Unfortunately, Pascal's Wager also "proves" that he's extremely unrational in that by choosing only one god at the exclusion of all the rest that might exist, the odds are not in his favor that the one he chose is the "right" one. Hence, he's got a pretty good chance that he's fucked for believing in the wrong god.
I can't believe people are still trotting out this crap argument thinking it's clever or rational.
Pitch, volume, voice cracking, rhythm, and I'm sure there are lots of other variables that can be scanned for patterns in speech. It would be interesting to know what they are.
Note: I didn't vote for him and totally disagree with just about everything he stands for. Still, looks like he's following through with his promise, despite the fact that I think it's idiotic.
If more people are carrying concealed weapons, and criminals know this, they are less likely to attack anyone because they never know who might be capable of shooting back or not. If they know for sure that pretty much any random person they decide to target isn't packing and is going to be an easy target, where's the deterrent?
Which part of the earth are you talking about us inhabiting? The deserts or the icelands? Or everything in between. Humans seem to be able to adapt and fill pretty much any niche and environment we come across.
I think it's precisely because authors and most content creators of whatever particular kind are in the minority are why we should protect them. If everyone was creating great content for everyone else to enjoy, such protections wouldn't be necessary. Since only a minority actually are, we should make sure that there is incentive to keep those who want to take a risk creating something, otherwise they may decide to do something else. I'd rather someone who is capable to write a good book rather than go farming.
...there is an upper limit of the processes you are talking about...
[citation needed]
The argument from entropy only works if you stop repairing. The whole point of fighting against aging is decreasing that entropy. If you can decrease it faster than it naturally increases, you've won. That's the whole idea.
Has no one here read Aubrey de Grey's theories, or at least Ray Kurzweil's?
Everyone seems to be assuming that in 100 years everything will be exactly the same, except we live longer. No one seems to be taking into account technological advancements that will take place in that time span to help counteract all these social and economic disasters they think would be inevitable. What happens if/when nanotechnology comes to the full fruition and we being living in a post-scarcity world? A big "if", you say? Others say an inevitable "when". I tend to agree. Thoughts?
I'd love to know why people would think that 6 billion years "isn't nearly enough time". 6 billions years is a damn long, nearly incomprehensibly long time. If 6 billions years isn't long enough for all this to happen, what WOULD be the minimum long enough time for this to happen? By answering this question, they would be admitting that it CAN happen by naturalistic means with no supernatural intrusion necessary. If they aren't willing to admit this, then their claim that [insert arbitrary timeframe here] isn't long enough was a false claim to begin with. Imagine that.
Why does your "desire" trump my rights? It isn't the government's job to set a law ahead of time because people CAN regulate and control their own behavior (and the consequences thereof), you just don't like the fact that not everyone wants to behave the way that you want them to.
If it's on cable that's my problem - I'm paying for it.
So don't pay for it. Change the damn channel. If there is enough of a market for a set of "decent" channels, someone will make one and reap those profits. Why don't you do this and get rich?
I would expect broadcast TV to uphold some standard of decency, and they aren't regulating that themselves so the FCC has to.
I would expect broadcast TV to air whatever the fuck it wants, thanks to the 1st Amendment. The FCC doesn't have to regulate anything and according to the Constitution of these United States (which, granted, seems to mean very little these days *sigh*) they have no authority to do so in the first place. If you want things regulated, how about we take out all of the religious channels and and any and all references to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. since someone might be offended by that?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe people are still trotting out this crap argument thinking it's clever or rational.
The bastardization that is the movie Jurassic Park, apparently.
All you needed in that last sentence was "gears of war sucks". That pretty much says it all.
Pitch, volume, voice cracking, rhythm, and I'm sure there are lots of other variables that can be scanned for patterns in speech. It would be interesting to know what they are.
Note: I didn't vote for him and totally disagree with just about everything he stands for. Still, looks like he's following through with his promise, despite the fact that I think it's idiotic.
"That's a lot of cows."
This post brought to you in part by the word "House" and the letters M & D.
If more people are carrying concealed weapons, and criminals know this, they are less likely to attack anyone because they never know who might be capable of shooting back or not. If they know for sure that pretty much any random person they decide to target isn't packing and is going to be an easy target, where's the deterrent?
Or, gonna be a while? Grab a Snickers.
...and certainly reproducible in blind tests.
I'd like to see that.
[dies from all this punniness]
Which part of the earth are you talking about us inhabiting? The deserts or the icelands? Or everything in between. Humans seem to be able to adapt and fill pretty much any niche and environment we come across.
Fortunately, www.yahooo.com redirects to the proper www.yahoo.com, but you still have a very good point. Cheers.
Too bad he didn't have to die to bring us this information...
Oy, my head asplode. :(
AI must be approaching the Singularity if your friend's computer knows that it's you sitting in front of it rather than your friend.
I think it's precisely because authors and most content creators of whatever particular kind are in the minority are why we should protect them. If everyone was creating great content for everyone else to enjoy, such protections wouldn't be necessary. Since only a minority actually are, we should make sure that there is incentive to keep those who want to take a risk creating something, otherwise they may decide to do something else. I'd rather someone who is capable to write a good book rather than go farming.
I volunteer to oversee the closed biosphere experiment to *ahem* test this theory out.
Did many boffins die to bring us this information?
[citation needed]
The argument from entropy only works if you stop repairing. The whole point of fighting against aging is decreasing that entropy. If you can decrease it faster than it naturally increases, you've won. That's the whole idea.
Has no one here read Aubrey de Grey's theories, or at least Ray Kurzweil's?
Everyone seems to be assuming that in 100 years everything will be exactly the same, except we live longer. No one seems to be taking into account technological advancements that will take place in that time span to help counteract all these social and economic disasters they think would be inevitable. What happens if/when nanotechnology comes to the full fruition and we being living in a post-scarcity world? A big "if", you say? Others say an inevitable "when". I tend to agree. Thoughts?
Sounds like an opinion to me. I don't think expressing opinions should be illegal, no matter how much someone doesn't like it.
Just don't make him angry, you wouldn't like him when he's angry...
I'd love to know why people would think that 6 billion years "isn't nearly enough time". 6 billions years is a damn long, nearly incomprehensibly long time. If 6 billions years isn't long enough for all this to happen, what WOULD be the minimum long enough time for this to happen? By answering this question, they would be admitting that it CAN happen by naturalistic means with no supernatural intrusion necessary. If they aren't willing to admit this, then their claim that [insert arbitrary timeframe here] isn't long enough was a false claim to begin with. Imagine that.
So don't pay for it. Change the damn channel. If there is enough of a market for a set of "decent" channels, someone will make one and reap those profits. Why don't you do this and get rich?
I would expect broadcast TV to air whatever the fuck it wants, thanks to the 1st Amendment. The FCC doesn't have to regulate anything and according to the Constitution of these United States (which, granted, seems to mean very little these days *sigh*) they have no authority to do so in the first place. If you want things regulated, how about we take out all of the religious channels and and any and all references to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. since someone might be offended by that?
Not to mention that two-thirds of the planet is ocean...
Smashing Pumpkins recorded a song just for Guitar Hero World Tour.