It's quite possible to believe in Jesus Christ the man and Nicholas the man. It's also quite possible to believe in the existence of bunnies, and even more specifically, in the existence of one bunny that someone observed on Easter morning a couple centuries ago.
To believe that Jesus both literally turned water into wine and arose from the dead, and that Nicholas has 8 magic reindeer and scoots down chimneys to deliver gifts, is akin to believing that a bunny hops around and hides eggs on Easter morning. They are equitably irrational.
(which no one over the age of 8 actually believes in).
No one over the age of 8 believes in the Easter Bunny because adults evenutally let them in on the game when they express doubt. This is opposed to Christianity, when all evidence to the contrary, adults continue to enforce the myth of a supernatural being to whom we owe our salvation. There's also no political structure to support the existence of the EB, as there is with JC the Son of God/God/Holy Spirit (or whatever you believe). Annually, weekly, daily, 8-year-olds are encouraged to believe in JC the Redeemer, and punished for expressing doubt. You wonder why 8-year-olds discover the truth about the EB but don't discover the truth about JC? That's it right there.
Just take solace in that the creationist sect is a tiny, tiny majority of the worldwide Christians - probably much less than 1%. Arguably they shouldn't even be called Christians since their beliefs are so different than the rest of the religion.
I wish it were so. Fundamentalist Christians represent about 35% of the voting US population (approx 70% of those who voted for Bush) according to many researchers, and the disparate birth rates will only serve to increase that proportion. I know, I'm kind of conflating fundamentalism with creationism, but they go hand-in-hand and have similar repercussions on the fate of the nation.
Please don't underestimate how powerful the fundamentalist Christians are, to do so is to allow them to take over our nation more than they already have. Consider the fact that John Ashcroft is a creationist, and he held a high-level cabinet position under Bush.
They have 6000 thousand finger? I knew inbreeding was a problem, but seriously.
Bah. Obviously God is the owner of Yes Group Inc, whose FM300 Former can make 6000 fingers an hour.
Just think, that's 315.6 billion fingers, or 31.56 billion normal humans since He made the world! Seeing as 39.8 billion people have ever lived in total, the question is, how did God make the extra 80+ billion fingers?!
Any fundamentalist Christian who can reasonably answer that question has my assurance that I will be converted.
Your response is exactly what I alluding to -- the OP challenged creationists to apply reasoning to their view of creation -- and it's impossible to debate a matter of pure faith.
The problem cannot be addressed via logic, reason, or scientific processes. IMO, it will only ever be resolved through education of the young before they are brainwashed, and that will never happen as long as we don't enforce 100% secular education.
And, unfortunately, guess what population has the highest birthrate in the US? It's ironic, but ignorance is learned. The majority of children of the US are being taught well.
The absolute pasting they took under the German Blitzkrieg is why they suffer surrender jokes.
They failed to foresee the mobility of the German war machine, as I'm sure you know. If the Maginot Line had extended into the Alps, we'd likely be saluting the French for their bravery and sacrifice.
That said, Vichy France was VERY helpful to the Germans, and many Americans can't let go of the ideal of the valiant rebel fighting on in guerilla warfare as some kind of Platonic ideal. Thus, to the simplistic American, all French are now mistakenly considered surrender monkeys who not only surrendered, but aided the enemy.
For those of us that deal globally with many countries and cultures, the answer is clear: While most of the French people are fairly nice, we find their government and "culture" to be arrogant and insincere, particularly the official attitude toward individual Americans over the years.
As an American, can I just say that though the French may have deservedly earned such a reputation (I'm not sure how deservedly in general, by my personal experiences corroborate it), your post is the height of hypocracy? The American hubris is awful, considering we are falling down the same slope of crashing hegemony as the French did -- and very soon all we'll have left is our pride. We talk of the superiority of the American political system, American sports, American pop culture, etc -- but the Chinese or the Indians or the Pacific Rim countries will scoff at our arrogant hubris when it's all we have left.
