Nick Bostrom is the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. The Future of Humanity institute? I didn't realize there was such a large following of issues such as these...
How much better of a world would it be if when someone broke into your car to steal, you saw that person as someone less fortunate than you and felt it was your responsibility to, instead of punishing him, make his life better? I don't know about you, but my world would suck if every time I got something I wanted someone less fortunate got to take it away.
When I read it, I was thinking engineering ways of containing nuclear terror - limiting its effects or making ways of preventing nuclear bombs from being detonated (who knows). I think there might be more to it than social engineering.
Just for your information, as a Christian, I think I can refute your ideas on a majority of the verses you quote.
First, I noticed that you referred to many versus from the very early books of the old testament. In the first three verses, and in the second to last one, you cite Jewish laws, not "Christian" laws. It is important to note that these laws were intended for the Jewish nation and those living in it, not the more generalized group of followers of Judaism. These laws were specific to the Jewish nation. Christians will look at them and see the actions as wrong (adultery, etc.), and probably agree that the actions deserve punishment (not as extreme), but non-Jews are certainly not bound by laws that were set up for the Jewish nation thousands of years ago.
Second, your verse from Numbers is taken out of context. The Jews were specifically told by God to remove all the inhabitants from the promised land for their disrespect, etc. towards God over the centuries. Moses was not exactly excited that instead of removing the people from the land, the Jewish men were sleeping with the women. It was the duty of the Jews to remove the people from the land, by killing, etc. Its not that they were just an indiscriminate group of women that Moses wanted killed; the Jews received specific instructions from God to purge their land.
In the verse from Matthew, it should be noted that by "set a man... against his father, and the daughter against her mother," Jesus meant for theological reasons. He knew that his message was controversial, and would be taken as such. He did not INTEND that people fight each other for his sake, but he knew this would happen. In any case, I think this verse still applies today - most Christians would agree that evangelism is a good thing despite the possibilities of conflict - precisely what Jesus was warning us about.
Finally, as for the verses about women, it is important to remember that these verses were written in a very different social setting, and they came from men rather than God. While they may have applied at the time, they were not specific messages from God, and rather were the ideas of Paul. As society changes, views on these issues may change, but God did not specifically endorse them for all people in all societies. And in the case of the verse from Ephesians, this too is taken slightly out of context, as Paul also mentions that men must take care and respect their wives.
I really don't think "outgrew" is the right word for the stuff you mentioned - the things you mention either didn't apply to Christians (in the case of Jewish law), or were social guidelines that weren't integral to the religion. You will still, of course, find people who take the social verses as gospel, but a discerning believer/bible scholar should realize that most of your points don't really show what you are trying to express.
I don't know a great deal about Islam or the quran, but if the parent's post that included verses from the quran is accurate and not out of context, I would say that Islam will not "outgrow" their beliefs, as they are core to Islam, whereas the things you mentioned are not core to Christians.
In terms of programming, I think it would be more appropriate to write "Smart=Thinks like me" and "Stupid=Doesn't think like me." At least in the context of slashdot readers.
Just as a point of interest, large primes are used for data encryption methods like RSA encryption (look it up yourself). Maybe not primes as large as some of the mersennes, but prime numbers have properties that are actually quite useful even in the REAL world. You'd be surprised at what those mathematicians can cook up.
I used to feel the same way about consoles, but ever since the wide dispersion of HDTVs and HD output from consoles, I really don't think the television is a hindrance any more. Have you played an Xbox 360 or PS3 yet? 780p is enough that I have nothing to complain about graphically. While I do believe that PCs will always be superior graphically, I don't believe the difference merits the "crappy" description you gave it.
And as for the controller, it seems clear that you are either an RTS or FPS gamer. While these two genres of gaming are particularly well developed on the PC, the controller really isn't lacking in many other game types. The platform, adventure, (console) RPG, fighting, and racing genres all take excellent advantage of the controller, and I would much prefer to use a controller as opposed to a mouse/keyboard in nearly all of those game types. There is no question (at least, not in my mind) as to the dominance of mouse aiming in an FPS or keyboard versatility in RTS, but there is a very diverse collection of games and genres (wii sports comes to mind), more popular outside of the PC scene, for which a controller is certainly not a "crappy" input device.
