Well, we've only been changing our environment to suit our own behavior since the first caveman started chipping rocks to make the first primitive tools. We call that "technology". If you'd like to go back to before that, I believe you're quite welcome to. But don't half-ass it, go all the way with it, k?
Amazingly, Barry Hussein Osama, I mean, Obama didn't have any problem getting those ticks next to his name. I don't mean that as a political slam, just saying that to me and maybe others Hussein and a last name that sounds really close to Osama would have negative connotations, but he's still in the White House.
Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't see any way that the Newsweek photo could have come from any of the photos taken from runnersworld that you posted. There aren't any that are even of the same angle of her face.
When I went to be heard by the judge, the first thing she tells me is: "I know nothing of computers, for me they are just typewriters".
Reading that, for some reason, is really horrifying to me. It just seems very, very wrong to have a judge who knows nothing about and indeed seems to have an aversion to computers presiding and ruling over an IT related case.
As such, can you truly claim that wars committed to in the name of religion actually follow the tenets of the religion they claim to represent?
It doesn't matter what you think; to those committing those horrible acts, they do believe so. To them, they most likely firmly believe that they are correct in what they are doing, for they do it in God's name and as horrible as it may seem to you, they know that they are in the right because they believe their faith tells them they are. This is the tragedy of religion: you can use it to justify all the horrible acts you can imagine, based on nothing but that which you imagine.
At the end of the day, if a Christian and a Muslim declare war on each other, aren't they abandoning their faith in the name of conflict?
They probably would tell you no. In fact, they would tell you exactly the opposite. And who are you to argue with that?
Yet I'm still more than just a complicated chemical reaction, billions of years in the making.
[citation needed]
No, you aren't.
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
I could totally have seen Wave replacing our corporate email. I can't count how many times I've gone through email conversations between myself, management, and some third party (such as our website developers) and thought "man, what a mess to keep track of. Google Wave would have been perfect for this."
Of course, the problem was everyone has email already. Getting everyone to start using a completely new communications medium all at the same time was just not going to happen. The lack (AFAIK) of local client programs that would handle Wave doesn't help. Checking your Waves isn't as easy as running Outlook or Thunderbird. With those, you just run the program. With Wave, you have to open your web browser, surf to the right URL, and login. Sure it sounds like a trivial difference, but are most people gonna switch from what they're already comfortable with? Probably not.
Wave was a great idea as a replacement to email. I wish it had worked out.:(
"Evolutionist" is not an accurate term in that it implies a belief in evolution. As an evidence-borne science, evolution does not require belief.
By denying the right to use this incorrect and purposely misleading term, you aren't making it IMPOSSIBLE to voice their opinion. What you are doing is making it impossible for them to voice their opinion in the way intended, the purpose of which is to mislead people into thinking that evolution is but one "camp" of ideas in biology.
The word "biologists" is the proper term that ISN'T misleading. They won't use it because it shows just how ridiculous their "opinion" is compared to actual scientists rather than their intended connotation of "a few dogmatic scientists who hate God!"
Do you also let your kids get away with arguments like that when it comes to explaining how the window got broken?
This, to me, is the best argument against religion ever. If you want to posit supernatural explanations for something, where do you draw the line and say what supernatural explanations are acceptable and which aren't? What if I said that God told me that I was to be the new king of the world? No, he really did! Why don't you believe me?!
Religious superstitionists are more than happy to dismiss absurdity when they see it, yet can't understand and/or rationalize away when others see theirs. This is the hypocrite that I just can't and probably won't ever understand.
If more sites started working correctly without worrying about IE, it either might actually get MS to fix it or get people to install browsers that "work".
If you limit yourself to the 1a definition, then sure, cameras don't have eyes (or do they?) and therefore don't "see", but according to the 1b, "to perceive or detect as if by sight", I'd say a camera fits that definition pretty well.
As far as computers "knowing" things, I would also say that's what these cameras are doing: recognizing and reporting on something.
It's very nitpicky, but when you make an assertion that these things are common sense, it makes me want to counter that it depends on the definitions. Where does the hard difference lie in how computers and cameras (I'd argue that digital cameras are just specialized computers) process information and what your brain does? There are those that would argue it's nothing more than a matter of scale (me being one of them) and we'll continue to have this argument until we have intelligent machines. There will probably be those that argue even beyond then whether or not computers "know" or "see" or "understand".