Why do you say it is just as irrational to believe in the easter bunny as it is to believe in Jesus or Saint Nicholas?
It's just as irrational to believe in the myths of Jesus and Santa Claus as it is to believe in the myth of the Easter Bunny.
In line with your questions, would you question the existence of bunnies at Eastertime?
I believe that the biblical Jesus Christ is based on a real person; I also believe that 99% of what is believed about him is absolutely false. Ditto for Santa Claus.
Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth?
Yes.
If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found?
Who are we to presume knowledge of the wisdom of he-that-is-all-knowing-and-all-powerful?
How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
What you're asking, in essence, is why is no one researching the intent and methods of YHWH. If you feel the need to research this, then obviously your faith is lacking -- perhaps you should spend less time at the Universityy of Faithlessness and attend Church more often.
If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does.
Again, you're trying to use logic to reason the will of YHWH -- this does not work; if faith predictions fail, it is because He chose it to be so -- maybe He's testing our faith in his infinite Wisdom.
The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
You're conflating profits with prophets; your attention should be on the Spiritual rewards of faith, not on the material rewards of speculation and gambling with mineral rights.
I think the biggest problem all you intellectuals have is that you assume that using the power of the human mind, you can know the mind of an infinitely superior being, instead of feeding on the scraps of wisdom he imparts to us through the holy men He chooses. Pshaw -- like it's even possible to use reason to know the unknowable.
Please read the thread, OP talked about variable output bases being sold at RS sometime in the future, which is what we were discussing. I believe that variable-output is asking for problems, instead we'll see input adaptors for appliances to pull off a standardized supply in the long run.
Hopefully the burden of responsibility it puts on the shoulders of elected representatives will be so high that it weeds out those who are mere power hungry psychopaths.
More likely, it weeds out those who are not power hungry psychopaths.
Altruists will realize that their energy is better spent elsewhere for greater utility.
The Constitution (more properly, the Bill of Rights) is not a grant of rights; rather, it forbids the government from impinging on the specified rights.
It's even more inclusive than that. It enumerates some of those rights which the government cannot impinge upon; other unmentioned inalienable rights also cannot be impinged upon. This was a major argument against the Bill of Rights -- that by enumerating certain rights that cannot be violated by the government, it limits people's rights to those listed.
Are those ones used by the Ringwraiths when they are out of the office?
Seriously though, 40W input to charge a battery doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 40W consumption of the CPU/GPU/monitor combo, right? Running directly off the supply would be problematic, but charging the battery seems like it would still be possible, no?
To a certain extent, the same is true of the support-based revenue model for open source software. The difference is the ability to go elsewhere for the service.
The key, I believe, is that people (and organizations) who purchase software need to account for the full cost... It's interesting how many corporations are addicts, and how their management isn't faulted for that.Well, we all know that current cost-savings is valued more than potential future cost-savings. It's also hard to concretely demonstrate the indirect increased costs of proprietary software -- and without demonstration, those savings will be ignored.
Finally, though, what I think is often overlooked by the open source community is that corporations are inherently conservative. Many managements prefer to be locked-in, since it gives them an easy reason to not change.
The power receiver would have to do a bit of voltage conversion and regulation anyhow. No reason it can't do overvoltage protection at the same time.
So why bother having a variable-output base if the receiver needs to convert anyway? Plus, what if you toss multiple devices on the pad at the same time, each with different power requirements? This is the reason I'd want one of these, to eliminate multiple chargers.
The way I look at it, it's like establishing a standard for wallwarts. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a standard output?
Different brands would likely use different technologies and couple less efficiently, if at all, to receivers designed for a different version.
In the beginning, I agree. I think in the long run, a standard would become accepted until made obsolete. The utility of a universal charger would be severely reduced by varying interoperability, and so the charger most likely to succeed is the one that plays best will most devices.
Sure, but you've got to plug each device in with a specific adaptor plug. Wireless charging would greatly increase the chance of accidentally frying your appliance(s).
