Unfortunately no. While you can build equipment designed to build smaller robots, there are more factors than just size as to whether these things will operate. For instance, you run into physical limits such as the strength to move themselves that have to be worked around , as well as several physics and electrical concerns.
Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged
on
ESRB Retorts to NIMF
·
· Score: 1
I also expect others to debate me without distorting my position, but I see you aren't up to that, either. In my last post, I pointed out two of your distortions, and invited you to support them with fact. Since you didn't bother to address either, I'll repeat them:
* You claimed that I said the NIMF was 100% Christian.
* You claimed that I said the NIMF was Christian by design.
Whether you meant it or not, it really did come off as you implying those things. Probably not intentional, but thats at least how I read it also, and I did read all of the post. Overall, besides for the arguing about who implied what, I really do think you both are right for the majority of your posts. This is kind of an interesting argument, as at first I thought the OP was just flamebait, and really liked the second posts stance. Then the follow up post made me believe the OP didn't really mean what he said how it sounded. Can't we all just get along?:)
Before I start this, let me state that I am a proponent of Intelligent Design somewhat(read my other posts for more information). With that being said, ID is a belief, and not a theory. Religion lies outside of science. The two do not mix, but also do not contradict each other necessarily. Religion DOES NOT say evolution didn't happen, merely that God must have guided it. So the only issue that should be between ID and evolution, is belief in a higher power. I believe schools should teach evolution, but also teach that it is also a commonly held belief that religion comes into play here with the creation of man. Leave it at that, the kids can ask their parents about their specific religious beliefs. Other than that, teach evolution as it always has been taught. You should not have to teach kids about ID, just let them know it exists and they can explore it on their own. It's much too difficult an issue to leave in the hands of the school system to properly teach. Let school teach science, let the parents teach religion. And no, I do not believe ID is a theory, or a science. As has been stated many times before, theories must be disprovable in some way or another if they are wrong. If ID was actually wrong, it still would never be provable.
This is not at all true. I'm sure there will be a lot of people agreeing with you however as christian bashing(or most religions actually) has become very popular on slashdot. You are no better than the religions 'nuts' you attempt to discredit. Many christians are scientists, and believe in evolution. Religion(at least christianity) does not explicitly say, or even attempt to say, that evolution is impossible. Before you assume that science is always right, think back and remember spontaneous generation, along with the many other examples where science has been wrong. Science today that attempts to ascertain the origin of humanity, isn't really much better than religion when it comes to scientific principles. They get some evidence, and then go on to make alot of wild hypothesis and then see which ones are most verifiable, and assume these true. This lasts until someone else comes up with something a little better, but not necessarily even more correct and then that is the current fad. The truth is we will probably never know for sure exactly how we were created. Stop bashing those that have a different believe than you. If you wanna believe that mankind was created by millions of highly improbably chances, thats fine. I choose to believe that we were created by a higher being that we cannot see, or even verify exists. Neither one really has much scientific merit, but nonetheless we believe one or the other. Bashing religion doesn't make you cool so move on.
The main problem with campaign contributions is that they effectively stifle the first amendment also. They take away freedom of speech from the less wealthy. They make the barrier of entry into having an effect in politics much higher. When a politician sees million dollar contributions from 10 corporations, and then $100 from an individual, the corporations obviously have much more of an effect on his campaign. Unlimited campaign contributions will only serve to make this issue much worse. Perhaps if we limited the contributions from corporations, while still allowing unlimited contributions from individuals(assuming a perfect writeup with no loopholes allowing dummy individuals for corporations) then that might fix the problem. In the meantime however, short of local politics, I cannot effectively have the same influence in politics as someone with twice my income.
This is what bothers me most about a lot of atheists. They believe that everyone is an atheist at heart and just afraid to come out and admit it. Did it ever occur to you that quite a few(majority possibly) of scientists are actually deeply religious, and not just pretending? I have a professor who is a preacher, several more who have leading roles in their churches and respective religions. I am also quite bugged by the idea that atheism is the 'smart' choice. How is being atheist any more logical than being religious? We believe a god exists, you believe one doesn't. Neither one of us can scientifically prove our claims. The most logical of the groups would probably be the agnostics. They are not religious, but at least leave it open to a higher power existing. Remember, fanaticism works both ways. I do not believe religious 'nuts' are any worse than the extreme atheists. They are also not any more open minded on average than christians. I work with several atheists, and several christians, and on average the christian's have been quicker to welcome new workers into our lab(mostly Indian and Chinese workers). Now, I don't assume this is representative of the world, but I seriously doubt that all the good christians just happen to work at the same place as me. All the religious groups here tend to get along together, except for the atheists. The religious groups accept that each other is religious, but has their own higher power(s). The atheists however feel intent on attacking religion, especially christianity, at every turn. It's prevelant here on slashdot too. Every article on here has tons of atheists attacking christianity instantly, and then if a christian replies defending the religion, is immediately branded as a zealot. It just sickens me the wave of anti-religious sentiment sweeping through the scientific community. The majority of the scientists I personally know are religious. Most however feel that if they talk openly about their religion, they get branded as a zealot or not. What's the difference between being open with your beliefs that a god exists vs. your beliefs that one doesn't. You and I will both know the answer when we die, and not a second before then. I will continue to believe what I believe, and you will probably always believe what you believe. I just wish atheists would stop being close minded. You are not any better than the christians you always insult. Grow up and realize that different people have different beliefs, and theres no way you'll ever prove most of them wrong. Realize that yes, quite a few scientists are religious, and it is not for PR purposes. We are genuinely religious, and doing useful scientific work. I've yet to see an atheist give a good argument that a god doesn't exist that can't be shot down with a single paragraph.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately no. While you can build equipment designed to build smaller robots, there are more factors than just size as to whether these things will operate. For instance, you run into physical limits such as the strength to move themselves that have to be worked around , as well as several physics and electrical concerns.
