When Chrisitanity (which is what most people think of when they say religion) says they are the only religion what they mean is that if you don't believe in Jesus you will burn in eternal hellfire.
Well Rev. Jeb what if no one told me about Jesus? I'm sorry Timmy thats just plain bad luck, but you will still burn in eternal hellfire.
Fortunately for you Timmy you live in this comfortable red state where everyone knows that Jesus is the son of the only God, so all you have to do is accept him and you'll be hunkey-dory. Unless of course you do something evil like believe in evolution, fornicate, do drugs, question your pastor, eat meat on Friday in Lent, fail to acknoledge Mary as the Virgin mother of our LORD, worship Mary on par with the LORD, commit suicide, question transsubstaniation, practice homosexuality, fail to kneel befor the Lamb of God, read any of those banned books (including Harry Potter or the Davinci Code), listen to rock and roll, wear a hat in chuch (men), not wear a bonnet in chuch (women), fail to give 10% of your income to the church...
While you would be correct in saying that all Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) claim to be the only religion the same is not true of eastern religions.
Specifically while Buddhism teaches the path of Buddha it is possible to become independently enlightened. (that's what Siddhartha did anyway) Hinduism wouldn't have a problem accepting God, Yahweh, Thor or anyone else into their extensive pantheon. And Shintoism, Daoism, and Confucianism don't even teach explicitly about any God.
Furthermore, the trend in modern religion (speaking first hand about catholicism) is to be more tolerant of other religions and not start the conversation with, "Have you accepted Jesus as your LORD and savior."
First the contention that humans originated in Africa is only slightly debatable. The majority of reputable evidence clearly points to Africa as the site of the original man
Second the first man is referred to as Adam because what else would you call him? Homo Alpha? The name Adam is synonymous with the first man in western culture so there is no reason that they shouldn't use it.
Third if you had glanced at the article you would have seen that while there is sufficient data to present human migration in broad strokes, it is insufficient to determine finer details of population movement. An example from the article is tracing the genetic trail of Alexander the Great's, army.
The whole time I was reading the article I was asking myself what could possibly be in it for the ISPs. I couldn't com up with anything? The only plus for ISPs that I saw was the clause limiting excessive bandwidth.
Other than that I have to wonder why any US ISP would go along with it. I think that European ISPs might be more tightly regulated by the government, and that kind of pressure could cause them to roll over, but in the US I can't think why an ISP would cave.
And what was that threat about empty pipelines? It was my impression that the RIAA wan't in control of internet content.
Why does everyone think that as soon as we create an AI that is capable of learning that is going to continue to learn indefinitely. Isn't it more realistic to first seek out an AI that can learn as well as a dog? And move on from there AI that learn as monkeys, then chimps, and maybe by that point we will have a good enough handle on the problem to create a crude human AI.
Not only that but by creating increasingly sophisticated AI's we learn our self. If the first AI we create is a "bad dog" we learn how to create a good dog. Hopefully by the time we get to creating a human AI we've learned enough to prevent creating a sociopath.
I realize that there is a difference between intelligence and sentience, but why should we expect to create a sentient computer program the first time out of the box.
Clearly I'm no expert in the field, but I find it hard to believe that the first AI ever is going to be an unmitigated success (even if it is evil). I find it much more likely that when and if the field begins to bear fruit there will be a learning curve, and the first AI won't view us as play things.
Every time there an article about an alternative fuel vehicle the second paragraph, without fail, includes one of the following buzz phrases "zero emissions" or "pollution free."
The mainstream media needs to wrap their collective brains around the fact that ultimately you need to charge the battery, or get the hydrogen from somewhere, and that's done with the aid of the coal plant somewhere far enough away that you can't see the smokestacks. Until a large portion of our energy is supplied by something other than combustion you're just hiding the pollution.
On a side note why would you power a reciprocating engine with compressed air? Shouldn't a compressor turbine system be more efficient?
Slashdot Mirror
When Chrisitanity (which is what most people think of when they say religion) says they are the only religion what they mean is that if you don't believe in Jesus you will burn in eternal hellfire.
