"god did it" It's the opposite of a theory. It's not falsifiable. It discourages enquiry and discovery. It's limiting and slows progress. I support everyone's personal belief, but don't indoctrinate my kids. I work with very smart highly trained people, some of whom are scientists. They are increasingly imported. America stays ahead by importing scientists from countries that value the proper teaching of science.
I don't really think this is "just people explaining their sincere beliefs to the next generation, beliefs with which I disagree" In the UK, where I grew up, there are people who believe in God, and those that do not. Also there are those that understand science. But there wasn't anyone trying to pervert the teaching of evolution. The reason for the claim of controversy over evolution is to tarnish it as a scientific theory. It's always intended to imply/scientific/ controversy. Teachers aren't currently being forced to teach that there is controversy over evolution, but you can be sure that there are those that working to that end - and it's clearly aimed at casting doubt on the science. You're either falling into the trap or deliberately furthering their ends. I tend to think the former...
Rioting is a crime. Hatred is not. So it makes sense for it to be a crime to incite rioting. But, it is my opinion that inciting something legal shouldn't be illegal.
If you think hate should be legal that's a different matter. But it would be a thought crime.
If he was inciting other behaviors, like violence, for example (as I already stated) then if course that should be illegal.
There already exist various space rated processors at least up to 16 bit. Plus it makes no sense to use an emulator when you could run software directly on the chip. Also 6khz is pointless when much faster more capable hardware exists. A 16 bit core takes so few transistors these days that you could put many of them on a single die. It's a nice hack, but let's not pretend it has practical use.
Many scientific studies cover exactly these questions. You shouldn't expect today's media to give fair and balanced reporting. BTW do you know how many studies have concluded that global warning is not occurring, or that it's occurring but isn't caused by mankind. But I suppose the experts are making it up to scare everyone.
I'm saying that a stiffer sentence for existing crimes because they are racially motivated makes a certain amount of sense. On the other hand, making it illegal to use racial slurs is entirely another. The question to me is: were his tweets illegal if there were no racial side?
Not completely arbitrary. Some classifications would be completely useless. In fact, the way you classify can have an enormous affect on how quickly you make progress. A math problem, for example, might become trivial to solve after switching to a particular notation.
It is presumptuous, at best, for you to state that it is a fact that I think oil and coal are evil. If you cared what I think you'd ask. But let me volunteer: oil and coal, among all inanimate objects cannot be evil. Only humans and to a lesser degree other primates can be truly evil. And if you were really interested, you would have taken what I said in context. Any new oil or coal is forming at such a low rate that it is for all intents and purposes zero. So, you can quite literally call it unsustainable. If you really want to be pedantic, which you clearly do, you could say they are being used at a rate many orders of magnitude greater that they are being generated, and unless we curtail their use, they will run out. Of course, with the supply and demand as they will become, the price will rise inevitably, as the supply drops, and the rate of use will eventually begin to reduce. Even sources of energy that are currently considered expensive will eventually be cheaper than oil or coal.
Leaving aside questions of pollution and climate change, oil is not renewable. For those of you not keeping up, oil will run out. And with rapidly industrializing countries, oil usage is only likely to increase. If a company can make an alternative energy source competitive with fossil fuels, they will do well. That's simple economics. You don't even need to make any touchy partisan arguments that might offend some weak fool.
This isn't a case of "company x doesn't get to patent its drugs." They've actually been forced to license the drug. Bayer still gets royalties. Of course, your main point still stands - there are trade-offs.
Denying sex to young adults IS repression. Denying sex education is foolish at best. And denying access to birth control plain stupid.
We have a strong natural urge to copulate. Denying it is repression.
Kids should learn about sex, and possible consequences. They should learn that it's normal and natural, and not shameful. They should feel comfortable talking about it. And, of course, they should learn that there are various social stigmas about sex, and some, stupid, repressed, twisted, people will label them "whores" if they engage in sex.
Note: there are multiple definitions of adult. I'm not talking about ability to vote!
What does silly mean in this context? You have some kind of feeling that it seems way off? Or does silly have some biological meaning that I'm not familiar with?
Correct. Survival of the species is not a purpose. Some species adapt and survive, and some don't. They don't try to adapt for the purpose of surviving. There is no guiding hand. Some genes make it into future generations and some don't. If a species is prolific and successful early on and then starts producing deformed offspring that die early its genes will still have made it. Defective offspring is not necessarily a deleterious occurrence.
Slashdot Mirror
"god did it"
It's the opposite of a theory. It's not falsifiable. It discourages enquiry and discovery. It's limiting and slows progress.
I support everyone's personal belief, but don't indoctrinate my kids.
I work with very smart highly trained people, some of whom are scientists. They are increasingly imported. America stays ahead by importing scientists from countries that value the proper teaching of science.
I don't really think this is "just people explaining their sincere beliefs to the next generation, beliefs with which I disagree" /scientific/ controversy.