Logical fallacy: Begging the question. You assume more or less what you are trying to prove as your hypothesis.
Since when is a PDA not a computer?
I also expect others to debate me without distorting my position, but I see you aren't up to that, either. In my last post, I pointed out two of your distortions, and invited you to support them with fact. Since you didn't bother to address either, I'll repeat them: * You claimed that I said the NIMF was 100% Christian. * You claimed that I said the NIMF was Christian by design. :)
Whether you meant it or not, it really did come off as you implying those things. Probably not intentional, but thats at least how I read it also, and I did read all of the post. Overall, besides for the arguing about who implied what, I really do think you both are right for the majority of your posts. This is kind of an interesting argument, as at first I thought the OP was just flamebait, and really liked the second posts stance. Then the follow up post made me believe the OP didn't really mean what he said how it sounded. Can't we all just get along?
Before I start this, let me state that I am a proponent of Intelligent Design somewhat(read my other posts for more information). With that being said, ID is a belief, and not a theory. Religion lies outside of science. The two do not mix, but also do not contradict each other necessarily. Religion DOES NOT say evolution didn't happen, merely that God must have guided it. So the only issue that should be between ID and evolution, is belief in a higher power. I believe schools should teach evolution, but also teach that it is also a commonly held belief that religion comes into play here with the creation of man. Leave it at that, the kids can ask their parents about their specific religious beliefs. Other than that, teach evolution as it always has been taught. You should not have to teach kids about ID, just let them know it exists and they can explore it on their own. It's much too difficult an issue to leave in the hands of the school system to properly teach. Let school teach science, let the parents teach religion. And no, I do not believe ID is a theory, or a science. As has been stated many times before, theories must be disprovable in some way or another if they are wrong. If ID was actually wrong, it still would never be provable.
This is not at all true. I'm sure there will be a lot of people agreeing with you however as christian bashing(or most religions actually) has become very popular on slashdot. You are no better than the religions 'nuts' you attempt to discredit. Many christians are scientists, and believe in evolution. Religion(at least christianity) does not explicitly say, or even attempt to say, that evolution is impossible. Before you assume that science is always right, think back and remember spontaneous generation, along with the many other examples where science has been wrong. Science today that attempts to ascertain the origin of humanity, isn't really much better than religion when it comes to scientific principles. They get some evidence, and then go on to make alot of wild hypothesis and then see which ones are most verifiable, and assume these true. This lasts until someone else comes up with something a little better, but not necessarily even more correct and then that is the current fad. The truth is we will probably never know for sure exactly how we were created. Stop bashing those that have a different believe than you. If you wanna believe that mankind was created by millions of highly improbably chances, thats fine. I choose to believe that we were created by a higher being that we cannot see, or even verify exists. Neither one really has much scientific merit, but nonetheless we believe one or the other. Bashing religion doesn't make you cool so move on.
The main problem with campaign contributions is that they effectively stifle the first amendment also. They take away freedom of speech from the less wealthy. They make the barrier of entry into having an effect in politics much higher. When a politician sees million dollar contributions from 10 corporations, and then $100 from an individual, the corporations obviously have much more of an effect on his campaign. Unlimited campaign contributions will only serve to make this issue much worse. Perhaps if we limited the contributions from corporations, while still allowing unlimited contributions from individuals(assuming a perfect writeup with no loopholes allowing dummy individuals for corporations) then that might fix the problem. In the meantime however, short of local politics, I cannot effectively have the same influence in politics as someone with twice my income.
This is what bothers me most about a lot of atheists. They believe that everyone is an atheist at heart and just afraid to come out and admit it. Did it ever occur to you that quite a few(majority possibly) of scientists are actually deeply religious, and not just pretending? I have a professor who is a preacher, several more who have leading roles in their churches and respective religions. I am also quite bugged by the idea that atheism is the 'smart' choice. How is being atheist any more logical than being religious? We believe a god exists, you believe one doesn't. Neither one of us can scientifically prove our claims. The most logical of the groups would probably be the agnostics. They are not religious, but at least leave it open to a higher power existing. Remember, fanaticism works both ways. I do not believe religious 'nuts' are any worse than the extreme atheists. They are also not any more open minded on average than christians. I work with several atheists, and several christians, and on average the christian's have been quicker to welcome new workers into our lab(mostly Indian and Chinese workers). Now, I don't assume this is representative of the world, but I seriously doubt that all the good christians just happen to work at the same place as me. All the religious groups here tend to get along together, except for the atheists. The religious groups accept that each other is religious, but has their own higher power(s). The atheists however feel intent on attacking religion, especially christianity, at every turn. It's prevelant here on slashdot too. Every article on here has tons of atheists attacking christianity instantly, and then if a christian replies defending the religion, is immediately branded as a zealot. It just sickens me the wave of anti-religious sentiment sweeping through the scientific community. The majority of the scientists I personally know are religious. Most however feel that if they talk openly about their religion, they get branded as a zealot or not. What's the difference between being open with your beliefs that a god exists vs. your beliefs that one doesn't. You and I will both know the answer when we die, and not a second before then. I will continue to believe what I believe, and you will probably always believe what you believe. I just wish atheists would stop being close minded. You are not any better than the christians you always insult. Grow up and realize that different people have different beliefs, and theres no way you'll ever prove most of them wrong. Realize that yes, quite a few scientists are religious, and it is not for PR purposes. We are genuinely religious, and doing useful scientific work. I've yet to see an atheist give a good argument that a god doesn't exist that can't be shot down with a single paragraph.
The Earth is very special. The audience for the bible so far(at least as far as we know) lives entirely on this planet.