If morality is a human construct, then it is arbitrary.
I don't understand this comment. If morality is a human construct then it would not be arbitray (ie random or unrestrained) but directly related to human flourishing and welfare.
Not if morality is a Super Being construct... then it might be with respect to us puny humans... arbitary.
...regardless of what he believes or not...he's separated from God for eternity...even Pascal believed it was better to be wrong than separated for an eternity...
Pacal's wager is game theory... plain and simple. But bad game theory as he didn't fill in the whole decision/reward matrix.
For example, perhaps those that didn't believe in fairy tales and anthropomophic gods and did good without the explicity reward promist are those that will be truly rewarded in the end. Where does that put you?
What an atheist wants is to be apart from God, that's what they get.
That is prehaps the stupidist comment here... i know, i know it gets passed around in churchy circles - but it is just stupid.
If someone wanted to be apart from God, then they would not be an atheist... but an angry theist. Do you want to be apart from Zeus? From Krishna? Or do you just not believe those concepts and proposals are viable?
Think before spouting stupid platitudes - as it reveals that you haven't thought very deeply.
Number 2. Is actually evidence we are a simulation... it is not a conservation technique but evidence that the whole thing is run on a digital computer.
In typical hypocritical fashion, Trump expanded the H2B by 15000 this year and even hired 70 workers at Mar-a-lago
Every job in that H2B category depresses wages for American workers. If these were immigrants, at least they would be engaging in the economy buying houses, cars, etc. The guest worker hunkers down, saves money and takes it out of our country.
Insightful... yes exactly that. The market sets the income. Supply and demand. What are people expecting that the gov't intervenes to set the wages? Stupid outrage here.
I seriously would like to know why you find this confusing. It is a form of cheap Hungarian Notation or intrinsic documentation. With the cost of one character I know the type of a variable. It is the one thing I find (contrary to the prevailing opinions) that makes Perl very readable.
Yeah since Google is now honoring Black Separatists and praising people who fly airplanes into buildings full of innocent people I wonder when they are going to honor a "White Separatist".
Seriously I nuked chrome from my desktop and moved everything to Firefox on all my devices over that... small gesture sure but I even found out I like firefox better now.
I think a federal judges order puts bounds on the alleged slippery slope.
But speaking of slippery slope the question can be applied in the other direction. Is it wise to prohibit breaking encryption on a citizens phone if it can save innocent lives? Of a few people, of hundreds? or a whole city? Should we say that the "right" to citizen privacy is unalienable even if the information might prevent a major attack? or disarm a WMD?
Yeah but the kids who didn't cast a vote for the cheap skate route are the ones who end up paying and paying dearly... which incidentally society pays in the long term.
Perl has the right idea, but it's too easy to forget to use the right one, especially if you work with other languages.
Actually it is quite easy to remember Perl's usage... The operator 'gt' uses strings and is used for a string comparison. The ">" is a math symbol and used for numeric comparison.
- Hard to read code with multiple '$'s and '@'s on every line
I prefer to have variables differentiated (scalars, arrays and hashes) and clearly identified from other syntax or text. It makes code more readable IMHO.
- In-place string modification is asking for bugs
You mean string interpolation? This in fact is one of Perl strengths
$str = "There are $num apples".
is clearer and less busy, easier to remember than
str = "I have {a} apples".format(a=num)
- Clumsy OOP
Specifics? There are some valid criticism of Perl's 5 OOP but the success of CPAN and a long list of highly successful reusable OO modules highlights its practical side.
- Poor selection of publicly available libraries; some have critical bugs that have not been fixed for years
Now you are well into troll territory or you really haven't used Perl much. DBI, CGI, LWP, IO::Socket, HTML::Parser, GetOpt::Long, Devel::NYTProf (not really a module but a totally awesome profiler) the list goes on.
It sounds like you're claiming that Kuhn didn't believe that a new paradigm offers more accurate results than the last, which he almost certainly didn't.
