What we need is one lone ruler who tells us what to do who has no ulterior motives and hidden agendas beyond making this world the most livable and efficient for as large a fraction of the population as possible.
A Benevolent Dictatorship? That never works in any organization larger than the Python Development Community.
Really? I thought Linux kernel dev community was larger than that.
Offtopic — related to your signature: I'm 3 degrees of separation (tops) from George W. Bush. And I'm not even American.
Dear sir, I am pleased to inform you that Duke Nukem Forever is being developed on Linux and will be available as a free download in both RPM and.deb formats as soon as Linux gains a majority share on the desktop.
_God Delusion_ anyone? If God is a delusion, does He exist? I think quite obviously, the intent is to provoke a resounding 'no'.
I do so adore people who have only read the title of a book and yet feel they are competent enough to discuss it.
In God Delusion, Dawkins declares himself a rational atheist, quite unwilling to even attempt to disprove the existence of god(s). He does present a convincing argument against the existence of a specific instance, though, which is not the same.
Why *do* athiests have to be so double-minded? You can't have your cake and eat it too--either you are hostile towards God or you aren't.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
However, hostility towards the idea of gods is not an issue here. "Science proves gods do not exist" is not mere hostility; I am rather hostile to the idea of gods myself, yet would never even attempt to prove such a negative.
If I lined up all the coincidences I have experienced with my girlfriend in the past year, I'd have proof enough we are identical twins. At least using the normal identical-twin-ESP metric.
This, BTW, includes my IM-ing her a Slashdot comment about a beer commercial at the precise moment she got sprayed by a beer.
Roam through the science section of a book store. There are quite a few out there. Multiple books on the subject.
I will take your word for it, as I haven't seen anything like that in any Croatian bookstore.
I have, however, seen Behe's tracts, as well as other creationist books, placed in the science section, which I find to be even worse.
The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse.
Tonight, on Jerry Springer: my son is an evolutionist!
I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?
Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.
Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method. It works on any bullshit.
True.
However, I find that kids are taught too much theory; dissecting creationism could prove a valuable exercise in applying the scientific method.
Bullshit is all-pervasive, and if any kind of education is to succeed, it should equip the students with proper bullshit-detectors.
I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science.
Now, I must admit I haven't read any atheists more militant than Dawkins, so I might be out of my depth, but I haven't ever encountered the stance that "science proves there are no gods".
As a linguist, I can readily assert that gods do in fact exist. So do elves, gnomes, unicorns and honest politicians. Now, outside language, that's a wholly diferent and highly debatable matter (do note that I never put trolls on the list, as we have the whole of the internet to actually prove their existence).
Knowing the way we functioned in school, though, this position may prove to be a hindrance. It only takes one or two trolls to turn every class into a creationsim debate.
But if what you quote is correct, why has it turned into such a heated issue? The last thing that should happen is science not discussing certain issues.
I guess that's all they could find for a "Guru" willing to accept $20.00 per hour. Sorry, but if you use "expert," "genius," or "guru" in your title, you will not see $20.00 per hour.
Well, they do say people are willing to accept a shiny, snazzy job title instead of a pay raise. So just like with managers, you'll be seeing a lot of gurus, expert, geniuses (genii?), wizards, enlightened ones (maybe these will be marketing E17?), geeks and whatnot, all of them without a clue.
Are you saying that, say, a placebo appendectomy works just as well as a real one?
Unknown. No study of appendectomy versus placebo surgery has been done; the hypothesis has not been tested. No scientific statement can be made.
Fair enough.
I will submit, though, that appendectomy, if performed on time and barring other mishaps, does indeed give consistent results. While double-blind tests have not been performed, the vastly reduced mortality from appendicits since the introduction of the surgical procedure should be enough for anyone. It's all about the statistics.
Really, I think that placebo surgery would have about the same result as placebo plumbing — i.e. none. Maybe that's because surgery gives results that are good enough and consistent enough to be above such suspicion.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is just too slow and clumsy nowadays. Mobile Windows 7 may already be old at the time it hit's the market.
Well, at least they'll be keeping up with the desktop version of Windows...
Oh, it is easy to find non-signs; you just have to look outside language.
I understood what you were trying to say; I was simply nit-picking.
What we need is one lone ruler who tells us what to do who has no ulterior motives and hidden agendas beyond making this world the most livable and efficient for as large a fraction of the population as possible.
A Benevolent Dictatorship? That never works in any organization larger than the Python Development Community.
Really? I thought Linux kernel dev community was larger than that.
Offtopic — related to your signature: I'm 3 degrees of separation (tops) from George W. Bush. And I'm not even American.
