I think that those who support ID here either support a theory of evolution where there exists a God who wanted it to happen that way and/or know that ID is NOT science and is SEPERATE from science. Or at least I will be as saddened as parent if not....
Acctuly, I like commercals. They are at times entertaining and break up the show (you know, to go to the bathroom or get a drink). Sure you could just pause TV if you had a TiVo, but, as a college student, I don't have a TiVo and won't for a while.
Also, there are some shows that I wouldn't have payed to watch yet have liked anyway.
He may not be needed, but if I feel that God does exist, than that needs to be accounted for. This is not an argument to convert anyone; it is a poor argument to do that with. This is an argument that God and science can coexist. If I feel God exists, including him is not against occams razor. It add's no complexity; it simply allows him to coexist with our understanding of the world.
Why do non-believers always feel that they have to bash the beliefs of others? If I feel God exists, why do you try to convince me otherwise on the shaky basis that YOU feel that is in contridiction to the idea of Occam's razor (which is not a law. It is like Murphy's law. It is ussaly true, but does not have to be).
These are two seperate ideas. One is philosophical(sp) and one is scientific. We exist because God wanted us to exist.
Science cannot say: we exist because a supreme being wanted us to. That is obsured science. A scientist can say, however: we exist because evolution eventuly created our species.
Why are they not contridictory? Because one is answering a slightly differnt question. I can also say: God wanted us to exist and therefore created (via some theory, Big Bang, or one of the universe folds back on itself, or some other theory) the universe as we know it with all the proper conditions to eventuly have us evolve in it. Adding that God didn't make it random in his eyes (it is in ours, since we are not God) does not add complexity and is overruled by occums razor, esspecily since if you're trying to reconsile God and science, you must think God exists, so He must be included into the framework.
Oh, you mean that *nix distro with an AWESOME GUI? Yeah I use it. I also use google the most often because it looks better in Lynx.
On a more serious note: Some people don't use google? Even the semi-computer illerteate people I know use google and nothing else. It's like second nature to most everyone, I thought.
Religion is not the opposite of science. This is the biggest problem in the world today: that people do not understand this. There is not reason that I cannot belive in God and evolution. The two can go hand in hand. Religion is why (the philosophical why) things are they way they are and science is how (fact, figures, mechanisms::shivers::) they became what they are.
Example: Religion: People exist because God wanted there to be people Science: People exist because random genetic change enabled there to be people.
What is contradictory in my example?
I have a friend who is agnostic. I get from him that since there is more than one religion he has no basis to say that one is correct and another is not. He also does not see any relgion that does what is says (i.e.: radical muslims and christians both contridict their values). He isn't agnostic simply because he feels science and religion contridic each other. In fact, he has helped me reconsile some of my beliefs and science.
Also, please do not judge all christians by the STUPID actions of a few. Why should some dumb ass in Kansas, who can't possibly belive that God wanted evolution to happen and made it and science cannot say "God willed it," so we can only comprehend random change and statistical patterens as left overs from God's will, should make me, who can reconsile belife and science, look like an idiot?
I was being serious, not a troll. The ACLU, um, doesn't have the best public opinion. They do good work, I'm not disputing that, it's just that they come off wrong...
I was just saying that the ACLU is finanly doing somehting that MOST people will agree with (like I said, I like what they do).
Instead of making linux work on the 360, can't someone write a "game" that woudl use the live network to become a distrib node? The game woudl be number crunching code.
Can linux take advantage of the extra cores and awsome graphics (for vector processing of course)? Or would linux jsut simply access the video if it were a wimp and ignore the other processors.
Is it just me or does the XBox 360 (and ps2 and xbox...) look like a cheap, fast number cruncher? TFA said soemhting about not executing conditionals well, for numbers there are few conditionals, that's 6 threads oif numbers plus the very good matrix processing at the GPU...
Hell, I don't game but if I would buy an XBox 360 jsut as a math coprocessor:-p
I never saw the randomaccessfile class, how did I miss it, It's pretty much what I was looking for:-p
The mappedmemory just seemed combersome to work with, not that it was hard or bad, just it felt awkward.
Just as a side note. Apparently Java is catching up with C. The garbage collecting is done very well and doesn't slow it down like it use to. Maybe it's because I'm an old C guy, but there is just something about Java I don't perticulary like. It's a great lang and all teh libs are nice, but, idk. I like my pointers and all the hardships (and bonuses) that come with them...
The only way to read the filechannel is a bytebuffer. Has anyone ever used them? I had to once and it sucked....
FileReader (or BufferedInputStream) are still awkward because tehy use byte and string arrays. Those really are hard to work with w/o doing conversions in java, where in C the char arrays are usfule w/o conversion. I have always found C and PERL IO better than Java's.