As another agreement post, I would just mention that you will save yourself a WHOLE LOT of frustration if you just get someone who understands the stuff to teach you. Trying to learn something on your own and misunderstanding, or being unable to understand whatsoever, some particular concept can lead to hours wasted. At least, thats how it worked when I took calc in high school, and ended up trying to learn some of the stuff on my own. I have time and time again seen people struggling with problems that can be explained in a few minutes by someone with a good understanding of the subject.
I haven't taken high school math in a while, and I don't remember a whole lot about what I struggled with, but I am sure that a tutor is one of the better ways to develop your mathematical foundations.
Also, I believe TFA mentioned that the lake wasn't really crater shaped. It was elliptical enough that the impact would have had to have been at less than 10 degrees according to the article. Even if it was found, it would have been possible that it was disregarded in an early survey.
Even the researchers from the article believe that.. The difference here is that they think a small piece of the airbursted object survived and hit the ground, causing a small crater - the lake. At least, thats what I got out of TFA.
Though he said he didn't have positive evidence, it does sound like they have negative evidence. The way you describe their conclusions makes it seem like there was no other reason for a lake to be there so it must have been a crater. What it sounds like to me is that instead of there being no other theories contradicting his case, they were able to disprove those other theories, and all that was left is impact crater.
I don't think there was absence of evidence, it was just that the evidence applied to other theories rather than the impact crater. Simple deductive reasoning: A lake was formed. It could have been by methods A, B, or C. We have evidence that it wasn't A or B. Thus it was C.
Semantics aside, some of the material presented in the article does make the researchers' conclusion seem somewhat dubious. I'm not arguing that the lake was the crater, just that it is possible that the professor is more justified than the article might make him appear at first glance.
If you really believed your religion was the truth, wouldn't you consider "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena," (definition of science from the american heritage dictionary) in the context of your religious beliefs science?
If you are a Christian, and you don't take the whole bible as truth, where do you draw the line? If the Bible's depiction of creation is a lie, is Jesus's promise of salvation a lie as well? I realize this analogy is a little extreme, and proponents of theistic evolution would argue that evolution does fit into the Genesis depiction of creation, but I think it is easy to see why a creationist would hold their beliefs as true, and consider the study of intelligent design science. Assume intelligent design is real (just for the moment). If that is the case, shouldn't the study of natural phenomena (science) take that into account? That is the viewpoint of the creationists.
It is clear that the UK Government does not share this viewpoint.
I think when it comes down to it, most creationists aren't as interested in science as they are theology, and they would rather have their idea of creation err on the side of God rather than the side of atheism. After all, when we are all dead, what does it matter if we evolved into our modern forms or God created us? If we assume God created us, but the truth is evolution was the case, why would he hold it against us? If biblical creation is truth, however, and we denounce it, God would probably not be happy that we convinced others of a story of creation in which God is non-existant.
For creationists, their belief is a win-win situation.
Doesn't google have some extreme NDA? It seems to me that no one who left google could start up a competing company just because google would find a way to accuse them of using ideas that were originally google's own. And if they don't have this much control yet, what will they do in response to this? IANAL, but I would think they could easily force their employees to legally hand over their ideas as intellectual property to google BEFORE they would be considered...
If I remember correctly from my intro biology course, the body only detects foreign molecules by certain chemical groups on them, not just anything foreign. If the entire molecule had the same chemical nature as the cells, etc. of the person using the blood, or if it had no identifying groups whatsoever, the immune system wouldn't respond to it. As far as clotting is concerned, I don't really know how that works, but molecules as small as hemoglobin, even in large concentration, probably won't cause clotting. Especially if they are similar to things already present in the body.
A couple of people made posts that got my brain ticking..
Someone mentioned that this confirms quantum theory in that adding light energy reduces the temperature, thereby reducing the energy of the system. In response, someone mentioned it was like noise cancellation.
The problem I see with this analogy, and the idea of the experiment in general is that while I can see similarities, when we talk about noise cancellation, no energy is lost. It is still there, even though destructive interference cancels the noise where the waves overlap. The sound waves will continue to travel, and if they leave the area where they are destructively influenced, the noise will start back up.
With the photons reducing temperature situation, where is the energy going? We start with high speed atoms and light, and end with low speed atoms and no light; isn't the energy being destroyed? I am not very up on my quantum mechanics, but can see two possibilities: either energy isn't really conserved under quantum mechanics, or the atom is rereleasing a photon after the initial photon hits it and slows it down.
