About the radio waves thing. The belief that alien civilizations could pick up our transmissions is bogus, based only on science-fiction. As radio waves travel, they dissipate. By the time they left our solar system, the signals would have degraded to a point where they would be indistinguishable from the normal background noise of the universe.
What many biblical literalists tend to do is latch on to the correct parts of the bible and ignore the rest. They are under the impression that proving someone with a certain name existed in a certain place at a certain time proves to an absolute certainty that the Bible, in it's entirety, is 100% true.
"but there's certainly no way to prove that there's not a god, so aren't they also believing in something independent of scientific proof?"
If I were to tell you this entire universe was created by an invisible cosmic teddy bear who lives in the center of our sun, would you take me seriously? You certainly couldn't prove there's not an invisible teddy bear in the center of the sun, so wouldn't you be believing in something independent of scientific proof, as you put it?
"God" was something cooked up by bronze-age goat herders to explain elements of nature they didn't understand. It's what scientists call "unfalsifiable." Unfalsifiable means there are no conditions where the premise would be false. If something can't be proven false, it can't be proven true, and is therefore not science.
Not even Richard Dawkins is in the "strong atheist" camp, the people who believe to a 100% certainty there is no God. I don't know of anybody at that point. In reality, most atheists are in the 99.999% sure camp. We hold the likelihood of God to be the same as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, so in all practical purposes, we don't believe in God. It's just easier to say "I don't believe in God" than to say "I'm 99.999% sure that there isn't a God." There really is no practical difference between atheism and agnosticism.
Parallel ports? Obsolete? Tell that to the perfectly good HP Laserjet 4100 I grabbed off a pallet of junk at work that is now sitting comfortably in my office! I didn't even need to restart my computer when I plugged it in, it just started working.
But you will have reasonable doubt. It's a likely enough scenario and the DA won't have the evidence to convict you. IANAL, but if all they can prove is that the kiddie porn was accessed via your network, any good lawyer could build a good enough case.
In my apartment, I pick up 11 wireless networks (even though there are only 8 apartments surrounding me), two of which apparently were set up by numbskulls (i.e. not set up at all. They just plugged the router in and left their network name at the default "linksys") and were left unsecured. My Windows Vista laptop will automatically connect to one of those networks if my router happens to puke and lose connection. If I'm away from the computer when this happens, I don't even know what went on while I was away, and I could surf for hours using someone else's connection. If "hijacking" someone else's wireless is made a crime, buying a Windows Vista machine will be like buying a car that automatically robs bank vaults while you're away at work.
This bill turns people into unwitting criminals because some people are idiotic enough not to protect their router, and Vista will automatically connect to these routers without asking. So, if it gets passed, the one question here is: if Vista forces me to break the law by automatically "hijacking" an unsecured wireless network, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?
Oh PLEASE. Everybody was thinking Starbuck could be a cylon anyway. The article doesn't even say one way or the other, just that most of the ship thinks she is, probably because she CAME BACK FROM THE FREAKING DEAD. It's hardly a "massive" spoiler, if it's even one at all.
The format war was evenly-matched for a while, but I think the PS3 tipped the scales just enough. The PS3 sold really well despite its high price and put Blu-Ray into over 1 million extra homes.
Then you have the problem of explaining where the aliens came from. If they themselves are the experiments of an even higher race, who created that race? Who created the race that created that race? If there is a complex race of aliens that somewhere that do no require an intelligent designer, then why do humans, who are arguably less complex, need one?
When you drop an apple, it falls, that is a fact of gravity. A THEORY of gravity explains WHY that apple fell. That theory can also make predictions as to what happens in other areas. For example, the theory of gravity predicted that in a vacuum, all object fall at the same velocity regardless of mass. This is testable, and was proven true, thus giving creedence to the theory.
The same is with evolution. When we find strange-looking hominid fossils that have both human and ape traits, the fact that those animals once existed is a fact of evolution. The theory of evolution explains why we found those creatures, because they eventually developed into us, and that we are related to the great apes. When the DNA molecule was discovered and the field of genetics launched, evolution predicted that we would have very similar DNA to the great apes, and we did. Evolution even explains why we have one fewer chromosome pair: some time in our evolution two pairs fused and now form our chromosome #3.