The audience tore the Oracle guy to shreds and insisted that he say "cost-less" instead of "Free" for the rest of the talk.
They should have made him say "free-as-in-beer"[1] instead, since costless isn't accurate -- reduced usabilty of code is a cost, for example, as is overcoming vendor lock-in.
I know it's semantics, but it's very important that businesses who might want to use open-source software understand that closed-source software, even if provided free-of-charge, is nowhere near costless. If anything, I'd say using the word "costless" in preference to "free" could be more damaging to acceptance of open-source software in the long run.
if these things get cheap enough, we'll start seeing adapters to clip onto the bottom of phones that will take power from the pad.
Agreed, and 'cheap enough' doesn't really matter -- if the chargers enter the market significantly at any price, we'll see this happen.
Shortly after that, expect to start seeing universal adaptor kits at Radio Shack with a switch-selector voltage output
I don't think Radioshack, or any other retailer, would carry a product capable of frying so many consumer appliances. One standard output, with input-adaptors for devices. Device manufacturers would love this one as well, since then they get to make another $30 off purchasers by selling yet another adapter -- so market adoption is more likely.
Sell a cell phone? Take a loss. Sell a car charger, spare wall charger, headset, adaptor for universal pad charger? Ka-ching!
I've been charging my electric toothbrush wirelessly for years. This is so not new.
Out of curiosity, are there contact points on your toothbrush base?
And a difference here would be the universality (dunno if that's a word, but it fits) of the charger. For example, can you now charge your nosehair trimmer or other bathroom appliance on your toothbrush charger?
Yet copyright exists only for items that are published; once published, then access to the material is granted to the general public free from any EULA (in theory), though usage of the material cannot violate the copyright.
RE of software, even pirated software, is not a copyright violation since copyright covers distribution. Pirating the software itself may constitute a copyright violation, but RE is not covered by copyright at all.
What about backwards engineering a software product and implementing the same (patented) algorithms via different language? Still a copyright violation, or no?
Good point re: people not recycling unless there is a pressing need to. However, it doesn't much change the environmental impact of incandescents vs. CFLs.
Which means that the vast majority of CFLs are going right into the trash. Which means that the equation is tilted significantly towards incandescents.
Except for the fact that the extra power consumed by incandescents releases more mercury than is in the CFB, given the current coal plant emissions and proportion of US power generated from coal.
Never mind the fact that the mercury in discarded bulbs is largely sequestered in landfills (not without risks and impact, but still) rather than released into the atmosphere.
Oh, and OT: Your sig begins "Respect goes both ways". I'd assume then that your lack of respect for others ("hahAHaHahaHAHAHAHA!") reflects your desire to not be respected?
That doesn't negate any/copyright/ restrictions (i.e. you can simply steal someone's software, it doesn't leagalize piracy), but for example, a sub-pixel rendering patent could not be used against a free (as in beer) piece of sub-pixel rendering software.
Hmm. The problem I see is that one can't copyright an algorithm, so by extension there would be no restriction on wholesale "theft" of software. So any patented software out there would be completely vulnerable to pirated copies under a different trademark.
Plenty of people see this as the best-case scenario, since "information wants to be free". However, in practice, this would mean that there is almost zero financial incentive to produce new innovative, software outside of the service revenue model.
I think it's tough to find a balance between "promoting the useful arts" and restricting innovation via patent lockdown, but allowing free-as-in-beer use of patented materials destroys the entire patent system for software, since there is almost no unit cost to redistribute software. Is annhiliating the patent system for software desirable? I don't know, but I do know that I don't wish to discuss it on Slashdot (been burnt one too many times).
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I feel that what you're advocating would result in the wholesale destruction of the patent system...
One last thing...
The idea is - if it can be created/distributed at such "minimal" effort that no cost is required, then it the patent is of questionable novelty.
So what you're saying is that anything produced digitally is not novel?
The National Post isn't as ardently neo-con as it used to be, since the backlash against conservatism made it wholly unprofitable to be so -- but it's still known to be far from objective.
