At first, that's what I thought. But sadly, the current way corporations attack legislation they don't like is to pay "scientists" to offer an alternative and contradictory conclusion and then claim there is no consensus. In the lack of consensus they are usually allowed to do whatever the hell they like.
This bill is designed entirely to fit their playbook.
Actually, you don't fully understand causation. I know this because nobody does. Also, the nature of time itself isn't understood. How can there even BE a BEFORE the beginning of time for the act of creation to occur in?
I've read a substantial volume of atheist literature and blogs, etc. None of it supports your claim. The contrary. Most of the prominent atheist authors point out how valuable christianity has been to science, progress, morality etc. They also point out how much ill has been done in the name of religion, even at the direct instruction of religious leadership. None of this is inconsistent.
The NSAs main purpose used to be codebreaking.
I bet a number of years ago a report was sent to the top describing how with modern (at the time) methods encryption would be impossible to crack in any reasonable amount of time and resources. So they switched to the alternative of snooping on the data while it was in plaintext, and trying to introduce weaknesses into future encryption schemes, and using side channels to pick up snippets. Hence their whole existance is based largely on mass surveillance.
That's what we want to change.
The biggest problem is that the enemy of the NSA is anyone that would oppose it, or tear it down. It will move to defend itself by using it's considerable power. It needs to be torn down and replaced with an entity with a more targeted mission and more oversight.
Creator can be a metaphore here. It doesn't need an agent for the passage to serve its purpose. There is speculation that some of the founding fathers were atheists despite much of the language that was used. The salient point is that we have rights from the moment we exist.
I'm sorry, I the the danger is more "what happens when those with the data decide to use it for nefarious purposes?".
The existance of such an enormous body of data will mean some people will misuse it. And they ALREADY have!
Science is created by man. But some theories are consistent with others. You can't have a physical system with inconsistent math. So, actually, you do have a choice. You choose the theories that are most consistent with theory. Your idea of a physical universe with no irrational lengths would imply untenable consequences. But you can choose to subscribe to it if you wish.
If you make the statement that the diagonal is quantized, you're either saying you have a measurement problem, or you're throwing out mathematical consistency. I personally think we're much better off keeping the irrational numbers.
You switched from talking about Planck's constant, saying roughly that it couldn't be irrational, to planck length. But even still, irrational lengths would still exist. E.g. make a square 1x1. What's the distance across the diagonal? It's either irrational or you've given up orthogonality.
No, he's not. There isn't any reason to expect that the ratio of radius to circumference of a physical circle is raional, especially if Planck's constant is irrational. There is also no reason to expect such a ratio to be the same for all such "circles", hence no single constant pi.
Personally I prefer the purely analytical definition of pi...
I write things for myself, which I will likely never read again. People often write things for the purpose of documenting details which will likely not, but may, be used in the future.
I think different people are studying the origins of the universe vs the general population's understanding of science. I for one am interested in both. It bothers me greatly that the people running the country don't generally have much understanding of science. I think it might be handy, esp. for things like the dept of energy, but what do I know?
I think you are being a bit hard on Dawkins. Most of the time he's debating people who refuse to look at any of the evidence, and often claim it doesn't exist. He's not speaking to open minded people who are simply trying to learn. I think you'll find that he is very good at getting ideas across, in the right setting. He did some very interesting tv shows, for example.
Your logic is off there. It doesn't have to be either or. AGW and increased solar output aren't mutually exclusive. Proving the latter doesn't disprove the former.
It IS inconsistent with a rapid deposit. The depth isn't correlated with density, or weight or buoyancy. Instead it's correlated with complexity. Organisms survive because they are still well adapted to their environment. Anyone with the slightest education in evolution would be able to answer that. Also, a few strata have isotopes that aren't found on earth anywhere else, but are found on meteors, and these strata perfectly partition fossil - just as if a large meteor broke up in the atmosphere and was distributed over a large area, somewhere between two ages with different animals. This is completely inconsistent with all the strata being deposited at once. Not to mention we have a very good idea of the rate of sediment deposits which is consistent with the estimated ages of the fossil records. Also consistent with documented volcanoe eruptions which have caused identifiable deposits. Also, the types of plankton and krill have changed over time in ways that leave different variants in different strata, but inconsistent with a sudden deposit, since these species all were essentially the same, and wouldn't be expected to differ in buoyancy. That's just off the top of my head - and I'm no expert. If you want to attack the science, at least learn some of it first.
Slashdot Mirror
At first, that's what I thought. But sadly, the current way corporations attack legislation they don't like is to pay "scientists" to offer an alternative and contradictory conclusion and then claim there is no consensus. In the lack of consensus they are usually allowed to do whatever the hell they like. This bill is designed entirely to fit their playbook.
