowns, therefore shouldn't religion explore the unknowns further? I disagree with your conclusion that religion defaults scientific exploration. There needs to be a balance. Somthing IDists can't seem to grasp.
Couldn't agree with you more. I don't think micromanaging an entire universe would be very stimulating. If there is a diety (and I believe there is) the most likely means of creation (in my mind) would be the one with the least intervention necessary, just get the ball rolling so to speak...
That being said. That would fall under the 'random' although perhaps planned event that was the beginning of life. If it was planned it must have been one hell of a 'shot' through time to setup the universe so this planet formed etc etc... However that is all nothing more than one persons guess work and idle speculation. The intention still stands. Life either started through natural process, or direct formation.
Well once it all got going, there is an infinite number of ways in which life could have developed (Evolution as we know it today seems the most probable). I was refering to the spark. While if the original spark was "random", I mean that only in the sense that it was universally improbable, but naturally destined to occur thanks to natural laws. I did not mean to sudgest that positive mutation and selection was a purely random process, although there is an element of chance in what mutations will arise, and whether a positive one will meet an unfortunate end before it can breed.
Intelligent Design also provides no scientific basis for itself. Intelligent design is simply an Anti-Theory. It states that evolution is wrong, therefore it's right. It is legitimate for a theory to be questioned, it is not a logical practice to assume that because A is wrong B is correct unless there are only two choices. If intelligent design could prove that random processes in general COULD NOT create life it would have a leg to stand on. It may make a small case against evolution, but it makes no case against improbable events.
So what are you sudgesting? Creatures only died in bursts? There are only two logical conclusions based on your complaint. A) There were NO species during these gaps in the fossil record or B) No creatures left fossils during these gaps. A is rediculous so B must be the conclusion. There have been intermediates, we just can't conclude with absolute certainty which are actually intermediates. Just like we can't conclusively track the lineage from wolves to Pit Bulls.
Technically I would have to say that Strong Agnosticism is the only logical conclusion. With the number of unknowns in the universe, nobody can ever conclusively find somthing to be true. Assuming infinite universes and infinite time, everything nomatter how improbbable has happened. Seeing as we can't prove how many universes there are, we can't conclude whether or not there is a God called Yahweh/Alah/etc.. somewhere in some universe. Atheism, while I would say isn't a religion, isn't necessarily that rational itself, and it's definetely not very fun. Agnosticism, is dull and bland, non commital and borderline dishonorable. So rationally I would say theism/deism is the best choice. You get the best bang for your buck.
Isn't there a third option? That this universe was created through a random process by an intelligent designer?
I don't know about you, but if I was going to create a universe, I wouldn't want to micro-manage it. It would be much more intrigueing to use varrying explosive charges and create universes from a single singularity and just see what shit happens.
Why would a map need a sticker? It's already planar.
Amen! I have trouble breathing through my nose because of a nasal defect. It's just plain simpler for some people to breath through their mouth.
You make a valid point, except that it is simply irrelevant in relation to this article. By 2006 (most likely 2007) every PC will have a Pixel shader 2 card. I remember when windows 2k was coming out everyone was worried about the menu shadows being only accessible on DX7 cards. Now nobody things anything of shadows and translucent windows.
Disclaimer: It may have been DX8... point is the same either way.
Sorry but you only have two choices. If it wasn't by chance. Then you must accept it was of divine origins. The 'third' option: life is alien to this world, is simply pushing back the debate chronologically because that alien life must have come into being somehow.. which brings you back to random or divine. Divine can cirumvent the alien paradox since it could plausibily be beyond time etc etc...
Actually the internet is fundamentally different in the regulatory problems. The reason the government was able to deregulate the internet is because it is potentially limited in size only by the network that it is composed of. The FCC needs to regulate the airwaves so that the limited spectrum of radio frequencies don't get cluttered and useless.
Unless of course you're sudgesting you have found a new subspace trasmission model in which a near infinite number of channels can be created.
Actually your response isn't entirely accurate. While the FCC is mandating "HDTV" broadcasting, their definition of HDTV isn't what you would normally think of HDTV to be. All broadcasters are required to broadcast in Digital 480p. 1080i Broadcasting would be prohibitively expensive for many markets, and the hardware end would be prohibitively expensive for consumers. Infact while the standard requires broadcasters to broadcast at 480p, TVs will still be able to display at 480i. The only significant change of the HDTV legislation will be that broadcasters are required to broadcast in Digital. And as someone said earlier, you can fit 6 digital channels into one analog one. Therefore I personally believe this move is as much a move to "clear the airwaves" as it is to improve consumer experience.
I see a case mod in the near future. Seems easy enough take a 15" cheap LCD. mount it onto a hard surface with hinges. Mount a keyboard on the opposite side. Intall a screen protector.
The solution to many of life's problems is the ability to make a solution.
Don't get your hopes up. It said Gamers are on average normal human beings. Nobody is claiming Slashdotters are.
Once on hold for half an hour, I just swore at them for 15 minutes... in the off chance that the little message meant they listen to on hold time as well. I also sang songs for a while. Read to them from a book. I gave up after an hour. Good times....
I have tried several games and the only one I found that didn't work was Warcraft III.
I demoed Windows 2k3 on my system. All of my graphics applications blazed. I ran some games and literally saw a 100% performance increase across the board. Windows 2k3 is like a miracle drug, too bad it's year is also the lowend price $2,003.
Of course my work is always better when I'm doing it for the sake of doing it. But let me tell you somthing, I know for a fact I get a hell of a lot more work DONE when I'm getting payed to do it.
Me:"I should design a really cool character model and rig it." OtherSideofMe:"But you worked all day already just take a break and watch some TV." Me:"That makes sense... ok."
Don't believe me? Look at the sheer volume of OSS that never gets out of beta. Deadlines, profits and wages have a funny way of at least getting somthing to a mostly functional point. I think alot of minor software will always be OSS, like somebody mentioned about corporations releasing the little modules they design, an example of this would be the Blur Studios 3D Studio Max Plugins. Just stuff they work on and are willing to share with the world since they could never make money off of it. But let me guarantee you somthing, if ANY piece of software could be sold, somebody will find a way to sell it.
One could also argue that Microsoft never had a monopoly on the browser market because you could always buy Netscape, or Netscape could always develop a competing operating system.
Of course that doesn't make any sense because microsoft is evil and apple isn't. It's as clear as that... right?
Just when I thought that Slashdot News Posters couldn't interpret news more bizzarely this gem comes along.
"I think I've replaced more mobo's to handle larger drives than I have to support faster CPUs. "
Really? Because I have never in my LIFE had to replace a motherboard to accomadate a new drive. I'm not even sure WHY you would need to buy a new MotherBoard for a larger drive unless you want a new bus, which could also be accomadated through an expansion card. I have bought a scsi card before for just such a purpose.
Except where are you going to find a 42" Widescreen CRT? Goodluck.
I'll have to tell the poor sap he got ignored again tommarow.