If anything, the National Post leans libertarian conservative, so anything they can print to discredit goverment "interference" and the environmental movement, such as this FUD article about the potential financial nightmare of breaking a CFB, is on board with their philosophy.
What bothers me is that the less sceptical people who read the article will simply discredit environmentally sound policies even more than they do already.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite possible to believe in Jesus Christ the man and Nicholas the man. It's also quite possible to believe in the existence of bunnies, and even more specifically, in the existence of one bunny that someone observed on Easter morning a couple centuries ago.
To believe that Jesus both literally turned water into wine and arose from the dead, and that Nicholas has 8 magic reindeer and scoots down chimneys to deliver gifts, is akin to believing that a bunny hops around and hides eggs on Easter morning. They are equitably irrational.
No one over the age of 8 believes in the Easter Bunny because adults evenutally let them in on the game when they express doubt. This is opposed to Christianity, when all evidence to the contrary, adults continue to enforce the myth of a supernatural being to whom we owe our salvation. There's also no political structure to support the existence of the EB, as there is with JC the Son of God/God/Holy Spirit (or whatever you believe). Annually, weekly, daily, 8-year-olds are encouraged to believe in JC the Redeemer, and punished for expressing doubt. You wonder why 8-year-olds discover the truth about the EB but don't discover the truth about JC? That's it right there.
Please don't underestimate how powerful the fundamentalist Christians are, to do so is to allow them to take over our nation more than they already have. Consider the fact that John Ashcroft is a creationist, and he held a high-level cabinet position under Bush.
Just think, that's 315.6 billion fingers, or 31.56 billion normal humans since He made the world! Seeing as 39.8 billion people have ever lived in total, the question is, how did God make the extra 80+ billion fingers?!
Any fundamentalist Christian who can reasonably answer that question has my assurance that I will be converted.
Sorry. Left off the sarcasm tag.
Your response is exactly what I alluding to -- the OP challenged creationists to apply reasoning to their view of creation -- and it's impossible to debate a matter of pure faith.
The problem cannot be addressed via logic, reason, or scientific processes. IMO, it will only ever be resolved through education of the young before they are brainwashed, and that will never happen as long as we don't enforce 100% secular education.
And, unfortunately, guess what population has the highest birthrate in the US? It's ironic, but ignorance is learned. The majority of children of the US are being taught well.
That said, Vichy France was VERY helpful to the Germans, and many Americans can't let go of the ideal of the valiant rebel fighting on in guerilla warfare as some kind of Platonic ideal. Thus, to the simplistic American, all French are now mistakenly considered surrender monkeys who not only surrendered, but aided the enemy.
In line with your questions, would you question the existence of bunnies at Eastertime?
I believe that the biblical Jesus Christ is based on a real person; I also believe that 99% of what is believed about him is absolutely false. Ditto for Santa Claus.
Who are we to presume knowledge of the wisdom of he-that-is-all-knowing-and-all-powerful?
What you're asking, in essence, is why is no one researching the intent and methods of YHWH. If you feel the need to research this, then obviously your faith is lacking -- perhaps you should spend less time at the Universityy of Faithlessness and attend Church more often.
Again, you're trying to use logic to reason the will of YHWH -- this does not work; if faith predictions fail, it is because He chose it to be so -- maybe He's testing our faith in his infinite Wisdom.
You're conflating profits with prophets; your attention should be on the Spiritual rewards of faith, not on the material rewards of speculation and gambling with mineral rights.
I think the biggest problem all you intellectuals have is that you assume that using the power of the human mind, you can know the mind of an infinitely superior being, instead of feeding on the scraps of wisdom he imparts to us through the holy men He chooses. Pshaw -- like it's even possible to use reason to know the unknowable.
Altruists will realize that their energy is better spent elsewhere for greater utility.
Seriously though, 40W input to charge a battery doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 40W consumption of the CPU/GPU/monitor combo, right? Running directly off the supply would be problematic, but charging the battery seems like it would still be possible, no?