This is precisely why Intelligent Design is not science. It doesn't explain why we share similar DNA to the great apes. It doesn't explain the existence of pre-human ancestors. It doesn't explain why just Chromosome #3 is actually two pairs fused together. The only answer it offer is "it was all part of the Intelligent Designer's plan," which is an untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific claim. Evolution is testable, and it's falsifiable. If Chromosome #3 did not have evidence of being two pairs at one time, or if all the fossils we ever found were modern animals that exist in their present form, Evolution would have been in serious trouble.
Science is about providing an explanation for what we do know, not speculating on what we don't know.
Your post reminds me a lot of my experience as a Jehovah's Witness. I was raised in the church, and a lot of these elements of scientology are present in the JW religion as well.
"Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind's problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind's history it is possible to "clear the planet" (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization (LRH's private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul... and not just this lifetime)"
It's the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses. As a witness, you are taught that the Watchtower society is the "faithful and discreet slave" (otherwise known as the "faithful and wise servant" in most Bibles), meaning that they are the sole channel to God. Any kind of salvation and favor with God are impossible without following the doctrinal interpretations of the society. They also teach that the only goal a Witness of Jehovah should have is to preach the message to others as much as possible. All other ambitions in life come secondary. This is why there are no Jehovah's Witness charities, scholarships, or homeless shelters. They believe the earth will all be destroyed and that the only thing that needs to be done is get people into the Watchtower fold so they can survive Armageddon.
"Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person..."
Anyone who disagrees, even if only privately, to the most specific tenets of the Jehovah's Witness faith (including the weird bits like the 1914 eschatology) is labeled an apostate and under direct control of Satan and the demons. People who publicly attack the church are often viewed as sinning against the holy spirit, the Bible's only unforgivable sin.
"There is a huge taboo against reading or discussing anything potentially negative or "entheta" against Scientology or the church, often the taboo will extend down to the point that you feel it is wrong to "think" about potentially negative things regarding Scientology.
Right in line with Watchtower teachings. Books and authors that disagree with the society's conclusions are labeled as "worldly," meaning that they are a product of a world ruled by Satan. Essentially, anything that doesn't agree with doctrine is wholly Satanic, automatically, no questions asked. Witnesses are constantly told to stay away from the internet and from "apostate" reading material, because reading such things will corrupt the mind of even the most faithful Jehovah's Witness.
"it drills into you the fact that Scientology "works" and "gets results" and that the only reason it doesn't work is due to incorrect understood, applied or "squirreled"
Everything that is taught by the society is "the truth." If wonderful things don't happen to you as a result of being "in the truth," then it is always your fault. You might not be praying enough, or you might need to be going out door-knocking more often. If you're not happy, you're not doing enough, period. Until recently and even currently on some occasions, those with depression were/are told that the reason for their depression is that something is keeping them from God. The solutions are to pray and read the Bible more.
"he did a purge of anyone within the church who he considered was not 100% loyal to him by declaring them suppressive and excommunicating them (members of the church are required to "dis-connect" and never again speak to someone who has been excommunicated)."
The same thing happened with Joseph F. Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watchtower society from its founder, Charles T. Russel, in 1917. He instituted the doctrine of "disfellowshipping." Those who are disfellowshipped are shunned by everyo
If Bill Gates thinks the XO is inferior to the Classmate then he is either lying or ignorant. On top of being more expensive, the classmate has shorter wireless range, no webcam, shorter battery life, no sunlight readable option, and a lower color resolution. The limited charging options also hamper the Classmate's acceptance in rural areas without electricity. With the XO you can handcrank or use a solar cell to charge the battery. The Classmate offers no such options. Basically, the XO was designed from the ground up to be something used by schoolchildren in remote areas with no electricity. The Classmate is just a crippled mini notebook.
This is exactly what Microsoft did to IBM during the OS/2 Warp project. Still, I think Intel has hit a new low with this one. Sabotage between two for-profit companies is one thing, but a for-profit company pulling this on a non-profit org is beyond despicable. It's like if a construction company and Habitat for Humanity were working together on a project and came up with some really good design ideas, then the construction company, half-way through construction, takes every scrap of material and blueprints away from the job site and uses them to build houses for paying customers.
I think a lot of people are sitting the format war out simply because the whole experience of buying a TV/Movie player has become exponentially more complicated in recent years.
