Either religious people will shun this technique as ungodly and go into extinction or they will do what they've always done and suddenly receive a revelation that allows them to adapt and survive. It's awfully suspicious how demon possession is so rare these days when just a few thousand years ago even Jesus was battling demons (sent them into a herd of pigs which then drowned themselves, cute religion, crazy as bat shit though).
the page is updated every 2 minutes Which wasn't updated with your comment when I clicked reply. Thanks for proving my point. I don't constantly refresh pages, maybe you do.
You didn't bother to read the thread you were replying to. I never replied to your AC post. So you're wrong again. I've lost count on how many things you've been wrong about so far. I'm done with you now, have a nice life and enjoy having the last word since it obviously means so much to you.;)
your posts only show your Slashdot user ID because of your radiant personality Learn to read. I said remain logged in. When I post a comment, I just type in my user/pass and tick "public terminal". I'm glad I could give you a lesson on slashdot as well as physics.
learn that only non-logged users are served the static page I don't remain logged in. Cookies are lame. You can remove your foot from your mouth now, thanks.
do you even understand what "science" is
do you base your measurements on the centre of the universe, when you're putting up shelves? I know putting up shelves isn't science... try again.
Oh, and comments do display immediately (or after a couple of seconds, anyway). Do you have to argue about EVERYTHING? You're like a nagging girlfriend. Look, here's what slashdot says every time you post a comment...
Comment Submitted. There will be a delay before the comment becomes part of the static page.
Happy now? I didn't read your admission of "misdirection" before I had already owned your lame off-topic rant.
The part where you said:
saying that the Earth is still and the Sun moves around it is perfectly correct Which has been pointed out several times now is incorrect. It sounds good to a layman but it's a misinterpretation of general relativity. Take some physics classes and find out why.
Ten minutes after I did Wow a whole 10 minutes?! The comments don't display instantly and touting "I was first to point out my own mistake" doesn't really say much.
1. Read your reply to my original post, the part about saying the Earth is still is "correct".
2. It's motionless to you, not the rest of the universe and it's also not a scientific statement, as I've already pointed out.
You are responding to someone else as I've also pointed out your "misdirection" which is irrelevant to my original comment. Also, since you brought it up, saying the Earth is motionless while everything else moves around it is wrong, no matter what inertial frame of reference you use, because it's not a scientific statement. What you should have just said is that no position or frame of reference is special and there is no such thing as absolute rest.
How can science be "all about having fewer false beliefs" and "proving it"? It's just a simple misunderstanding.
proof (noun)
1. evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. --THIS 2. the proving of the truth of a statement. 3. a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem. --NOT THIS
Source: Oxford English Dictionary Keep in mind the distinction between Truth (universal, necessary and certain) and truth (subjective, statistical, probabilistic).
So my question is since I personally believe the current scientific theory is correct, does that really put me any farther ahead than believing there is a God? That depends on how you define "farther ahead". If you want to know why the Universe really exists, accepting an explanation such as God without any evidence definitely hurts your chances. If you want a comforting fairytale to get you through troubled times, believing in God has some value. Of course, you must realize that we are no longer arguing the truth of the matter, merely its utility. That may be fine for you but I like knowing things are actually true vs. my just wanting it to be true. In the back of my mind I always know there is a difference but for some people it doesn't seem to be a big deal. I consider it a personal choice and I wouldn't force my opinion on anyone else. There's no universal imperative to be 100% rational in all things. If you want to believe in God then go for it. If it feels good, do it. Just don't expect me to play along.
Heh, all of you are wrong. The appearance of the sun moving through the sky has nothing to do with the Earth's orbit around the sun. We have day and night cycles because the Earth rotates on its axis.
As child, I could see that the continents of North and South America could plausibly fit up to Africa, yet my science teacher dismissed the idea that they were once joined. As we all now know, they were, in fact, once joined. As a child, I could plainly see that the Sun moves through the sky and the Earth is motionless. Just because something seems obvious doesn't make it true. That's antithetical to scientific ideals. For you to criticize science for not jumping to conclusions from "common sense" is not an insult, it's a compliment. Science isn't about Truth with a capital T. It's about having fewer false beliefs. It seems you completely miss the point of scientific inquiry. If you want unshakable dogmas, stick to religion or some other absolutist ideology. In science, being wrong is a good thing. Also I would argue that even if you knew the continents were once joined you still didn't know until science proved it.
Video rental stores can do whatever they want with the videos they buy. Some do enter into licensing agreements however to get videos earlier/cheaper/etc...
Ubuntu is unlicensed, eh? Work on your reading comprehension. I don't know which is worse, your complete misunderstanding of a simple sentence or the snippy self-righteous attitude in which you demonstrate it.
