Should we exclude people from becoming doctors because they believe that Jesus came back from the dead - a belief which is both unscientific and contrary to our understanding of medical science?
First you would need to prove that jesus was indeed medically dead. If you cannot prove that then the rest of the argument is pointless as the question has no scientific basis to begin with. Also people have come back to life from apparently dead-like states.
It is unscientific because they give no scientifically valid reasons why they think evolution is not adequate. Nor do they give any valid counter theories. They simply say that evolution is not the origin of humans. If you press them for a reason they claim that the real origin is unknown, when in reality what they want to say is God. But they don't because that is not a scientifically supportable theory.
The way that makes them a dangerous doctor is that they may discard any other piece of valid scientific theory if it doesn't fit in with their religion. Personally I'd rather have a doctor who treats me rather than prays for me.
You jest but this is actually a method used to dampen oscillations in tall buildings from wind effects. Not a very good method since an active control system is much more efficient with much less weight.
Re:"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws...
on
Energy From Vibrations
·
· Score: 1
I think an easier solution would be to build a device that accumulates high voltage static charges. That way when a phone call came in, the device could discharge this energy into your leg. This would of course give a whole new meaning to vibrating ringer. But on the plus side you wouldn't miss any calls. Nor sleep through them. Quite the feature.
My theory was that the humans served as an unlimited supply of entropy. The theory is that the machines tried to evolve themselves without humans and lacked the creativeness (entropy) of humans. They are after all machines and there is nothing random in a machine. So they make a virtual world so that they can wait for the humans to invent/create something new and then they can steal it from the matrix. Kind of like Microsoft today buying stuff since they seem unable to create anything worthwhile themselves.
This would explain the necessity for keeping the bodies and not uploading the entire brain into the matrix, the brain is basically an analog gizmo plugged into the matrix, it cannot be simulated digitally. Just ask those mame guys who are trying to simulate the hardware that ran some of those really old games. The audio hardware in the olden days was an analog beast that is still practically impossible to simulate digitally.
It is monopoly abuse because they are using profits from their legally recognized monopoly to try to create monopolies in other areas. No company in the world could fork out the same level of cash that Microsoft is for the xbox. Thus your comparisons to Sony and anyone else do not matter because they are not monopolies.
Think of it this way, if Microsoft wanted to, they could buy nearly every publically traded game producer, this includes a hostile takeover of Sony, and make every game for the next year only available for the xbox.
The way I read it, the rolling exhaust box wasn't CG, rather it was the point where they spliced two different takes together using computers to splice them. My guess would be so that they could redo the last bit for each different model they're hawking at the moment.
It is worthwhile to point out that the gcc/ecgs split eventually resulted in the death of the original gcc tree, replaced by egcs which was renamed gcc.
Imagine that you are an Electrical Engineer and you are given a new camera
technology, the specs are that the red, green, and blue sensors are randomly
distributed. The distribution of sensors is also non-uniform spatially, most
are in the middle. The number of sensors for each color also varies. Also, the
responses from each sensor also overlap in irregular ways, no two sensors have
the exact same response to the same stimulus. Oh yeah, the signals from the
sensors are unmapped, we have no idea which signals belong to which sensors.
And the sensors also return signals independently from each other, so unlike a
typical digital camera with a shutter, you have to integrate the signal over a
period of time. Unfortunately the assembly that holds the sensors is also
jiggling constantly (saccades). And one more just to piss you off, the assembly
is filled with water so light entering it will bend depending on the color of
the light. You'll have to correct that distortion. Did I mention that the
"grayscale" content of the image is from a whole different set of sensors?
Wow, you really are a moron. What are you trying to say? That if a person studies all the same shit in an unapproved manner that it still means absolutely NOTHING. Not going through the process doesn't guarantee that a person is a good lawyer either. If you're on trial with a possible death sentence and you had to choose between two people, one with a law degree and the other with his word that he knows what he's doing, which do you choose?
In every graduating class of medical doctors half of them are below average. Some are the bottom of their class. But they still all graduated. Who do you go to for your surgery? Do you just pick one and go for it? If so you're a moron. What you should do is look at their history, see how many of their patients died etc... If you don't research your doctor before you let him take a scalpel to your belly then you are a grade A fucking moron. Do you get what I'm saying? The degree is not the end of it. You must still prove yourself in real life.
