I would say the mars rovers were a better bang for the buck
I would say the amount and variety of information we've obtained from Hubble absolutely dwarfs the limited exploration of the Mars rovers. The Deep Field picture alone is more interesting than anything the rovers did.
science is, for instance, the reason we no longer perform lobotomies or practice eugenics.
Not really. It's our ethics that changed. Eugenics, in particular, got a bad name after Nazi Germany. Also, the desire to know more, what's driving science, is what caused the cruel human experiments, and why we still have cruel animal experiments to this very day. It's true in the case of lobotomies that they were replaced with the advancement of chemical drugs.
In contrast, dogmas originating from our major religions doâ"explicitlyâ"command adherents to perform cruel acts.
There's nothing inherent in religion that says it has to be used for evil -- there are different religions, some without a word of evil in them. Religions also change over time, despite the dogma, in response to our sense of ethics.
In conclusion, the problem of evil isn't inherent in religion or science. It's just that the people involved can use it for either end. That's true of pretty much anything, including stuff like free speech and democracy.
Just as there's no rule that religion has to be used for evil, there's no rule that science has to be used for good or evil. You asked for a list and I gave it to you. They were born out of science, and some of them were accepted by the mainstream scientists of the day.
I'm a staunch atheist, but the letter reads to me like Haught had some valid criticisms. In particular, the list of "evils" associated religion. You could easily come up with such a list for science. It's not pertinent to a debate on the compatibility of religion and science.
It'll be interesting to see the video. I'm glad Haught changed his mind, and I give him credit for that.
Contrary to popular belief, he responded to the crash immediately, working feverishly to try to keep the US federal budget balanced via a combination of taxation and austerity measures, on the advice of his economic advisers who told him that this would restore confidence to the markets (sound familiar?).
It sure does, but so does runaway inflation by government printing money, or building up huge deficits that will be defaulted on. I don't see any solid, good answers coming out of either camp.
The tech world's gone mad with touch mania. Does this guy really think I'm going to be sticking my arms out touching my monitor while I'm developing for 8+ hours a day?
Gee. If it's all bullshit, what's the point of differentiating?
That's my conclusion. You're welcome to try to differentiate how the Christianity story is different from all the countless religions that people believed in before. Talking about religious books, history, and people dying is hardly unique.
I don't believe God gives out different answers. Though He may, and for His reasons, I don't believe he does.
And your evidence for this is? Where's the history of either the Jewish message or Christian message in cultures that weren't exposed to those religions? Asia, South America, North America, Africa, Australia. People all over the world came up with their own religions.
And all of this while supposedly there's claimed to be an all-powerful god that could provide miraculous and incontrovertible evidence to everybody across the world.
If your question was really why are there multiple religions, well, some must be invalid, 'wrong' or 'lies' as many say. Since we are dealing with faith, then there are no empirical tests for validity.
Occam's razor says it's likely that people, left to their own devices to explain their existence, came up with different answers. To argue "faith" is to argue for giving up on reason and believing one particular story, one that you never would have believed in unless you were born at the right time and place.
Any help at all?
No. You didn't offer any compelling evidence, just vague excuses.
The problem with such evidence is that people have been making up shit, intermixing it with real events, culture and ethics, and then dying over it all over the planet and throughout human history.
Which leads to the following questions:
1) Why do you think Christian and Jewish bullshit is better than anybody else's bullshit.
2) Why an all-powerful god would not give everybody the same message all around the world at the same time.
"In the late 1990s, the Gulf Cartel leader, Osiel Cardenas Guillen, wanted to track down and kill rival cartel members as a form of protection. He began to recruit former Mexican Armyâ(TM)s elite Grupo Aeromovil de Fuerzas Especiales (GAFE) soldiers. Some of the initial members of the group received specialized military training in counter-insurgency and locating and apprehending drug cartel members in the United States at Fort Benning, Georgia in the early 1990s while still members of the Mexican military.