I don't understand why people bash religion as such. I'm sick of people bashing religion because they feel it is usless. You know what; I don't. You know what else, I'm a molecular biologist; not some uneducated person on the street. You know what else, many of my friends abandoned their faith, not because they saw no puropse in it, but because they lost hope in seeing how few people even try to follow what they call their religion.
Just for the record, the bible never gives a reason for amonagamy, it just says to do it... People try to give it reason, and people mess up...
If someone made this OSS, then coudln't people be free to put it on THEIR server? I don't see any reaosn why we couldn't run the thing on your server and then just access it from anywhere. Wouldn't this be perfect? Security and web access?
"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network." - Tim Berners-Lee (in Technology Review, July 1996)
It just sickens me whne people do this. At my company, I'm not alloud to even show my boss an idea if it doesn't work in at least 4 browsers... (IE and F must be 2 of them).
Someone else wouldn't have published it because tehy wouldn't have understood teh mechanics of it (or at least not for a long time). There were some and still are very useful problems dealing w/ Newtonia physics eventhough it doens't explain how they work
I know Newton didn't "discover" gravity; just the formula for it
Sometime the mechinsim is not the important part; just the discovery. What if Newton didn't publish gravity because he didn't understant the mechignism by which it works?
ooops I always foget that./ doesn't \r\n-> by default...
2 Linear Algebra books
1 OChem book
1 Laptop
1 power adapter
50' Cat 5
God knows how many reciepts
1 Dictionary (note my bag isn't withme at the moment)
3 Notebooks
4 Pens
1 Cell Phone Charger
1 Set of earbuds
~10 papers to read for homework
~3 papers that needed turned in yesterday
1 pair of Chem googles hanging off the side
1 pack of Post-it notes
God knows how many lose Post-it notes
1 pair of speedo's, jammers, and a drag suit
1 plastic bag
~5 CD's
Sometimes I mangate to squeeze in an external hdd and it's power adapter
Yes it's an over the shoulder conventional laptop bag, don't say it; I know, I need a backpack (I've already gone throught 3 straps)
Slashdot Mirror
I think that those who support ID here either support a theory of evolution where there exists a God who wanted it to happen that way and/or know that ID is NOT science and is SEPERATE from science. Or at least I will be as saddened as parent if not....
Acctuly, I like commercals. They are at times entertaining and break up the show (you know, to go to the bathroom or get a drink). Sure you could just pause TV if you had a TiVo, but, as a college student, I don't have a TiVo and won't for a while.
Also, there are some shows that I wouldn't have payed to watch yet have liked anyway.
He may not be needed, but if I feel that God does exist, than that needs to be accounted for. This is not an argument to convert anyone; it is a poor argument to do that with. This is an argument that God and science can coexist. If I feel God exists, including him is not against occams razor. It add's no complexity; it simply allows him to coexist with our understanding of the world.
Why do non-believers always feel that they have to bash the beliefs of others? If I feel God exists, why do you try to convince me otherwise on the shaky basis that YOU feel that is in contridiction to the idea of Occam's razor (which is not a law. It is like Murphy's law. It is ussaly true, but does not have to be).
These are two seperate ideas. One is philosophical(sp) and one is scientific. We exist because God wanted us to exist.
Science cannot say: we exist because a supreme being wanted us to. That is obsured science. A scientist can say, however: we exist because evolution eventuly created our species.
Why are they not contridictory? Because one is answering a slightly differnt question. I can also say: God wanted us to exist and therefore created (via some theory, Big Bang, or one of the universe folds back on itself, or some other theory) the universe as we know it with all the proper conditions to eventuly have us evolve in it. Adding that God didn't make it random in his eyes (it is in ours, since we are not God) does not add complexity and is overruled by occums razor, esspecily since if you're trying to reconsile God and science, you must think God exists, so He must be included into the framework.
Oh, you mean that *nix distro with an AWESOME GUI? Yeah I use it. I also use google the most often because it looks better in Lynx.
On a more serious note: Some people don't use google? Even the semi-computer illerteate people I know use google and nothing else. It's like second nature to most everyone, I thought.
Religion is not the opposite of science. This is the biggest problem in the world today: that people do not understand this. There is not reason that I cannot belive in God and evolution. The two can go hand in hand. Religion is why (the philosophical why) things are they way they are and science is how (fact, figures, mechanisms ::shivers::) they became what they are.
Example:
Religion: People exist because God wanted there to be people
Science: People exist because random genetic change enabled there to be people.
What is contradictory in my example?
I have a friend who is agnostic. I get from him that since there is more than one religion he has no basis to say that one is correct and another is not. He also does not see any relgion that does what is says (i.e.: radical muslims and christians both contridict their values). He isn't agnostic simply because he feels science and religion contridic each other. In fact, he has helped me reconsile some of my beliefs and science.