Perhaps neither is right, but could someone please explain the apparent lack of conservation of energy here?
Actually, this really is a breakthrough. According to the article, laser supercooling has been used in the past by researchers, but never on anything more than a few atoms. These researchers successfully lasercooled a mirror the size of a dime (which would probably be about.01 to.1 moles, on the order of 10^21 or 10^22 atoms, more than just "a few" (probably meaning on the order of 10^6 or so, but IANAP, so don't quote me there)).
The article was talking about protons, not photons. I'm not exactly sure whether or not the motion is random, but it certainly shouldnt have any effect on whether the PHOTONS of the star are visible or not..
Just because it will only hold 10% of the market in 2050 does not mean the power source isn't a viable alternative, it just means that it will only account for 10% of our power. It is a viable alternative even now, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily in use.
Also, I think your concept of viable might be a little different than that of the author (I side with the author) as I would definitely consider the 10% mark to deem the power source as viable. Viable doesn't necessarily mean the best alternative, just one that would work. And if the trend in CO2 levels follows Al Gore's predictions, CO2-producing power sources might get a lot more heat (no pun intended) from the politicians, which would drive an even larger portion of the market toward more environmentally friendly power sources such as geothermal.
No, the united states isn't here for those goals. But I think you are going to have a hard time discouraging voters from trying to attain those goals. If someone has the the choice between the options you mentioned (guaranteed a job, control over others' spending, bigger car, master class), and helping out some immigrants, its not really a tough choice (at least not for most people).
The only difference between the United States and every other country in the world (or at least most other countries in the world) is that we actually HAVE this choice, whereas most countries don't. I don't think you would find people acting differently in any country. Sorry if the public isn't as altruistic as you, but, if I am not mistaken, thats the way its always been. Don't be so disgusted lol, and certainly don't be surprised.
You make a good point, but I think (its been a few days since I read it) it states in the article that the rocks found under glaciers were at sea level. I could be wrong, but I believe the level above the sea of the rocks would remain pretty consistent, so even though it was 600 million years ago that the rocks were under glaciers at sea level, the rocks should be at a relatively similar level above the sea today (rather than several thousand feet up like the glaciers on the equator today).
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, in order to be of some value socially, I think it is worthwhile to spend a decent amount of time reflecting and thinking - before we speak.
Mod parent up.
You'd better hope she's pro-choice.
mod +5 please.
When I read it, I was thinking engineering ways of containing nuclear terror - limiting its effects or making ways of preventing nuclear bombs from being detonated (who knows). I think there might be more to it than social engineering.
Just for your information, as a Christian, I think I can refute your ideas on a majority of the verses you quote.
First, I noticed that you referred to many versus from the very early books of the old testament. In the first three verses, and in the second to last one, you cite Jewish laws, not "Christian" laws. It is important to note that these laws were intended for the Jewish nation and those living in it, not the more generalized group of followers of Judaism. These laws were specific to the Jewish nation. Christians will look at them and see the actions as wrong (adultery, etc.), and probably agree that the actions deserve punishment (not as extreme), but non-Jews are certainly not bound by laws that were set up for the Jewish nation thousands of years ago.
Second, your verse from Numbers is taken out of context. The Jews were specifically told by God to remove all the inhabitants from the promised land for their disrespect, etc. towards God over the centuries. Moses was not exactly excited that instead of removing the people from the land, the Jewish men were sleeping with the women. It was the duty of the Jews to remove the people from the land, by killing, etc. Its not that they were just an indiscriminate group of women that Moses wanted killed; the Jews received specific instructions from God to purge their land.
In the verse from Matthew, it should be noted that by "set a man... against his father, and the daughter against her mother," Jesus meant for theological reasons. He knew that his message was controversial, and would be taken as such. He did not INTEND that people fight each other for his sake, but he knew this would happen. In any case, I think this verse still applies today - most Christians would agree that evangelism is a good thing despite the possibilities of conflict - precisely what Jesus was warning us about.
Finally, as for the verses about women, it is important to remember that these verses were written in a very different social setting, and they came from men rather than God. While they may have applied at the time, they were not specific messages from God, and rather were the ideas of Paul. As society changes, views on these issues may change, but God did not specifically endorse them for all people in all societies. And in the case of the verse from Ephesians, this too is taken slightly out of context, as Paul also mentions that men must take care and respect their wives.