Well, at least you could have given us your opinion.
I always knew it was just God testing us.
Actually, it's the mice that are testing us.
Isn't that true of any religion?
It may be not quite like aether. Maybe it's more like phlogiston.
We wouldn't even have flames.
Hardly.
Ported?
Dear sir, I am pleased to inform you that Duke Nukem Forever is being developed on Linux and will be available as a free download in both RPM and .deb formats as soon as Linux gains a majority share on the desktop.
By your definition, every time I leave a room I enter a new dimension.
Depending upon who built your house, that could be true...
I have yet to find a plaque naming Bergholt Stuttley Johnson as the builder o my house. Though I do sometimes have trouble finding myself.
_God Delusion_ anyone? If God is a delusion, does He exist? I think quite obviously, the intent is to provoke a resounding 'no'.
I do so adore people who have only read the title of a book and yet feel they are competent enough to discuss it.
In God Delusion, Dawkins declares himself a rational atheist, quite unwilling to even attempt to disprove the existence of god(s). He does present a convincing argument against the existence of a specific instance, though, which is not the same.
Why *do* athiests have to be so double-minded? You can't have your cake and eat it too--either you are hostile towards God or you aren't.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
However, hostility towards the idea of gods is not an issue here. "Science proves gods do not exist" is not mere hostility; I am rather hostile to the idea of gods myself, yet would never even attempt to prove such a negative.
Oh, and a final nitpick: it's atheist.
Thanks.
Now, gay I could live with. Even communist. But darwinist?
I no longer have a son.
Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!
If I lined up all the coincidences I have experienced with my girlfriend in the past year, I'd have proof enough we are identical twins. At least using the normal identical-twin-ESP metric.
This, BTW, includes my IM-ing her a Slashdot comment about a beer commercial at the precise moment she got sprayed by a beer.
Roam through the science section of a book store. There are quite a few out there. Multiple books on the subject.
I will take your word for it, as I haven't seen anything like that in any Croatian bookstore.
I have, however, seen Behe's tracts, as well as other creationist books, placed in the science section, which I find to be even worse.
The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse.
Tonight, on Jerry Springer: my son is an evolutionist!
Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.
Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method . It works on any bullshit.
True.
However, I find that kids are taught too much theory; dissecting creationism could prove a valuable exercise in applying the scientific method.
Bullshit is all-pervasive, and if any kind of education is to succeed, it should equip the students with proper bullshit-detectors.
I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science.
Now, I must admit I haven't read any atheists more militant than Dawkins, so I might be out of my depth, but I haven't ever encountered the stance that "science proves there are no gods".
As a linguist, I can readily assert that gods do in fact exist. So do elves, gnomes, unicorns and honest politicians. Now, outside language, that's a wholly diferent and highly debatable matter (do note that I never put trolls on the list, as we have the whole of the internet to actually prove their existence).
Knowing the way we functioned in school, though, this position may prove to be a hindrance. It only takes one or two trolls to turn every class into a creationsim debate.
But if what you quote is correct, why has it turned into such a heated issue? The last thing that should happen is science not discussing certain issues.
On a fork?
I guess that's all they could find for a "Guru" willing to accept $20.00 per hour. Sorry, but if you use "expert," "genius," or "guru" in your title, you will not see $20.00 per hour.
Well, they do say people are willing to accept a shiny, snazzy job title instead of a pay raise. So just like with managers, you'll be seeing a lot of gurus, expert, geniuses (genii?), wizards, enlightened ones (maybe these will be marketing E17?), geeks and whatnot, all of them without a clue.
So they gladly eat up the lies?
Well, that explains a lot...
Clippy: It looks like your printer is on fire. Would you like to: * Call 911 * Put it out. * Let it burn.
Please, let it burn. My DVD burner died, I'll put my DVDs in the printer.
Unknown. No study of appendectomy versus placebo surgery has been done; the hypothesis has not been tested. No scientific statement can be made.
Fair enough.
I will submit, though, that appendectomy, if performed on time and barring other mishaps, does indeed give consistent results. While double-blind tests have not been performed, the vastly reduced mortality from appendicits since the introduction of the surgical procedure should be enough for anyone. It's all about the statistics.
Really, I think that placebo surgery would have about the same result as placebo plumbing — i.e. none. Maybe that's because surgery gives results that are good enough and consistent enough to be above such suspicion.
"Wiping out most species on the planet has to qualify as an evolutionary step backwards."
Evolution doesn't take steps backwards. It just takes steps.
And all the genetic mutations caused as a result of nuclear fallout might cause it to step faster.
Run awaaaay!