So I'll stop calling you "Evil" when you stop doing evil things.
Will you also call all religions "Good" until they stop doing good things? Or is it evil for my local church to feed homeless people in their community, while asking nothing in return?
I guess the alternative is that you can admit your irrational double standard.
Is this different somehow than the EverQuest 2 Exchange servers? Other than the fact that it applies to all players and not just the ones who opted in?
Going further in to debt is not a good strategy to becoming debt free
It's called "investing" -- you spend money to make more money than you spent. Whether you go into debt or not is inconsequential, assuming you are successful in your investment.
Why was this rated funny? He has a valid, insightful point -- Many of the skeptics are so entrenched against AGW that they don't even want the research to be performed -- which means we would never actually know the truth.
The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints. An example of this polarization would be Democrat versus Republican.
ID vs. Evolution is also quite obviously polarized, so I don't think this experiment's results apply.
So you're claiming that atheism is a new idea? I don't think that's the case. Atheism dates back at least to 500 BCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
Christianity by definition only dates back to ~30 CE. Wouldn't that mean that Christianity is still a new idea, too? Islam is even younger, with Muhammed living around 600 CE.
Setting aside the fact that this "experiment" had some very obvious flaws, does anyone really care if it can potentially give you a headache? We all stare at computer screens all day and that is very clearly terrible for our eyes and gives us headaches!
I agree with Vux, and also I think this translates very well to how Atheists and Theists seem to view each other. As you said, each side seems to think they are somehow more enlightened than the other, and that therefore their viewpoint is superior. It really detracts from any attempt at discussion.
Come to think of it, this is probably true about politics, as well.
#1. I'm 6'8" 315lbs and a hockey player. Try NOT applying your stupid "typical geek" stereotype to everyone you meet.
#2. Have you really not seen/heard the stories about passengers ganging up on another passenger in flight for stupid/simple reasons? There are hundreds of people on most of these flights, and if you are doing something that they perceive as endangering all of their lives, you've given them plenty of motivation to step outside of their comfort zones.
#3. If your options are (a) Sit and wait for them to crash your plane into a building or (b) Try to overpower them, in which case either you win and the plane can be landed safely, or you lose and the plane crashes, although likely in a field somewhere and not into a major metropolitan area, then logically which would you choose?
Also, 9/11 changed our mindset around hijacking. Previously, everyone on the plane would have thought "They'll get us to the ground safely, they just want us as hostages" so complacency had much lower risk than heroism... but 9/11 showed that some folks want to use the plane as a missile and don't care about the people on board. That means if someone attempts to hijack the plane, even with a bomb, the passengers have plenty of motivation to respond because the risk of complacence is now *higher* than the risk of heroism.
I'm confused. Are you saying this technology is bullshit and we shouldn't spend money on it, or are you saying we should be spending our money on this instead of all the other bullshit?
So what if Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan like that? It's not under Greek control now, is it? Maybe that says something about how important it is to treat your people like people instead of like livestock. Same story with the soviet army. Look how well things have turned out for them...
Also, were their armies all-volunteer? Our is. It takes some degree of respect and accomodation from the higher-ups to keep the incoming stream of volunteers at a reasonable level.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't intentionally make it difficult, though. They don't try to stop you.
Will you also call all religions "Good" until they stop doing good things? Or is it evil for my local church to feed homeless people in their community, while asking nothing in return?
I guess the alternative is that you can admit your irrational double standard.
No, but if they keep saying it, more people start believing it. Even moderate Republicans have been saying things like this.
Is this different somehow than the EverQuest 2 Exchange servers? Other than the fact that it applies to all players and not just the ones who opted in?
It's called "investing" -- you spend money to make more money than you spent. Whether you go into debt or not is inconsequential, assuming you are successful in your investment.
Scratch that, I'm way off base because I didn't realize you were talking in percentages.
Maybe I'm way off base, but wouldn't 391 ppm be .000001 and not .0001... so you're looking at 0.000391 vs .08 in your example, not .0391 vs .08.
Do you work for Verizon?
Why was this rated funny? He has a valid, insightful point -- Many of the skeptics are so entrenched against AGW that they don't even want the research to be performed -- which means we would never actually know the truth.
So how do you launch an entire falcon rocket into space without spending its own fuel & stages? Ahh, a bigger rocket? Got one?
Who gets the money from the sale?
ID vs. Evolution is also quite obviously polarized, so I don't think this experiment's results apply.
So you're claiming that atheism is a new idea? I don't think that's the case. Atheism dates back at least to 500 BCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology Christianity by definition only dates back to ~30 CE. Wouldn't that mean that Christianity is still a new idea, too? Islam is even younger, with Muhammed living around 600 CE.
Wish I had mod points!
Google, which sells its users' eyes (and other personal info) to advertisers, or Oracle, who doesn't sell anything without an humongous price tag?
Setting aside the fact that this "experiment" had some very obvious flaws, does anyone really care if it can potentially give you a headache? We all stare at computer screens all day and that is very clearly terrible for our eyes and gives us headaches!
Hmm if it lasts more than four hours, call a doctor.
I agree with Vux, and also I think this translates very well to how Atheists and Theists seem to view each other. As you said, each side seems to think they are somehow more enlightened than the other, and that therefore their viewpoint is superior. It really detracts from any attempt at discussion.
Come to think of it, this is probably true about politics, as well.
Like posting on Slashdot?
Seriously, why can't we get rid of it?
#1. I'm 6'8" 315lbs and a hockey player. Try NOT applying your stupid "typical geek" stereotype to everyone you meet.
#2. Have you really not seen/heard the stories about passengers ganging up on another passenger in flight for stupid/simple reasons? There are hundreds of people on most of these flights, and if you are doing something that they perceive as endangering all of their lives, you've given them plenty of motivation to step outside of their comfort zones.
#3. If your options are (a) Sit and wait for them to crash your plane into a building or (b) Try to overpower them, in which case either you win and the plane can be landed safely, or you lose and the plane crashes, although likely in a field somewhere and not into a major metropolitan area, then logically which would you choose?
A few references for #2:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/5258502-418/houston-to-chicago-flight-diverts-in-st.-louis
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/02/16/idUSL16313540
Of course there's also United flight 93.
Also, 9/11 changed our mindset around hijacking. Previously, everyone on the plane would have thought "They'll get us to the ground safely, they just want us as hostages" so complacency had much lower risk than heroism... but 9/11 showed that some folks want to use the plane as a missile and don't care about the people on board. That means if someone attempts to hijack the plane, even with a bomb, the passengers have plenty of motivation to respond because the risk of complacence is now *higher* than the risk of heroism.
I'm confused. Are you saying this technology is bullshit and we shouldn't spend money on it, or are you saying we should be spending our money on this instead of all the other bullshit?
I just LOLed...
So what if Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan like that? It's not under Greek control now, is it? Maybe that says something about how important it is to treat your people like people instead of like livestock. Same story with the soviet army. Look how well things have turned out for them...
Also, were their armies all-volunteer? Our is. It takes some degree of respect and accomodation from the higher-ups to keep the incoming stream of volunteers at a reasonable level.