I really don't think "outgrew" is the right word for the stuff you mentioned - the things you mention either didn't apply to Christians (in the case of Jewish law), or were social guidelines that weren't integral to the religion. You will still, of course, find people who take the social verses as gospel, but a discerning believer/bible scholar should realize that most of your points don't really show what you are trying to express.
I don't know a great deal about Islam or the quran, but if the parent's post that included verses from the quran is accurate and not out of context, I would say that Islam will not "outgrow" their beliefs, as they are core to Islam, whereas the things you mentioned are not core to Christians.
In terms of programming, I think it would be more appropriate to write "Smart=Thinks like me" and "Stupid=Doesn't think like me." At least in the context of slashdot readers.
Just as a point of interest, large primes are used for data encryption methods like RSA encryption (look it up yourself). Maybe not primes as large as some of the mersennes, but prime numbers have properties that are actually quite useful even in the REAL world. You'd be surprised at what those mathematicians can cook up.
I used to feel the same way about consoles, but ever since the wide dispersion of HDTVs and HD output from consoles, I really don't think the television is a hindrance any more. Have you played an Xbox 360 or PS3 yet? 780p is enough that I have nothing to complain about graphically. While I do believe that PCs will always be superior graphically, I don't believe the difference merits the "crappy" description you gave it.
And as for the controller, it seems clear that you are either an RTS or FPS gamer. While these two genres of gaming are particularly well developed on the PC, the controller really isn't lacking in many other game types. The platform, adventure, (console) RPG, fighting, and racing genres all take excellent advantage of the controller, and I would much prefer to use a controller as opposed to a mouse/keyboard in nearly all of those game types. There is no question (at least, not in my mind) as to the dominance of mouse aiming in an FPS or keyboard versatility in RTS, but there is a very diverse collection of games and genres (wii sports comes to mind), more popular outside of the PC scene, for which a controller is certainly not a "crappy" input device.
As another agreement post, I would just mention that you will save yourself a WHOLE LOT of frustration if you just get someone who understands the stuff to teach you. Trying to learn something on your own and misunderstanding, or being unable to understand whatsoever, some particular concept can lead to hours wasted. At least, thats how it worked when I took calc in high school, and ended up trying to learn some of the stuff on my own. I have time and time again seen people struggling with problems that can be explained in a few minutes by someone with a good understanding of the subject. I haven't taken high school math in a while, and I don't remember a whole lot about what I struggled with, but I am sure that a tutor is one of the better ways to develop your mathematical foundations.
How about the original everquest? Wouldn't that be well above what even WoW has put up so far?
Also, I believe TFA mentioned that the lake wasn't really crater shaped. It was elliptical enough that the impact would have had to have been at less than 10 degrees according to the article. Even if it was found, it would have been possible that it was disregarded in an early survey.
Even the researchers from the article believe that.. The difference here is that they think a small piece of the airbursted object survived and hit the ground, causing a small crater - the lake. At least, thats what I got out of TFA.
Though he said he didn't have positive evidence, it does sound like they have negative evidence. The way you describe their conclusions makes it seem like there was no other reason for a lake to be there so it must have been a crater. What it sounds like to me is that instead of there being no other theories contradicting his case, they were able to disprove those other theories, and all that was left is impact crater.
I don't think there was absence of evidence, it was just that the evidence applied to other theories rather than the impact crater. Simple deductive reasoning: A lake was formed. It could have been by methods A, B, or C. We have evidence that it wasn't A or B. Thus it was C.
Semantics aside, some of the material presented in the article does make the researchers' conclusion seem somewhat dubious. I'm not arguing that the lake was the crater, just that it is possible that the professor is more justified than the article might make him appear at first glance.
If you really believed your religion was the truth, wouldn't you consider "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena," (definition of science from the american heritage dictionary) in the context of your religious beliefs science?
If you are a Christian, and you don't take the whole bible as truth, where do you draw the line? If the Bible's depiction of creation is a lie, is Jesus's promise of salvation a lie as well? I realize this analogy is a little extreme, and proponents of theistic evolution would argue that evolution does fit into the Genesis depiction of creation, but I think it is easy to see why a creationist would hold their beliefs as true, and consider the study of intelligent design science. Assume intelligent design is real (just for the moment). If that is the case, shouldn't the study of natural phenomena (science) take that into account? That is the viewpoint of the creationists.