The one who passes the license exam, the one whose design is approved by his superiors with many years of experience. What, you thought that just graduating was all you had to do? Please, you can bullshit your way through school but you won't last a month in the professional world.
Nice try. Perhaps you should study the history of the project more carefully. The design expected sinkage, they even had ways to compensate for it. Then you get into the controversial part, the engineers, those people with a little symbol on their business cards told them that the sinkage would be worse than they thought. The decision to ignore that information and press on anyway because they wanted the project to go through was not the work on an engineer. It is however the work of engineers that have prevented it from sinking into the sea.
And no, not everyone assumes that any kind of degree means someone is more intelligent then someone without the degree. What it does mean is that person has invested the time to learn the necessary information. Do realize that "innately" does not mean that a person with an innate skill for civil engineering could build a better bridge, that is, unless that person develops their innate skill by getting a civil engineering degree.
Insightful score 5? The AC hits it on the nose. You are not, and will never be an Engineer unless you get the degree. Real life sucks doesn't it? Luckily for you, if you've got the brains you should be able to get the degree.
Those so-called "master's in engineering" degrees aren't generally recognized as the same as an electrical, mechanical, or civil engineering degrees.
Also, you are confusing the act of becoming licensed with the ability to become licensed. That boy can really throw a football. Do you call him a pro football player? Could he become a pro football player?
So to answer your question, neither is a professional engineer.
but inattentiveness in class led to some less-than-desirable grades
You are the prime example of why the degree is important. I'd hate to drive over a bridge designed by you. Get bored midway through an analysis and go to watching cartoons.
we'll ignore the ones that failed, like that Japanese airport that's sinking into the ocean
People have been saying this for years. How many more years are you going to keep saying this? Last I heard, the airport is still in operation. Nevermind the fact that it survived wonderfully when the big quake hit. Quite the failure indeed.
Yeah, lets belittle all the people who went to accredited Engineering schools, worked their asses off and graduated so that anyone can call themselves an Electrical Engineer. Hey, I picked a splinter out of my finger with a needle once, do I get to call myself a surgeon?
I have to say, why is it so hard for the vast majority of people to realize that you must earn your degree and the title that comes with it?
Yeah, we should get rid of doctor, lawyer, architect, etc.. too! All they do is infalte the price. That's the real reason for the high price of medical insurance. We should let any retard who reads "Learn surgery in 21 days" to call themselves doctors.
I don't need evidence. For my argument it is sufficient that the quantity be large enough that it is impossible to count. The converse argument that the elements of the universe are countable is laughable.
UofA indeed. I had to take a course outside of my major (MSEE) and that was the only interesting course I could find. I didn't realize it was such a unique course.
We only went over the math for it, and that it was part of the reason for the starwars funding. It supposedly showed on paper that the system was feasible. Billions of dollars later
I don't think they ever actually made one. In fact, I can't remember now if the prof presented it to point out a mistake or something else. If I hadn't moved recently I'd know where my notes are and I could find it and send you a digital pic of it.
Wish I could answer better but it was my only optics course ever.
Huh? I wasn't talking about rate of divergence. I was talking about divergence period. Light traveling through space looks like either two cones with pointy bits touching in the case of light that has been focused to be converging. Eventually it converges to a point and begins diverging. The other case is when the light is divergent right from the start, then it looks like a cone with the point bit at the source of origin.
What I was talking about was a theoretical system which could create a non-divergent beam of light, the beam would always look like a column of light with a fixed diameter. I just don't remember the details and I'm not about to go dig up my Fourier optics book to figure it out.
I don't remember the details but I learned in Fourier Optics class about a system to focus a laser such that it wouldn't diverge as it passed through air. This was supposedly the basis for the Regan era starwars plan, shooting lasers from space. I don't think anyone has actually built such a lens, but that it was theoretically possible.
Slashdot Mirror
The way that makes them a dangerous doctor is that they may discard any other piece of valid scientific theory if it doesn't fit in with their religion. Personally I'd rather have a doctor who treats me rather than prays for me.
You jest but this is actually a method used to dampen oscillations in tall buildings from wind effects. Not a very good method since an active control system is much more efficient with much less weight.