Great Scott! It's almost as if the religious == irrational meme is not 100% accurate. Let's see...Christ the son of "God" who is the living "God", father/son are equal.....heals sick and raises dead with magic touch.....turns water into wine/creates food....gets crucified and dies then rises from the grave and flies up to celestial kingdom, of course being the only creature in existence (supposedly) that did any of this. You're saying the people that believe this are absolutely sane and rational? Stop being naive or blatantly feeble minded. Not every mental disorder means you end up with underwear on your head and talking to stop signs but they are still mental disorders. If flipping a light switch on and off 17 times can be a mental disorder then so can talking to invisible sky wizards.
Actually, a retired bitter MacGyver called back into action wouldn't be too bad. I like how RDA's character in SG-1 was always a little cynical. MacGyver has to change with the times just like real people.
Wow, you're quite an asshole. You hope that all of humanity remains in the dark so that you can have a job and feel important? You obviously don't really give a shit about helping people so why should we give a shit about your complaints? What would you do if you had both an HIV vaccine and an HIV treatment drug? Let me guess, you'd shelve the vaccine so you can get repeat business, make more money and feel in control.
You're a douchebag and I hope you slam your hands in a car door so you can never work again.
Can we just permanently ban Wikipedia references here and stop the madness?
Why? Because you can't understand the difference and don't understand how to check citations? Go ahead and just ignore the citation that links directly to the Oxford Journal of Occupational Medicine. Clearly you're the medical expert and not those idiotic MD's at Oxford...
Slashdot Mirror
Either religious people will shun this technique as ungodly and go into extinction or they will do what they've always done and suddenly receive a revelation that allows them to adapt and survive. It's awfully suspicious how demon possession is so rare these days when just a few thousand years ago even Jesus was battling demons (sent them into a herd of pigs which then drowned themselves, cute religion, crazy as bat shit though).
Wow, I haven't gotten any pirate spam. I feel left out.
Comment Submitted. There will be a delay before the comment becomes part of the static page.
Happy now? I didn't read your admission of "misdirection" before I had already owned your lame off-topic rant.
They have already tried, I think.
Ahh, so then you agree that it's not correct to say that now?
1. Read your reply to my original post, the part about saying the Earth is still is "correct".
2. It's motionless to you, not the rest of the universe and it's also not a scientific statement, as I've already pointed out.
You are responding to someone else as I've also pointed out your "misdirection" which is irrelevant to my original comment. Also, since you brought it up, saying the Earth is motionless while everything else moves around it is wrong, no matter what inertial frame of reference you use, because it's not a scientific statement. What you should have just said is that no position or frame of reference is special and there is no such thing as absolute rest.
1. evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. --THIS
2. the proving of the truth of a statement.
3. a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem. --NOT THIS
Source: Oxford English Dictionary Keep in mind the distinction between Truth (universal, necessary and certain) and truth (subjective, statistical, probabilistic). So my question is since I personally believe the current scientific theory is correct, does that really put me any farther ahead than believing there is a God? That depends on how you define "farther ahead". If you want to know why the Universe really exists, accepting an explanation such as God without any evidence definitely hurts your chances. If you want a comforting fairytale to get you through troubled times, believing in God has some value. Of course, you must realize that we are no longer arguing the truth of the matter, merely its utility. That may be fine for you but I like knowing things are actually true vs. my just wanting it to be true. In the back of my mind I always know there is a difference but for some people it doesn't seem to be a big deal. I consider it a personal choice and I wouldn't force my opinion on anyone else. There's no universal imperative to be 100% rational in all things. If you want to believe in God then go for it. If it feels good, do it. Just don't expect me to play along.
Heh, all of you are wrong. The appearance of the sun moving through the sky has nothing to do with the Earth's orbit around the sun. We have day and night cycles because the Earth rotates on its axis.
</pedantry>
Anyone that thinks free will exists is a dualist. Dualism failed, utterly. There is no "free will", only "will". Next topic.
Bzzt, wrong.
109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord
Video rental stores can do whatever they want with the videos they buy. Some do enter into licensing agreements however to get videos earlier/cheaper/etc...
Actually, a retired bitter MacGyver called back into action wouldn't be too bad. I like how RDA's character in SG-1 was always a little cynical. MacGyver has to change with the times just like real people.
Wow, you're quite an asshole. You hope that all of humanity remains in the dark so that you can have a job and feel important? You obviously don't really give a shit about helping people so why should we give a shit about your complaints? What would you do if you had both an HIV vaccine and an HIV treatment drug? Let me guess, you'd shelve the vaccine so you can get repeat business, make more money and feel in control.
You're a douchebag and I hope you slam your hands in a car door so you can never work again.
You're the only one that said "good names". The GP said "doublespeak". There is a difference.
Why? Because you can't understand the difference and don't understand how to check citations? Go ahead and just ignore the citation that links directly to the Oxford Journal of Occupational Medicine. Clearly you're the medical expert and not those idiotic MD's at Oxford...