It is clear that the UK Government does not share this viewpoint.
I think when it comes down to it, most creationists aren't as interested in science as they are theology, and they would rather have their idea of creation err on the side of God rather than the side of atheism. After all, when we are all dead, what does it matter if we evolved into our modern forms or God created us? If we assume God created us, but the truth is evolution was the case, why would he hold it against us? If biblical creation is truth, however, and we denounce it, God would probably not be happy that we convinced others of a story of creation in which God is non-existant.
For creationists, their belief is a win-win situation.
Doesn't google have some extreme NDA? It seems to me that no one who left google could start up a competing company just because google would find a way to accuse them of using ideas that were originally google's own. And if they don't have this much control yet, what will they do in response to this? IANAL, but I would think they could easily force their employees to legally hand over their ideas as intellectual property to google BEFORE they would be considered...
If I remember correctly from my intro biology course, the body only detects foreign molecules by certain chemical groups on them, not just anything foreign. If the entire molecule had the same chemical nature as the cells, etc. of the person using the blood, or if it had no identifying groups whatsoever, the immune system wouldn't respond to it. As far as clotting is concerned, I don't really know how that works, but molecules as small as hemoglobin, even in large concentration, probably won't cause clotting. Especially if they are similar to things already present in the body.
A couple of people made posts that got my brain ticking.. Someone mentioned that this confirms quantum theory in that adding light energy reduces the temperature, thereby reducing the energy of the system. In response, someone mentioned it was like noise cancellation. The problem I see with this analogy, and the idea of the experiment in general is that while I can see similarities, when we talk about noise cancellation, no energy is lost. It is still there, even though destructive interference cancels the noise where the waves overlap. The sound waves will continue to travel, and if they leave the area where they are destructively influenced, the noise will start back up. With the photons reducing temperature situation, where is the energy going? We start with high speed atoms and light, and end with low speed atoms and no light; isn't the energy being destroyed? I am not very up on my quantum mechanics, but can see two possibilities: either energy isn't really conserved under quantum mechanics, or the atom is rereleasing a photon after the initial photon hits it and slows it down. Perhaps neither is right, but could someone please explain the apparent lack of conservation of energy here?
Actually, this really is a breakthrough. According to the article, laser supercooling has been used in the past by researchers, but never on anything more than a few atoms. These researchers successfully lasercooled a mirror the size of a dime (which would probably be about .01 to .1 moles, on the order of 10^21 or 10^22 atoms, more than just "a few" (probably meaning on the order of 10^6 or so, but IANAP, so don't quote me there)).
The article was talking about protons, not photons. I'm not exactly sure whether or not the motion is random, but it certainly shouldnt have any effect on whether the PHOTONS of the star are visible or not..
Just because it will only hold 10% of the market in 2050 does not mean the power source isn't a viable alternative, it just means that it will only account for 10% of our power. It is a viable alternative even now, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily in use. Also, I think your concept of viable might be a little different than that of the author (I side with the author) as I would definitely consider the 10% mark to deem the power source as viable. Viable doesn't necessarily mean the best alternative, just one that would work. And if the trend in CO2 levels follows Al Gore's predictions, CO2-producing power sources might get a lot more heat (no pun intended) from the politicians, which would drive an even larger portion of the market toward more environmentally friendly power sources such as geothermal.
This new round of nofollow comes as a directive from Wikia President, Jimbo Wales.
Anyone else find that as funny as I did?
No, the united states isn't here for those goals. But I think you are going to have a hard time discouraging voters from trying to attain those goals. If someone has the the choice between the options you mentioned (guaranteed a job, control over others' spending, bigger car, master class), and helping out some immigrants, its not really a tough choice (at least not for most people).
The only difference between the United States and every other country in the world (or at least most other countries in the world) is that we actually HAVE this choice, whereas most countries don't. I don't think you would find people acting differently in any country. Sorry if the public isn't as altruistic as you, but, if I am not mistaken, thats the way its always been. Don't be so disgusted lol, and certainly don't be surprised.
You make a good point, but I think (its been a few days since I read it) it states in the article that the rocks found under glaciers were at sea level. I could be wrong, but I believe the level above the sea of the rocks would remain pretty consistent, so even though it was 600 million years ago that the rocks were under glaciers at sea level, the rocks should be at a relatively similar level above the sea today (rather than several thousand feet up like the glaciers on the equator today).