It amazes me how people write stuff in Java without having a decent "Date" data type. Why should I have to use a third party library to get decent date support?
Java 8 introduced a new date time API. Admittedly I haven't used it as all of my code uses the old API. As far as the old API, one would use a Calendar when they are working with social dates and times and use a Date when working with an exact point in time. It isn't difficult.
For the record, I agree that "MightyMartian" was a bit harsh, and I did enjoy reading your rebuttal. But with that said, I have a question. My understanding of the "big bang" is that the singularity began to exist and was all of space. And that it began to expand and continues to expand today. And that the expansion has not reached the point where we can no longer observe the beginning of space/time. Is this inaccurate?
It depends on how you define inferior. That's why I put them in quotes. If you define it as which hardware can process more data per second then the Wii U is inferior. If you judge on which hardware provides the best entertainment, then I don't know how anyone can say that the Wii U is inferior. The games are fun, they look pretty, and they are memorable. Personally I think a platform that consistently hosts glitchy boring games is an inferior platform.
Quite simple: The idea of a God does not make any sense. At all.
I agree that a contingent God does not make sense since you go into an infinite regress. Instead if we must have a first cause (which is demanded by the Big Bang), then this cause must exist by necessity. Which isn't a far fetched idea. Numbers, for example, exist by necessity. Nobody created 4. It just is.
But now we're left with a problem. We need a causal something that exists by necessity. And given that the universe exists with contingent laws and contingent constants that just so happen to be necessary for even chemistry to happen, we have an intelligent causal entity that exists by necessity. Call that what you will, but I call it God.
If you take those three attributes away you get something that's worse than magic. Somehow a causal necessary thing just so happen to get the right laws and constants? Or an intelligent necessary thing with no causal power? Or a contingent causal thing (what you think about when you say God)? No. The prime cause of everything must have all three attributes.
why care about "naturally occuring"? Dogs are not naturally occuring. Neither are GMO crops. They are alive.
They use natural process to exist and they come from naturally existing life. A scientist doesn't create a tomato from scratch. He reprograms existing life to manipulate life. Same with dogs. Dogs are breed using natural mechanism (fertilizing eggs, etc...) Nobody just builds a dog from scratch.
That is the question. I think what these scientist mean is that life is a "naturally occurring" complex and organized set of matter that can reproduce and consume energy. So naturally occurring mechanical entities may be alive where as a robot built by man wouldn't.
I know, right! Sometimes the most eloquent solution is right under our noses.
Let me just run a fiber cable to the nearest hub. It can't be that expensive can it?
Nope. Not expensive at all. In most markets, Google will charge $300 to do this for you. In some markets they change $30. But if you subscribe to gigabit or gigabit+TV, they'll waive the fee.
You could just do what I did and switch to Google Fiber. It's pretty decent quality and you get free equipment like an 802.11n router. For cable, your remote control is a free tablet that you get to keep. Not sure why more people haven't done this...
You sir, are the only human on planet Earth that thinks MSNBC is centrist. MSNBC even admits that they are extreme leftists and that they're proud of it.
I simply do not think like you. I can imagine a sports conversation with you,
You "So do you like the 49ers?" Me "No... I'm not into footb---" You "I knew it! You're a Broncos fan!" Me "Well, no... I just don't foll--" You "You already said you didn't like the 49ers. So you must be asserting that you're a Broncos fan!" Me "What?"
Not being swayed simply means that. If someone gives neither reasons nor citations (you just need one in informal conversation) for thinking something is true, it just doesn't sway me. It doesn't mean I took the other side. But at least the guy or gal in favor of the Fair Tax explained why he liked it.
"Scientology has been torn apart many times." By your logic, pointing that out is a statement supporting Scientology.
How do you figure? By my logic it says that you can't use "weasel words". It doesn't attempt to determine if the comment is correct or the opposite is correct.
"The Fair tax as been torn apart many times." By whom? What studies? Maybe it doesn't work, maybe it does. But just telling me that it's been torn apart many times doesn't convince people like me, nor does it persuade me in the opposite direction.
I don't get it when people say things like this. "X has been torn apart many time!" or "Scientists have already proven X!" Especially since your argument has been torn apart many times.
It seems odd for you to start out by saying that everything I say is wrong, but follow up with points that actually agree with and validate my position
Fair enough. I guess what I was trying to say is that the idea that "Science" never caused anyone to do any of the things you mentioned was incorrect. Yes, religious people are encouraged to marry within their religion for the same reason you stated. Though I am surprised that you wouldn't mind your children growing up to have the inability to "follow logic and reason".