If he said something controversial along those lines, he might have meant that our perceptions don't actually reflect reality as it really is, so as we are trying to mold science into our reality, we aren't necessarily molding it into a model of actual reality.
Sokal may have been correct that Kuhn didn't make the distinction, but that doesn't mean Kuhn didn't have a valid concern that our scientific reality is socially-constructed. Again, I don't know if Kuhn actually believed this, I'm just guessing based on my reading of Kuhn that he wouldn't have said something as controversial as what you've implied.
Kuhn did not deny that sciences progresses, however he did subtlety deny that we are progressing toward anything - such as closer approximations to the truth or objective reality.
From what i know of Thomas Kuhn he believed that science is social construct and that the new paradigms don't fit reality any better than the last. To which is think is a load.
As Alan Sokal pointed out in his recent book the discovery aspect of science is a social construct but the justification part is not and this distinction is where Kuhn missed the boat.
Why are clam fossils at the top of very young mountains?
Because the earth is very old, continent uplift and subsequent erosion.
ID addresses such an issue?
BTW some ignorant and misinformed floodist think sea shells on top of mountains is evidence of a flood - sorry to say it actually falsifies a flood. Take for example the Grand Canyon, on the Kiabab plateau, there are sea shell fossil that sit on top a geological column that contains fossilized foot prints, rain drops, ripple marks, mud cracks, etc. So just how did these dense organisms find their way to the top?
I think you deserve D- for not showing any work and confusing YEC with ID.
Slashdot Mirror
You Frenchies and Chinese... Clean Coal 4Ever.
If morality is a human construct, then it is arbitrary.
I don't understand this comment. If morality is a human construct then it would not be arbitray (ie random or unrestrained) but directly related to human flourishing and welfare. Not if morality is a Super Being construct... then it might be with respect to us puny humans... arbitary.
...regardless of what he believes or not...he's separated from God for eternity...even Pascal believed it was better to be wrong than separated for an eternity...
Pacal's wager is game theory... plain and simple. But bad game theory as he didn't fill in the whole decision/reward matrix. For example, perhaps those that didn't believe in fairy tales and anthropomophic gods and did good without the explicity reward promist are those that will be truly rewarded in the end. Where does that put you?
What an atheist wants is to be apart from God, that's what they get.
That is prehaps the stupidist comment here... i know, i know it gets passed around in churchy circles - but it is just stupid. If someone wanted to be apart from God, then they would not be an atheist... but an angry theist. Do you want to be apart from Zeus? From Krishna? Or do you just not believe those concepts and proposals are viable? Think before spouting stupid platitudes - as it reveals that you haven't thought very deeply.
Nice whatboutism
This isn't whatboutism but correlation fella!
Waymo jumps ahead... that is what happens when your competition runs someone over. Now UBER stands for UBER = >U BEtterR get out of the way!
Only one way to do anything.
Except that isn't true... for example you can format a string in several different ways. And then there is the different ways between 2 and 3.
Perl's simple string interpolation is much easier and straightforward.
I arguably can't know what my neighbor's taste like
Really? Was cannibalism popular in the 17th century?
Number 2. Is actually evidence we are a simulation... it is not a conservation technique but evidence that the whole thing is run on a digital computer.
In typical hypocritical fashion, Trump expanded the H2B by 15000 this year and even hired 70 workers at Mar-a-lago
Every job in that H2B category depresses wages for American workers. If these were immigrants, at least they would be engaging in the economy buying houses, cars, etc. The guest worker hunkers down, saves money and takes it out of our country.
How does he get away with this?
Insightful... yes exactly that. The market sets the income. Supply and demand. What are people expecting that the gov't intervenes to set the wages? Stupid outrage here.
I seriously would like to know why you find this confusing. It is a form of cheap Hungarian Notation or intrinsic documentation. With the cost of one character I know the type of a variable. It is the one thing I find (contrary to the prevailing opinions) that makes Perl very readable.