In the UK, where I grew up, there are people who believe in God, and those that do not. Also there are those that understand science. But there wasn't anyone trying to pervert the teaching of evolution.
The reason for the claim of controversy over evolution is to tarnish it as a scientific theory. It's always intended to imply
Teachers aren't currently being forced to teach that there is controversy over evolution, but you can be sure that there are those that working to that end - and it's clearly aimed at casting doubt on the science.
You're either falling into the trap or deliberately furthering their ends. I tend to think the former...
Rioting is a crime. Hatred is not.
So it makes sense for it to be a crime to incite rioting.
But, it is my opinion that inciting something legal shouldn't be illegal.
If you think hate should be legal that's a different matter. But it would be a thought crime.
If he was inciting other behaviors, like violence, for example (as I already stated) then if course that should be illegal.
There already exist various space rated processors at least up to 16 bit. Plus it makes no sense to use an emulator when you could run software directly on the chip. Also 6khz is pointless when much faster more capable hardware exists. A 16 bit core takes so few transistors these days that you could put many of them on a single die.
It's a nice hack, but let's not pretend it has practical use.
Many scientific studies cover exactly these questions.
You shouldn't expect today's media to give fair and balanced reporting.
BTW do you know how many studies have concluded that global warning is not occurring, or that it's occurring but isn't caused by mankind.
But I suppose the experts are making it up to scare everyone.
New keyboard please
I'm saying that a stiffer sentence for existing crimes because they are racially motivated makes a certain amount of sense.
On the other hand, making it illegal to use racial slurs is entirely another.
The question to me is: were his tweets illegal if there were no racial side?
For what it's worth I agree with both of you.
I wonder if humans will ever outgrow this tribal exclusionary violent instinct.
Sadly, I fear not.
A thought experiment:
Imagine there was no racial aspect. Now explain what his crime was.
If the hate aspect only affects the sentencing, and not the finding (guilt or innocence), then I fail to see a crime.
Perhaps there was one: I haven't actually read the tweets. But it sure sounds like the crime was "being offensive."
Now if he were threatening harm or coercing others, then I agree, but the sentencing was way lenient.
I created a tune from i once.
I think I did, anyway!
Amen! ;)
Sorry, couldn't help myself
Not completely arbitrary. Some classifications would be completely useless.
In fact, the way you classify can have an enormous affect on how quickly you make progress. A math problem, for example, might become trivial to solve after switching to a particular notation.
I have a feeling that would result in an increase in average congress IQ...
And, do you also agree that the cause of the increase is fossil fuel combustion, at least in large part?
Question: do you agree that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising?
It is presumptuous, at best, for you to state that it is a fact that I think oil and coal are evil.
If you cared what I think you'd ask. But let me volunteer: oil and coal, among all inanimate objects cannot be evil. Only humans and to a lesser degree other primates can be truly evil.
And if you were really interested, you would have taken what I said in context. Any new oil or coal is forming at such a low rate that it is for all intents and purposes zero. So, you can quite literally call it unsustainable.
If you really want to be pedantic, which you clearly do, you could say they are being used at a rate many orders of magnitude greater that they are being generated, and unless we curtail their use, they will run out.
Of course, with the supply and demand as they will become, the price will rise inevitably, as the supply drops, and the rate of use will eventually begin to reduce. Even sources of energy that are currently considered expensive will eventually be cheaper than oil or coal.
What does that mean?
Way to miss the point.
Well done. You just surpassed my teenage daughter and obtained first place in willful ignorance.
Leaving aside questions of pollution and climate change, oil is not renewable. For those of you not keeping up, oil will run out. And with rapidly industrializing countries, oil usage is only likely to increase.
If a company can make an alternative energy source competitive with fossil fuels, they will do well. That's simple economics.
You don't even need to make any touchy partisan arguments that might offend some weak fool.
This isn't a case of "company x doesn't get to patent its drugs."
They've actually been forced to license the drug.
Bayer still gets royalties.
Of course, your main point still stands - there are trade-offs.
Denying sex to young adults IS repression.
Denying sex education is foolish at best.
And denying access to birth control plain stupid.
We have a strong natural urge to copulate. Denying it is repression.
Kids should learn about sex, and possible consequences. They should learn that it's normal and natural, and not shameful. They should feel comfortable talking about it. And, of course, they should learn that there are various social stigmas about sex, and some, stupid, repressed, twisted, people will label them "whores" if they engage in sex.
Note: there are multiple definitions of adult. I'm not talking about ability to vote!
+1
Nice
What does silly mean in this context?
You have some kind of feeling that it seems way off?
Or does silly have some biological meaning that I'm not familiar with?
Correct. Survival of the species is not a purpose.
Some species adapt and survive, and some don't. They don't try to adapt for the purpose of surviving. There is no guiding hand.
Some genes make it into future generations and some don't.
If a species is prolific and successful early on and then starts producing deformed offspring that die early its genes will still have made it.
Defective offspring is not necessarily a deleterious occurrence.