But you know what's really weird about your response. You keep proclaiming "open-mindedness" while clearly showing an intolerance towards people of faith. A bit amusing, don't you think?
I can appreciate what you're saying, but everything you just said is false. I understand it will upset you because you wish what you said was true, but it isn't.
First Science isn't one man's idea or philosophy just like there are many sects to Religion. Some people, like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, encourage ridiculing or mocking religious people. But you excuse it because Science® is Right. I'm sure the murderers who killed 3000 people 13 years ago thought they were Right too.
"Science doesn't demand we marry other people from the same denomination; marriages between a physicist and a biologist are just as sacred" That's a categorical error. In Christianity, a pastor and a music director can marry just like a biologist and physicist can. But you are correct that Christianity demands that people marry who have the same belief system. This is perfectly normal. You wouldn't marry a devout Christian, right? They'd get on your nerves and it would make a crappy marriage.
"Science doesn't force us into indoctrinating our children into our faith in the one true meaning of Dark Matter." Right, but you would not be happy at all if your children became Christians, right? Obviously someone who actually believes that there is a God out there that loves, cares, and forgives you of sins would want their children to know about Him too, right?
"Nobody has fought a war to eradicate the filthy heretical." WWII - need I say more. Anyway, I can go on, but the point is, "Science is objectively morally right" is just wishful thinking. When there are humans involved - no matter their philosophical beliefs - there will be "Bad Stuff" happening.
I can tell from your comment that you're far more enlightened than us normal people. So while I find your explanation of why counterfeit pens don't work fascinating, I even more interested in your solution to this problem. If an old lady wants to buy shelves from me that I'm selling on Craigslist, how should I make that financial transaction?
When I list something on Craigslist, I only accept cash or debit. While not foolproof, cash can be checked for legitimacy with a counterfeit detector pen. And while cards can be stolen, checking their ID will stop most cases of fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
It amazes me how people write stuff in Java without having a decent "Date" data type. Why should I have to use a third party library to get decent date support?
Java 8 introduced a new date time API. Admittedly I haven't used it as all of my code uses the old API. As far as the old API, one would use a Calendar when they are working with social dates and times and use a Date when working with an exact point in time. It isn't difficult.
For the record, I agree that "MightyMartian" was a bit harsh, and I did enjoy reading your rebuttal. But with that said, I have a question. My understanding of the "big bang" is that the singularity began to exist and was all of space. And that it began to expand and continues to expand today. And that the expansion has not reached the point where we can no longer observe the beginning of space/time. Is this inaccurate?
Space is not infinite. It is expanding.
This is the first time the "first post" post is somewhat related to the article. Well done, Tablizer.
It depends on how you define inferior. That's why I put them in quotes. If you define it as which hardware can process more data per second then the Wii U is inferior. If you judge on which hardware provides the best entertainment, then I don't know how anyone can say that the Wii U is inferior. The games are fun, they look pretty, and they are memorable. Personally I think a platform that consistently hosts glitchy boring games is an inferior platform.
Everybody's complaining about Assassin's Creed... and I'm just here playing Mario Kart 8 at 1080p/60fps on my "inferior" game console.
Good thing someone came from the future to warn us. Whew!
Quite simple: The idea of a God does not make any sense. At all.
I agree that a contingent God does not make sense since you go into an infinite regress. Instead if we must have a first cause (which is demanded by the Big Bang), then this cause must exist by necessity. Which isn't a far fetched idea. Numbers, for example, exist by necessity. Nobody created 4. It just is.
But now we're left with a problem. We need a causal something that exists by necessity. And given that the universe exists with contingent laws and contingent constants that just so happen to be necessary for even chemistry to happen, we have an intelligent causal entity that exists by necessity. Call that what you will, but I call it God.
If you take those three attributes away you get something that's worse than magic. Somehow a causal necessary thing just so happen to get the right laws and constants? Or an intelligent necessary thing with no causal power? Or a contingent causal thing (what you think about when you say God)? No. The prime cause of everything must have all three attributes.
why care about "naturally occuring"? Dogs are not naturally occuring. Neither are GMO crops. They are alive.
They use natural process to exist and they come from naturally existing life. A scientist doesn't create a tomato from scratch. He reprograms existing life to manipulate life. Same with dogs. Dogs are breed using natural mechanism (fertilizing eggs, etc...) Nobody just builds a dog from scratch.
I doubt that could happen from scratch. So far humans have only been able to make life from life. Which makes sense.
But if one would build an organic cell from scratch, is it life or is it a gooey robot?