It used to be the case that all you needed to know when buying a television was how big of a screen you wanted. There was only one way to plug your antenna/VCR into the back. My TV for instance has 4 sockets in the back, three for component A/C and one for coaxial.
Now, you have to juggle prices and screen size along with resolution. Then, you have to make sure you buy the right HDMI cable revision, line up HD service, and pick a side in the movie format war, or else suffer through DVD upscaling. People don't like being forced to become home theater nerds just to buy a damn television set, that's why HD hasn't taken off in the US.
Ever not vote for a third-party candidate because you didn't want to "throw your vote away?" That attitude is precisely the cause of the current situation, and is precisely why the good unpopular candidates like Paul and Kucinich don't have a chance. Once people break out of the mentality that they have to pick someone they think can win, then hopefully this country can break free of the two-party system and hopefully start producing GOOD quality candidates. It's impossible to throw a vote away. People have to start voting based on the issues rather than just towing the party line.
That's a lot of the reason people prefer TOS to the TNG-era series. Kirk regularly went against the high-minded principles of the Federation. He was a swash-buckling rebel while Picard, Janeway, and--to a much smaller extent--Sisko were all straight-laced robots that couldn't wait to quote Federation laws and uphold Federation principles at every possible opportunity. Granted, they did go against orders once in a while, but it was always a big deal and they always made the same speech to their bridge crew ("I'm about to violate a direct order from Starfleet Command, does anyone object?" -- as if anyone ever does, then the logical robot and/or Vulcan will inevitably say something out-of-character). Kirk didn't have time for principles and speeches to the bridge crew, he was about getting things done.
Firefly and BSG definitely brought out that "real life" feeling that Sci-Fi TV DESPERATELY needs. I'd personally love to see a gritty, real-life version of Star Trek. I had hoped that's what Enterprise would offer, but instead it was the same old crap with a smaller, uglier bridge.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people have the kind of personality that makes them automatically hate something because it's popular.
About the radio waves thing. The belief that alien civilizations could pick up our transmissions is bogus, based only on science-fiction. As radio waves travel, they dissipate. By the time they left our solar system, the signals would have degraded to a point where they would be indistinguishable from the normal background noise of the universe.
Horray! More oil to sell to Japan!
What many biblical literalists tend to do is latch on to the correct parts of the bible and ignore the rest. They are under the impression that proving someone with a certain name existed in a certain place at a certain time proves to an absolute certainty that the Bible, in it's entirety, is 100% true.
If I were to tell you this entire universe was created by an invisible cosmic teddy bear who lives in the center of our sun, would you take me seriously? You certainly couldn't prove there's not an invisible teddy bear in the center of the sun, so wouldn't you be believing in something independent of scientific proof, as you put it?
"God" was something cooked up by bronze-age goat herders to explain elements of nature they didn't understand. It's what scientists call "unfalsifiable." Unfalsifiable means there are no conditions where the premise would be false. If something can't be proven false, it can't be proven true, and is therefore not science.
Not even Richard Dawkins is in the "strong atheist" camp, the people who believe to a 100% certainty there is no God. I don't know of anybody at that point. In reality, most atheists are in the 99.999% sure camp. We hold the likelihood of God to be the same as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, so in all practical purposes, we don't believe in God. It's just easier to say "I don't believe in God" than to say "I'm 99.999% sure that there isn't a God." There really is no practical difference between atheism and agnosticism.
...WIIIITCH!
Parallel ports? Obsolete? Tell that to the perfectly good HP Laserjet 4100 I grabbed off a pallet of junk at work that is now sitting comfortably in my office! I didn't even need to restart my computer when I plugged it in, it just started working.
But you will have reasonable doubt. It's a likely enough scenario and the DA won't have the evidence to convict you. IANAL, but if all they can prove is that the kiddie porn was accessed via your network, any good lawyer could build a good enough case.
It also happens in Vista. This makes you wonder if this bill is passed, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?
In my apartment, I pick up 11 wireless networks (even though there are only 8 apartments surrounding me), two of which apparently were set up by numbskulls (i.e. not set up at all. They just plugged the router in and left their network name at the default "linksys") and were left unsecured. My Windows Vista laptop will automatically connect to one of those networks if my router happens to puke and lose connection. If I'm away from the computer when this happens, I don't even know what went on while I was away, and I could surf for hours using someone else's connection. If "hijacking" someone else's wireless is made a crime, buying a Windows Vista machine will be like buying a car that automatically robs bank vaults while you're away at work.