...
Well Rev. Jeb what if no one told me about Jesus?
I'm sorry Timmy thats just plain bad luck, but you will still burn in eternal hellfire.
Fortunately for you Timmy you live in this comfortable red state where everyone knows that Jesus is the son of the only God, so all you have to do is accept him and you'll be hunkey-dory. Unless of course you do something evil like believe in evolution, fornicate, do drugs, question your pastor, eat meat on Friday in Lent, fail to acknoledge Mary as the Virgin mother of our LORD, worship Mary on par with the LORD, commit suicide, question transsubstaniation, practice homosexuality, fail to kneel befor the Lamb of God, read any of those banned books (including Harry Potter or the Davinci Code), listen to rock and roll, wear a hat in chuch (men), not wear a bonnet in chuch (women), fail to give 10% of your income to the church
While you would be correct in saying that all Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) claim to be the only religion the same is not true of eastern religions.
Specifically while Buddhism teaches the path of Buddha it is possible to become independently enlightened. (that's what Siddhartha did anyway) Hinduism wouldn't have a problem accepting God, Yahweh, Thor or anyone else into their extensive pantheon. And Shintoism, Daoism, and Confucianism don't even teach explicitly about any God.
Furthermore, the trend in modern religion (speaking first hand about catholicism) is to be more tolerant of other religions and not start the conversation with, "Have you accepted Jesus as your LORD and savior."
I bet they wouldn't notice until they begin phase 2.
the creation of a superman clone army using the finest specimens of the worlds population
Wow, yes its science
First the contention that humans originated in Africa is only slightly debatable. The majority of reputable evidence clearly points to Africa as the site of the original man
Second the first man is referred to as Adam because what else would you call him? Homo Alpha? The name Adam is synonymous with the first man in western culture so there is no reason that they shouldn't use it.
Third if you had glanced at the article you would have seen that while there is sufficient data to present human migration in broad strokes, it is insufficient to determine finer details of population movement. An example from the article is tracing the genetic trail of Alexander the Great's, army.
The whole time I was reading the article I was asking myself what could possibly be in it for the ISPs. I couldn't com up with anything? The only plus for ISPs that I saw was the clause limiting excessive bandwidth.
Other than that I have to wonder why any US ISP would go along with it. I think that European ISPs might be more tightly regulated by the government, and that kind of pressure could cause them to roll over, but in the US I can't think why an ISP would cave.
And what was that threat about empty pipelines? It was my impression that the RIAA wan't in control of internet content.
equally obligitory
In soviet russia babies boot strap you
Why does everyone think that as soon as we create an AI that is capable of learning that is going to continue to learn indefinitely. Isn't it more realistic to first seek out an AI that can learn as well as a dog? And move on from there AI that learn as monkeys, then chimps, and maybe by that point we will have a good enough handle on the problem to create a crude human AI.
Not only that but by creating increasingly sophisticated AI's we learn our self. If the first AI we create is a "bad dog" we learn how to create a good dog. Hopefully by the time we get to creating a human AI we've learned enough to prevent creating a sociopath.
I realize that there is a difference between intelligence and sentience, but why should we expect to create a sentient computer program the first time out of the box.
Clearly I'm no expert in the field, but I find it hard to believe that the first AI ever is going to be an unmitigated success (even if it is evil). I find it much more likely that when and if the field begins to bear fruit there will be a learning curve, and the first AI won't view us as play things.
Every time there an article about an alternative fuel vehicle the second paragraph, without fail, includes one of the following buzz phrases "zero emissions" or "pollution free."
The mainstream media needs to wrap their collective brains around the fact that ultimately you need to charge the battery, or get the hydrogen from somewhere, and that's done with the aid of the coal plant somewhere far enough away that you can't see the smokestacks. Until a large portion of our energy is supplied by something other than combustion you're just hiding the pollution.
On a side note why would you power a reciprocating engine with compressed air? Shouldn't a compressor turbine system be more efficient?