Also, please do not judge all christians by the STUPID actions of a few. Why should some dumb ass in Kansas, who can't possibly belive that God wanted evolution to happen and made it and science cannot say "God willed it," so we can only comprehend random change and statistical patterens as left overs from God's will, should make me, who can reconsile belife and science, look like an idiot?
I was being serious, not a troll. The ACLU, um, doesn't have the best public opinion. They do good work, I'm not disputing that, it's just that they come off wrong...
I was just saying that the ACLU is finanly doing somehting that MOST people will agree with (like I said, I like what they do).
The ACLU is doing something that isn't going to piss the majority off?
Instead of making linux work on the 360, can't someone write a "game" that woudl use the live network to become a distrib node? The game woudl be number crunching code.
Can linux take advantage of the extra cores and awsome graphics (for vector processing of course)? Or would linux jsut simply access the video if it were a wimp and ignore the other processors.
Is it just me or does the XBox 360 (and ps2 and xbox...) look like a cheap, fast number cruncher? TFA said soemhting about not executing conditionals well, for numbers there are few conditionals, that's 6 threads oif numbers plus the very good matrix processing at the GPU...
Hell, I don't game but if I would buy an XBox 360 jsut as a math coprocessor:-p
I never saw the randomaccessfile class, how did I miss it, It's pretty much what I was looking for:-p
The mappedmemory just seemed combersome to work with, not that it was hard or bad, just it felt awkward.
Just as a side note. Apparently Java is catching up with C. The garbage collecting is done very well and doesn't slow it down like it use to. Maybe it's because I'm an old C guy, but there is just something about Java I don't perticulary like. It's a great lang and all teh libs are nice, but, idk. I like my pointers and all the hardships (and bonuses) that come with them...
Or in C
FILE stream = fopen( "crt_fopen.c", "r" );
The only way to read the filechannel is a bytebuffer. Has anyone ever used them? I had to once and it sucked....
FileReader (or BufferedInputStream) are still awkward because tehy use byte and string arrays. Those really are hard to work with w/o doing conversions in java, where in C the char arrays are usfule w/o conversion. I have always found C and PERL IO better than Java's.
This is a sad day indeed. Especialy since religion and science do not have to conflict:
6 2,00.html
http://www.diopitt.org/tea_design.php
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-137
This is sad that ppl refuse to think.
I was always taught to question and think about my religion. I am catholic.
I don't understand why people bash religion as such. I'm sick of people bashing religion because they feel it is usless. You know what; I don't. You know what else, I'm a molecular biologist; not some uneducated person on the street. You know what else, many of my friends abandoned their faith, not because they saw no puropse in it, but because they lost hope in seeing how few people even try to follow what they call their religion.
Just for the record, the bible never gives a reason for amonagamy, it just says to do it... People try to give it reason, and people mess up...
If someone made this OSS, then coudln't people be free to put it on THEIR server? I don't see any reaosn why we couldn't run the thing on your server and then just access it from anywhere. Wouldn't this be perfect? Security and web access?
I think that it's more important to know how to solve the differential equation than just being able to plug it into mathematica or maple.
I use spell check more becuase I am lazy than dumb, yet I try to use correct grammar....
"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network." - Tim Berners-Lee (in Technology Review, July 1996)
It just sickens me whne people do this. At my company, I'm not alloud to even show my boss an idea if it doesn't work in at least 4 browsers... (IE and F must be 2 of them).
Someone else wouldn't have published it because tehy wouldn't have understood teh mechanics of it (or at least not for a long time). There were some and still are very useful problems dealing w/ Newtonia physics eventhough it doens't explain how they work
I know Newton didn't "discover" gravity; just the formula for it
Sometime the mechinsim is not the important part; just the discovery. What if Newton didn't publish gravity because he didn't understant the mechignism by which it works?
jammers are like speedos but come to the knees and a drag suit is a suit that causes lots of drag (resistance training in other words)
Kind of reminds you of the plot of an old Sci-fi movie doens't it?
If it coudl be it woudl be:-p
One is the "required" book and the ohter is one that is 500% better than the "required" book.
ooops I always foget that ./ doesn't \r\n->
by default...
2 Linear Algebra books
1 OChem book
1 Laptop
1 power adapter
50' Cat 5
God knows how many reciepts
1 Dictionary (note my bag isn't withme at the moment)
3 Notebooks
4 Pens
1 Cell Phone Charger
1 Set of earbuds
~10 papers to read for homework
~3 papers that needed turned in yesterday
1 pair of Chem googles hanging off the side
1 pack of Post-it notes
God knows how many lose Post-it notes
1 pair of speedo's, jammers, and a drag suit
1 plastic bag
~5 CD's
Sometimes I mangate to squeeze in an external hdd and it's power adapter
Yes it's an over the shoulder conventional laptop bag, don't say it; I know, I need a backpack (I've already gone throught 3 straps)