I'm afraid you can make up any word to have any meaning in any way you choose. People are free to not use it, ignore it, bitch about it, etc.
Actually, you don't fully understand causation. I know this because nobody does. Also, the nature of time itself isn't understood. How can there even BE a BEFORE the beginning of time for the act of creation to occur in?
I've read a substantial volume of atheist literature and blogs, etc. None of it supports your claim. The contrary. Most of the prominent atheist authors point out how valuable christianity has been to science, progress, morality etc. They also point out how much ill has been done in the name of religion, even at the direct instruction of religious leadership. None of this is inconsistent.
Er, he was suggesting targetting the stngrays not the official cell towers...
Is there a paper I could read. This looks ineresting.
That makes me wince.
The NSAs main purpose used to be codebreaking. I bet a number of years ago a report was sent to the top describing how with modern (at the time) methods encryption would be impossible to crack in any reasonable amount of time and resources. So they switched to the alternative of snooping on the data while it was in plaintext, and trying to introduce weaknesses into future encryption schemes, and using side channels to pick up snippets. Hence their whole existance is based largely on mass surveillance.
That's what we want to change. The biggest problem is that the enemy of the NSA is anyone that would oppose it, or tear it down. It will move to defend itself by using it's considerable power. It needs to be torn down and replaced with an entity with a more targeted mission and more oversight.
Creator can be a metaphore here. It doesn't need an agent for the passage to serve its purpose. There is speculation that some of the founding fathers were atheists despite much of the language that was used. The salient point is that we have rights from the moment we exist.
I'm sorry, I the the danger is more "what happens when those with the data decide to use it for nefarious purposes?". The existance of such an enormous body of data will mean some people will misuse it. And they ALREADY have!
Where is evidence of quantized space?
Science is created by man. But some theories are consistent with others. You can't have a physical system with inconsistent math. So, actually, you do have a choice. You choose the theories that are most consistent with theory. Your idea of a physical universe with no irrational lengths would imply untenable consequences. But you can choose to subscribe to it if you wish.
If you make the statement that the diagonal is quantized, you're either saying you have a measurement problem, or you're throwing out mathematical consistency. I personally think we're much better off keeping the irrational numbers.
You switched from talking about Planck's constant, saying roughly that it couldn't be irrational, to planck length. But even still, irrational lengths would still exist. E.g. make a square 1x1. What's the distance across the diagonal? It's either irrational or you've given up orthogonality.
By that reasoning you could choose units such that all measurements are in exact integers, which is ridiculous.
Are you suggesting irrational numbers can't arise in a "quantized" world?
Maybe he gained a delusion of talent.
No, he's not. There isn't any reason to expect that the ratio of radius to circumference of a physical circle is raional, especially if Planck's constant is irrational. There is also no reason to expect such a ratio to be the same for all such "circles", hence no single constant pi. Personally I prefer the purely analytical definition of pi...
I write things for myself, which I will likely never read again. People often write things for the purpose of documenting details which will likely not, but may, be used in the future.
I think different people are studying the origins of the universe vs the general population's understanding of science. I for one am interested in both. It bothers me greatly that the people running the country don't generally have much understanding of science. I think it might be handy, esp. for things like the dept of energy, but what do I know?
Very nicely put!
I think you are being a bit hard on Dawkins. Most of the time he's debating people who refuse to look at any of the evidence, and often claim it doesn't exist. He's not speaking to open minded people who are simply trying to learn. I think you'll find that he is very good at getting ideas across, in the right setting. He did some very interesting tv shows, for example.
Your logic is off there. It doesn't have to be either or. AGW and increased solar output aren't mutually exclusive. Proving the latter doesn't disprove the former.
It IS inconsistent with a rapid deposit. The depth isn't correlated with density, or weight or buoyancy. Instead it's correlated with complexity. Organisms survive because they are still well adapted to their environment. Anyone with the slightest education in evolution would be able to answer that. Also, a few strata have isotopes that aren't found on earth anywhere else, but are found on meteors, and these strata perfectly partition fossil - just as if a large meteor broke up in the atmosphere and was distributed over a large area, somewhere between two ages with different animals. This is completely inconsistent with all the strata being deposited at once. Not to mention we have a very good idea of the rate of sediment deposits which is consistent with the estimated ages of the fossil records. Also consistent with documented volcanoe eruptions which have caused identifiable deposits. Also, the types of plankton and krill have changed over time in ways that leave different variants in different strata, but inconsistent with a sudden deposit, since these species all were essentially the same, and wouldn't be expected to differ in buoyancy. That's just off the top of my head - and I'm no expert. If you want to attack the science, at least learn some of it first.