To a certain extent, the same is true of the support-based revenue model for open source software. The difference is the ability to go elsewhere for the service.
The key, I believe, is that people (and organizations) who purchase software need to account for the full cost...
It's interesting how many corporations are addicts, and how their management isn't faulted for that.Well, we all know that current cost-savings is valued more than potential future cost-savings. It's also hard to concretely demonstrate the indirect increased costs of proprietary software -- and without demonstration, those savings will be ignored.
Finally, though, what I think is often overlooked by the open source community is that corporations are inherently conservative. Many managements prefer to be locked-in, since it gives them an easy reason to not change.
The way I look at it, it's like establishing a standard for wallwarts. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a standard output?
In the beginning, I agree. I think in the long run, a standard would become accepted until made obsolete. The utility of a universal charger would be severely reduced by varying interoperability, and so the charger most likely to succeed is the one that plays best will most devices.
Sure, but you've got to plug each device in with a specific adaptor plug. Wireless charging would greatly increase the chance of accidentally frying your appliance(s).
I know it's semantics, but it's very important that businesses who might want to use open-source software understand that closed-source software, even if provided free-of-charge, is nowhere near costless. If anything, I'd say using the word "costless" in preference to "free" could be more damaging to acceptance of open-source software in the long run.
Thanks, sorry I missed that. Should've thought that through...
I don't think Radioshack, or any other retailer, would carry a product capable of frying so many consumer appliances. One standard output, with input-adaptors for devices. Device manufacturers would love this one as well, since then they get to make another $30 off purchasers by selling yet another adapter -- so market adoption is more likely.
Sell a cell phone? Take a loss.
Sell a car charger, spare wall charger, headset, adaptor for universal pad charger? Ka-ching!
And a difference here would be the universality (dunno if that's a word, but it fits) of the charger. For example, can you now charge your nosehair trimmer or other bathroom appliance on your toothbrush charger?
Think about it -- when the charging device explodes, there's a chance that your laptop will be blown clear and suffer no harm.
Yet copyright exists only for items that are published; once published, then access to the material is granted to the general public free from any EULA (in theory), though usage of the material cannot violate the copyright.
RE of software, even pirated software, is not a copyright violation since copyright covers distribution. Pirating the software itself may constitute a copyright violation, but RE is not covered by copyright at all.
What about backwards engineering a software product and implementing the same (patented) algorithms via different language? Still a copyright violation, or no?
Never mind the fact that the mercury in discarded bulbs is largely sequestered in landfills (not without risks and impact, but still) rather than released into the atmosphere.
Oh, and OT: Your sig begins "Respect goes both ways". I'd assume then that your lack of respect for others ("hahAHaHahaHAHAHAHA!") reflects your desire to not be respected?
Plenty of people see this as the best-case scenario, since "information wants to be free". However, in practice, this would mean that there is almost zero financial incentive to produce new innovative, software outside of the service revenue model.
I think it's tough to find a balance between "promoting the useful arts" and restricting innovation via patent lockdown, but allowing free-as-in-beer use of patented materials destroys the entire patent system for software, since there is almost no unit cost to redistribute software. Is annhiliating the patent system for software desirable? I don't know, but I do know that I don't wish to discuss it on Slashdot (been burnt one too many times).
Sorry to be so long-winded, but I feel that what you're advocating would result in the wholesale destruction of the patent system...
One last thing...So what you're saying is that anything produced digitally is not novel?
The National Post isn't as ardently neo-con as it used to be, since the backlash against conservatism made it wholly unprofitable to be so -- but it's still known to be far from objective.
If anything, the National Post leans libertarian conservative, so anything they can print to discredit goverment "interference" and the environmental movement, such as this FUD article about the potential financial nightmare of breaking a CFB, is on board with their philosophy.
What bothers me is that the less sceptical people who read the article will simply discredit environmentally sound policies even more than they do already.