Yeah since Google is now honoring Black Separatists and praising people who fly airplanes into buildings full of innocent people I wonder when they are going to honor a "White Separatist".
Seriously I nuked chrome from my desktop and moved everything to Firefox on all my devices over that... small gesture sure but I even found out I like firefox better now.
I think a federal judges order puts bounds on the alleged slippery slope.
But speaking of slippery slope the question can be applied in the other direction. Is it wise to prohibit breaking encryption on a citizens phone if it can save innocent lives? Of a few people, of hundreds? or a whole city? Should we say that the "right" to citizen privacy is unalienable even if the information might prevent a major attack? or disarm a WMD?
Yeah but the kids who didn't cast a vote for the cheap skate route are the ones who end up paying and paying dearly... which incidentally society pays in the long term.
Perl has the right idea, but it's too easy to forget to use the right one, especially if you work with other languages.
Actually it is quite easy to remember Perl's usage... The operator 'gt' uses strings and is used for a string comparison. The ">" is a math symbol and used for numeric comparison.
- Hard to read code with multiple '$'s and '@'s on every line
I prefer to have variables differentiated (scalars, arrays and hashes) and clearly identified from other syntax or text. It makes code more readable IMHO.
- In-place string modification is asking for bugs
You mean string interpolation? This in fact is one of Perl strengths
$str = "There are $num apples".
is clearer and less busy, easier to remember than
str = "I have {a} apples".format(a=num)
- Clumsy OOP
Specifics? There are some valid criticism of Perl's 5 OOP but the success of CPAN and a long list of highly successful reusable OO modules highlights its practical side.
- Poor selection of publicly available libraries; some have critical bugs that have not been fixed for years
Now you are well into troll territory or you really haven't used Perl much. DBI, CGI, LWP, IO::Socket, HTML::Parser, GetOpt::Long, Devel::NYTProf (not really a module but a totally awesome profiler) the list goes on.
Someone bump this from 4 to 5. This is question I would also like to see asked.
It sounds like you're claiming that Kuhn didn't believe that a new paradigm offers more accurate results than the last, which he almost certainly didn't.
If he said something controversial along those lines, he might have meant that our perceptions don't actually reflect reality as it really is, so as we are trying to mold science into our reality, we aren't necessarily molding it into a model of actual reality.
Sokal may have been correct that Kuhn didn't make the distinction, but that doesn't mean Kuhn didn't have a valid concern that our scientific reality is socially-constructed. Again, I don't know if Kuhn actually believed this, I'm just guessing based on my reading of Kuhn that he wouldn't have said something as controversial as what you've implied.
Kuhn did not deny that sciences progresses, however he did subtlety deny that we are progressing toward anything - such as closer approximations to the truth or objective reality.
Read Weinberg criticisms here
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/weinberg.html
From what i know of Thomas Kuhn he believed that science is social construct and that the new paradigms don't fit reality any better than the last. To which is think is a load.
As Alan Sokal pointed out in his recent book the discovery aspect of science is a social construct but the justification part is not and this distinction is where Kuhn missed the boat.
Shhhhh..... That is best kept a secret friend. ;)
Why are clam fossils at the top of very young mountains?
Because the earth is very old, continent uplift and subsequent erosion.
ID addresses such an issue?
BTW some ignorant and misinformed floodist think sea shells on top of mountains is evidence of a flood - sorry to say it actually falsifies a flood. Take for example the Grand Canyon, on the Kiabab plateau, there are sea shell fossil that sit on top a geological column that contains fossilized foot prints, rain drops, ripple marks, mud cracks, etc. So just how did these dense organisms find their way to the top?
I think you deserve D- for not showing any work and confusing YEC with ID.
This got me wondering if silicon based females have carbon implants.
Conservation of energy. Less atmosphere, less shock wave; greater velocity and impact force.
Why the use of this adjective? Most rocks i know of are "odd shaped"