This bill turns people into unwitting criminals because some people are idiotic enough not to protect their router, and Vista will automatically connect to these routers without asking. So, if it gets passed, the one question here is: if Vista forces me to break the law by automatically "hijacking" an unsecured wireless network, can Steve Ballmer be charged as an accessory to the crime?
Oh PLEASE. Everybody was thinking Starbuck could be a cylon anyway. The article doesn't even say one way or the other, just that most of the ship thinks she is, probably because she CAME BACK FROM THE FREAKING DEAD. It's hardly a "massive" spoiler, if it's even one at all.
The format war was evenly-matched for a while, but I think the PS3 tipped the scales just enough. The PS3 sold really well despite its high price and put Blu-Ray into over 1 million extra homes.
I propose we hold a vote to make 3 and 3, 2 and 4, and 1 and 5 equal 7 because 6 is an ungodly number.
Then you have the problem of explaining where the aliens came from. If they themselves are the experiments of an even higher race, who created that race? Who created the race that created that race? If there is a complex race of aliens that somewhere that do no require an intelligent designer, then why do humans, who are arguably less complex, need one?
A scientific theory explains scientific facts.
When you drop an apple, it falls, that is a fact of gravity. A THEORY of gravity explains WHY that apple fell. That theory can also make predictions as to what happens in other areas. For example, the theory of gravity predicted that in a vacuum, all object fall at the same velocity regardless of mass. This is testable, and was proven true, thus giving creedence to the theory.
The same is with evolution. When we find strange-looking hominid fossils that have both human and ape traits, the fact that those animals once existed is a fact of evolution. The theory of evolution explains why we found those creatures, because they eventually developed into us, and that we are related to the great apes. When the DNA molecule was discovered and the field of genetics launched, evolution predicted that we would have very similar DNA to the great apes, and we did. Evolution even explains why we have one fewer chromosome pair: some time in our evolution two pairs fused and now form our chromosome #3.
This is precisely why Intelligent Design is not science. It doesn't explain why we share similar DNA to the great apes. It doesn't explain the existence of pre-human ancestors. It doesn't explain why just Chromosome #3 is actually two pairs fused together. The only answer it offer is "it was all part of the Intelligent Designer's plan," which is an untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific claim. Evolution is testable, and it's falsifiable. If Chromosome #3 did not have evidence of being two pairs at one time, or if all the fossils we ever found were modern animals that exist in their present form, Evolution would have been in serious trouble.
Science is about providing an explanation for what we do know, not speculating on what we don't know.
Your post reminds me a lot of my experience as a Jehovah's Witness. I was raised in the church, and a lot of these elements of scientology are present in the JW religion as well.
"Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind's problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind's history it is possible to "clear the planet" (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization (LRH's private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul... and not just this lifetime)"
It's the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses. As a witness, you are taught that the Watchtower society is the "faithful and discreet slave" (otherwise known as the "faithful and wise servant" in most Bibles), meaning that they are the sole channel to God. Any kind of salvation and favor with God are impossible without following the doctrinal interpretations of the society. They also teach that the only goal a Witness of Jehovah should have is to preach the message to others as much as possible. All other ambitions in life come secondary. This is why there are no Jehovah's Witness charities, scholarships, or homeless shelters. They believe the earth will all be destroyed and that the only thing that needs to be done is get people into the Watchtower fold so they can survive Armageddon.
"Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person..."
Anyone who disagrees, even if only privately, to the most specific tenets of the Jehovah's Witness faith (including the weird bits like the 1914 eschatology) is labeled an apostate and under direct control of Satan and the demons. People who publicly attack the church are often viewed as sinning against the holy spirit, the Bible's only unforgivable sin.
"There is a huge taboo against reading or discussing anything potentially negative or "entheta" against Scientology or the church, often the taboo will extend down to the point that you feel it is wrong to "think" about potentially negative things regarding Scientology.