I'm just typing out loud now, feel free to ignore my lunatic ranting.:P
If you're so fucking unimaginative to understand the analogy and why it holds true despite it being a tv show, then I recommend you get your head out of your ass and try something creative for the first time in your life, anonymous coward. Do I really have to explain it to you?
Slashdot Mirror
They got him midpost!
Then try rocket surgery! It's a bitch!
If without the above you'd die of boredom, then we're probably better off without you.
Well, we've only been changing our environment to suit our own behavior since the first caveman started chipping rocks to make the first primitive tools. We call that "technology". If you'd like to go back to before that, I believe you're quite welcome to. But don't half-ass it, go all the way with it, k?
Works for North Korea...
Amazingly, Barry Hussein Osama, I mean, Obama didn't have any problem getting those ticks next to his name. I don't mean that as a political slam, just saying that to me and maybe others Hussein and a last name that sounds really close to Osama would have negative connotations, but he's still in the White House.
Sadly, that is exactly what they are doing.
Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't see any way that the Newsweek photo could have come from any of the photos taken from runnersworld that you posted. There aren't any that are even of the same angle of her face.
Yeah, that'd go over really well at 4chan...
I can't tell if that's an actual real article or a spoof piece. I know that's sad, but can you clarify? :(
Reading that, for some reason, is really horrifying to me. It just seems very, very wrong to have a judge who knows nothing about and indeed seems to have an aversion to computers presiding and ruling over an IT related case.
Obviously they are democrats, waiting for the government to come change the batteries for them because dammit, they're entitled to some help!
I keed, I keed! :P
Actually, it approaches infinity as long as $number_of_women_in_life >= 1, no cube necessary. :-\
It doesn't matter what you think; to those committing those horrible acts, they do believe so. To them, they most likely firmly believe that they are correct in what they are doing, for they do it in God's name and as horrible as it may seem to you, they know that they are in the right because they believe their faith tells them they are. This is the tragedy of religion: you can use it to justify all the horrible acts you can imagine, based on nothing but that which you imagine.
They probably would tell you no. In fact, they would tell you exactly the opposite. And who are you to argue with that?
[citation needed]
No, you aren't.
Of course, the problem was everyone has email already. Getting everyone to start using a completely new communications medium all at the same time was just not going to happen. The lack (AFAIK) of local client programs that would handle Wave doesn't help. Checking your Waves isn't as easy as running Outlook or Thunderbird. With those, you just run the program. With Wave, you have to open your web browser, surf to the right URL, and login. Sure it sounds like a trivial difference, but are most people gonna switch from what they're already comfortable with? Probably not.
Wave was a great idea as a replacement to email. I wish it had worked out. :(
By denying the right to use this incorrect and purposely misleading term, you aren't making it IMPOSSIBLE to voice their opinion. What you are doing is making it impossible for them to voice their opinion in the way intended, the purpose of which is to mislead people into thinking that evolution is but one "camp" of ideas in biology.
The word "biologists" is the proper term that ISN'T misleading. They won't use it because it shows just how ridiculous their "opinion" is compared to actual scientists rather than their intended connotation of "a few dogmatic scientists who hate God!"
This, to me, is the best argument against religion ever. If you want to posit supernatural explanations for something, where do you draw the line and say what supernatural explanations are acceptable and which aren't? What if I said that God told me that I was to be the new king of the world? No, he really did! Why don't you believe me?!
Religious superstitionists are more than happy to dismiss absurdity when they see it, yet can't understand and/or rationalize away when others see theirs. This is the hypocrite that I just can't and probably won't ever understand.
Next!
If more sites started working correctly without worrying about IE, it either might actually get MS to fix it or get people to install browsers that "work".
Nice. It almost screams "Welcome to City 17!"
Why should we respect anyone's invisible man beliefs?
As far as computers "knowing" things, I would also say that's what these cameras are doing: recognizing and reporting on something.
It's very nitpicky, but when you make an assertion that these things are common sense, it makes me want to counter that it depends on the definitions. Where does the hard difference lie in how computers and cameras (I'd argue that digital cameras are just specialized computers) process information and what your brain does? There are those that would argue it's nothing more than a matter of scale (me being one of them) and we'll continue to have this argument until we have intelligent machines. There will probably be those that argue even beyond then whether or not computers "know" or "see" or "understand".
I'm just typing out loud now, feel free to ignore my lunatic ranting. :P
Define "see" and "know".
If you're so fucking unimaginative to understand the analogy and why it holds true despite it being a tv show, then I recommend you get your head out of your ass and try something creative for the first time in your life, anonymous coward. Do I really have to explain it to you?