I think an easier solution would be to build a device that accumulates high voltage static charges. That way when a phone call came in, the device could discharge this energy into your leg. This would of course give a whole new meaning to vibrating ringer. But on the plus side you wouldn't miss any calls. Nor sleep through them. Quite the feature.
This would explain the necessity for keeping the bodies and not uploading the entire brain into the matrix, the brain is basically an analog gizmo plugged into the matrix, it cannot be simulated digitally. Just ask those mame guys who are trying to simulate the hardware that ran some of those really old games. The audio hardware in the olden days was an analog beast that is still practically impossible to simulate digitally.
Think of it this way, if Microsoft wanted to, they could buy nearly every publically traded game producer, this includes a hostile takeover of Sony, and make every game for the next year only available for the xbox.
The way I read it, the rolling exhaust box wasn't CG, rather it was the point where they spliced two different takes together using computers to splice them. My guess would be so that they could redo the last bit for each different model they're hawking at the moment.
It is worthwhile to point out that the gcc/ecgs split eventually resulted in the death of the original gcc tree, replaced by egcs which was renamed gcc.
after the ruling? Right now it's beyond useless and will surely fill up with the usual useless rants.
Imagine that you are an Electrical Engineer and you are given a new camera technology, the specs are that the red, green, and blue sensors are randomly distributed. The distribution of sensors is also non-uniform spatially, most are in the middle. The number of sensors for each color also varies. Also, the responses from each sensor also overlap in irregular ways, no two sensors have the exact same response to the same stimulus. Oh yeah, the signals from the sensors are unmapped, we have no idea which signals belong to which sensors. And the sensors also return signals independently from each other, so unlike a typical digital camera with a shutter, you have to integrate the signal over a period of time. Unfortunately the assembly that holds the sensors is also jiggling constantly (saccades). And one more just to piss you off, the assembly is filled with water so light entering it will bend depending on the color of the light. You'll have to correct that distortion. Did I mention that the "grayscale" content of the image is from a whole different set of sensors?
In every graduating class of medical doctors half of them are below average. Some are the bottom of their class. But they still all graduated. Who do you go to for your surgery? Do you just pick one and go for it? If so you're a moron. What you should do is look at their history, see how many of their patients died etc... If you don't research your doctor before you let him take a scalpel to your belly then you are a grade A fucking moron. Do you get what I'm saying? The degree is not the end of it. You must still prove yourself in real life.
The one who passes the license exam, the one whose design is approved by his superiors with many years of experience. What, you thought that just graduating was all you had to do? Please, you can bullshit your way through school but you won't last a month in the professional world.
And no, not everyone assumes that any kind of degree means someone is more intelligent then someone without the degree. What it does mean is that person has invested the time to learn the necessary information. Do realize that "innately" does not mean that a person with an innate skill for civil engineering could build a better bridge, that is, unless that person develops their innate skill by getting a civil engineering degree.
Insightful score 5? The AC hits it on the nose. You are not, and will never be an Engineer unless you get the degree. Real life sucks doesn't it? Luckily for you, if you've got the brains you should be able to get the degree.
Also, you are confusing the act of becoming licensed with the ability to become licensed. That boy can really throw a football. Do you call him a pro football player? Could he become a pro football player?
So to answer your question, neither is a professional engineer.
I have to say, why is it so hard for the vast majority of people to realize that you must earn your degree and the title that comes with it?
To be clear, you are a moron.
Ahh... moron. It is not faith, there are already estimates that are large enough to support my point.
I'm pretty sure it was Dr. Masud Mansuripur.
I don't need evidence. For my argument it is sufficient that the quantity be large enough that it is impossible to count. The converse argument that the elements of the universe are countable is laughable.
We only went over the math for it, and that it was part of the reason for the starwars funding. It supposedly showed on paper that the system was feasible. Billions of dollars later I don't think they ever actually made one. In fact, I can't remember now if the prof presented it to point out a mistake or something else. If I hadn't moved recently I'd know where my notes are and I could find it and send you a digital pic of it.
Wish I could answer better but it was my only optics course ever.
What I was talking about was a theoretical system which could create a non-divergent beam of light, the beam would always look like a column of light with a fixed diameter. I just don't remember the details and I'm not about to go dig up my Fourier optics book to figure it out.