Right in line with Watchtower teachings. Books and authors that disagree with the society's conclusions are labeled as "worldly," meaning that they are a product of a world ruled by Satan. Essentially, anything that doesn't agree with doctrine is wholly Satanic, automatically, no questions asked. Witnesses are constantly told to stay away from the internet and from "apostate" reading material, because reading such things will corrupt the mind of even the most faithful Jehovah's Witness.
"it drills into you the fact that Scientology "works" and "gets results" and that the only reason it doesn't work is due to incorrect understood, applied or "squirreled"
Everything that is taught by the society is "the truth." If wonderful things don't happen to you as a result of being "in the truth," then it is always your fault. You might not be praying enough, or you might need to be going out door-knocking more often. If you're not happy, you're not doing enough, period. Until recently and even currently on some occasions, those with depression were/are told that the reason for their depression is that something is keeping them from God. The solutions are to pray and read the Bible more.
"he did a purge of anyone within the church who he considered was not 100% loyal to him by declaring them suppressive and excommunicating them (members of the church are required to "dis-connect" and never again speak to someone who has been excommunicated)."
The same thing happened with Joseph F. Rutherford took over the presidency of the Watchtower society from its founder, Charles T. Russel, in 1917. He instituted the doctrine of "disfellowshipping." Those who are disfellowshipped are shunned by everyo
Except that I don't need to buy a diamond every week in order to drive to work.
Isn't a diamond a crystal?
If Bill Gates thinks the XO is inferior to the Classmate then he is either lying or ignorant. On top of being more expensive, the classmate has shorter wireless range, no webcam, shorter battery life, no sunlight readable option, and a lower color resolution. The limited charging options also hamper the Classmate's acceptance in rural areas without electricity. With the XO you can handcrank or use a solar cell to charge the battery. The Classmate offers no such options. Basically, the XO was designed from the ground up to be something used by schoolchildren in remote areas with no electricity. The Classmate is just a crippled mini notebook.
This is exactly what Microsoft did to IBM during the OS/2 Warp project. Still, I think Intel has hit a new low with this one. Sabotage between two for-profit companies is one thing, but a for-profit company pulling this on a non-profit org is beyond despicable. It's like if a construction company and Habitat for Humanity were working together on a project and came up with some really good design ideas, then the construction company, half-way through construction, takes every scrap of material and blueprints away from the job site and uses them to build houses for paying customers.
I think a lot of people are sitting the format war out simply because the whole experience of buying a TV/Movie player has become exponentially more complicated in recent years.
It used to be the case that all you needed to know when buying a television was how big of a screen you wanted. There was only one way to plug your antenna/VCR into the back. My TV for instance has 4 sockets in the back, three for component A/C and one for coaxial.
Now, you have to juggle prices and screen size along with resolution. Then, you have to make sure you buy the right HDMI cable revision, line up HD service, and pick a side in the movie format war, or else suffer through DVD upscaling. People don't like being forced to become home theater nerds just to buy a damn television set, that's why HD hasn't taken off in the US.
Unless the ice is just frozen CO2.
Ever not vote for a third-party candidate because you didn't want to "throw your vote away?" That attitude is precisely the cause of the current situation, and is precisely why the good unpopular candidates like Paul and Kucinich don't have a chance. Once people break out of the mentality that they have to pick someone they think can win, then hopefully this country can break free of the two-party system and hopefully start producing GOOD quality candidates. It's impossible to throw a vote away. People have to start voting based on the issues rather than just towing the party line.
Thanks for the NSFW label, asshole.
That's a lot of the reason people prefer TOS to the TNG-era series. Kirk regularly went against the high-minded principles of the Federation. He was a swash-buckling rebel while Picard, Janeway, and--to a much smaller extent--Sisko were all straight-laced robots that couldn't wait to quote Federation laws and uphold Federation principles at every possible opportunity. Granted, they did go against orders once in a while, but it was always a big deal and they always made the same speech to their bridge crew ("I'm about to violate a direct order from Starfleet Command, does anyone object?" -- as if anyone ever does, then the logical robot and/or Vulcan will inevitably say something out-of-character). Kirk didn't have time for principles and speeches to the bridge crew, he was about getting things done.
Firefly and BSG definitely brought out that "real life" feeling that Sci-Fi TV DESPERATELY needs. I'd personally love to see a gritty, real-life version of Star Trek. I had hoped that's what Enterprise would offer, but instead it was the same old crap with a smaller, uglier bridge.