That is the question. I think what these scientist mean is that life is a "naturally occurring" complex and organized set of matter that can reproduce and consume energy. So naturally occurring mechanical entities may be alive where as a robot built by man wouldn't.
Then I read in the summary that they were talking about a woman.
Wow why didn't I think of that?
I know, right! Sometimes the most eloquent solution is right under our noses.
Let me just run a fiber cable to the nearest hub. It can't be that expensive can it?
Nope. Not expensive at all. In most markets, Google will charge $300 to do this for you. In some markets they change $30. But if you subscribe to gigabit or gigabit+TV, they'll waive the fee.
You could just do what I did and switch to Google Fiber. It's pretty decent quality and you get free equipment like an 802.11n router. For cable, your remote control is a free tablet that you get to keep. Not sure why more people haven't done this...
You sir, are the only human on planet Earth that thinks MSNBC is centrist. MSNBC even admits that they are extreme leftists and that they're proud of it.
I simply do not think like you. I can imagine a sports conversation with you,
You "So do you like the 49ers?"
Me "No... I'm not into footb---"
You "I knew it! You're a Broncos fan!"
Me "Well, no... I just don't foll--"
You "You already said you didn't like the 49ers. So you must be asserting that you're a Broncos fan!"
Me "What?"
Not being swayed simply means that. If someone gives neither reasons nor citations (you just need one in informal conversation) for thinking something is true, it just doesn't sway me. It doesn't mean I took the other side. But at least the guy or gal in favor of the Fair Tax explained why he liked it.
There's quite a few complexes near where I live that have Google Fiber. It's proudly advertised on various complex's banners.
"Scientology has been torn apart many times."
By your logic, pointing that out is a statement supporting Scientology.
How do you figure? By my logic it says that you can't use "weasel words". It doesn't attempt to determine if the comment is correct or the opposite is correct.
"The Fair tax as been torn apart many times." By whom? What studies? Maybe it doesn't work, maybe it does. But just telling me that it's been torn apart many times doesn't convince people like me, nor does it persuade me in the opposite direction.
I don't get it when people say things like this. "X has been torn apart many time!" or "Scientists have already proven X!" Especially since your argument has been torn apart many times.
It seems odd for you to start out by saying that everything I say is wrong, but follow up with points that actually agree with and validate my position
Fair enough. I guess what I was trying to say is that the idea that "Science" never caused anyone to do any of the things you mentioned was incorrect. Yes, religious people are encouraged to marry within their religion for the same reason you stated. Though I am surprised that you wouldn't mind your children growing up to have the inability to "follow logic and reason".
But you know what's really weird about your response. You keep proclaiming "open-mindedness" while clearly showing an intolerance towards people of faith. A bit amusing, don't you think?
I can appreciate what you're saying, but everything you just said is false. I understand it will upset you because you wish what you said was true, but it isn't.
First Science isn't one man's idea or philosophy just like there are many sects to Religion. Some people, like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, encourage ridiculing or mocking religious people. But you excuse it because Science® is Right. I'm sure the murderers who killed 3000 people 13 years ago thought they were Right too.
"Science doesn't demand we marry other people from the same denomination; marriages between a physicist and a biologist are just as sacred" That's a categorical error. In Christianity, a pastor and a music director can marry just like a biologist and physicist can. But you are correct that Christianity demands that people marry who have the same belief system. This is perfectly normal. You wouldn't marry a devout Christian, right? They'd get on your nerves and it would make a crappy marriage.
"Science doesn't force us into indoctrinating our children into our faith in the one true meaning of Dark Matter." Right, but you would not be happy at all if your children became Christians, right? Obviously someone who actually believes that there is a God out there that loves, cares, and forgives you of sins would want their children to know about Him too, right?
"Nobody has fought a war to eradicate the filthy heretical." WWII - need I say more. Anyway, I can go on, but the point is, "Science is objectively morally right" is just wishful thinking. When there are humans involved - no matter their philosophical beliefs - there will be "Bad Stuff" happening.
I wonder if this is a step towards becoming a software company since they haven't done so well in the device industry... especially in Japan.
But it's not that much different to bring 10 mbps to new markets. I'd rather see them roll out 10mbps to new areas than 4mbps
I can tell from your comment that you're far more enlightened than us normal people. So while I find your explanation of why counterfeit pens don't work fascinating, I even more interested in your solution to this problem. If an old lady wants to buy shelves from me that I'm selling on Craigslist, how should I make that financial transaction?
When I list something on Craigslist, I only accept cash or debit. While not foolproof, cash can be checked for legitimacy with a counterfeit detector pen. And while cards can be stolen, checking their ID will stop most cases of fraud.