Cardenas Guillen's top recruit, lieutenant Arturo Guzman Decena, brought with him approximately 30 other GAFE deserters enticed by salaries substantially higher than those paid by the Mexican government. The role of Los Zetas was soon expanded, collecting debts, securing cocaine supply and trafficking routes known as plazas (zones) and executing its foes, often with grotesque savagery."
But yeah, that's the OpenBSD way - they sell the One True Install media to ensure you're getting a pristine copy and not something potentially hacked up with hidden vulnerabilities and such.
They're just trying to extract money.
and having a way to distribute unmodified CDs is quite hard
No it isn't. All you need is a secure checksum for the image.
On one side, I see global warmongers saying that those that don't believe in Global Warming are flat-earthers and science obviously proves that GW is happening and it's all man's fault. On the other side, I see "skeptics" claiming that Global Warmongers are government supported scientists looking for grants and anti-capitalists looking to gain power. Who is telling the truth?
It's not a black and white issue and there are people who fall along a spectrum between the two extremes you have laid out. Your question is a false dichotomy.
The problem is, as I've stated, is that this guy was NEVER a climate skeptic and those that say he was are lying to my face.
What you should be looking for is somebody who has scientific integrity and tries to approach the problem in a scientific manner. I believe Richard Muller fits that description. He HAS been skeptical when it's called for, and the point of this study was to address concerns that came out of Climategate (which occurred in 2009. Your quote was from 2008).
Where others made weak excuses over "hide the decline", Muller was correctly appalled at the deceit:
"They added the same temperature data to three different plots, giving you the illusion that there were three different sets going up. [..] And what is the result, in my mind? Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore. You're not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards. [..] This is why I'm now leading a study to redo all this in a totally transparent way."
By the way, that clip was taken from a longer talk that was really interesting, and will probably give you a perspective on global warming that you haven't heard before. The guy's a total realist, and in my mind comes as close to a modern day Feynman on this issue as you're going to find.
Nobody forces anybody to attend private schools. I really hate this nanny state mentality that government need to shutdown private colleges. They just need to stop funding their exorbitant tuition.
Your response to rising education costs is to reduce the number of suppliers?
If we required a for-profit school to pay back even just 50% of the loan that was defaulted on, you'd see the default rate decrease overnight.
This is a much better direction, but I think the problem is the government needs to set a strict limit on just how much they're willing to guarantee in loans. Education has far outpaced inflation, and it's because government has an open checkbook.
I don't know why I'm risking my karma by pointing this out
I don't know either: -1 Pedantic
There's nothing "fair" about your statement. The images were designed to induce epilepsy. Your average video isn't. Your reply comes off as some kind of excuse for true trollish behavior (some people think "I disagree" in an argument means the other side is trolling).
Slashdot Mirror
I would say the mars rovers were a better bang for the buck
I would say the amount and variety of information we've obtained from Hubble absolutely dwarfs the limited exploration of the Mars rovers. The Deep Field picture alone is more interesting than anything the rovers did.
It sounds like their license was some weird LGPL with their own imposed conditions, so it was never truly LGPL to begin with.
It's what ordinary folks use to pay their rent. Maybe if you move out of Mom's basement you'll see.
science is, for instance, the reason we no longer perform lobotomies or practice eugenics.
Not really. It's our ethics that changed. Eugenics, in particular, got a bad name after Nazi Germany. Also, the desire to know more, what's driving science, is what caused the cruel human experiments, and why we still have cruel animal experiments to this very day. It's true in the case of lobotomies that they were replaced with the advancement of chemical drugs.
In contrast, dogmas originating from our major religions doâ"explicitlyâ"command adherents to perform cruel acts.
There's nothing inherent in religion that says it has to be used for evil -- there are different religions, some without a word of evil in them. Religions also change over time, despite the dogma, in response to our sense of ethics.
In conclusion, the problem of evil isn't inherent in religion or science. It's just that the people involved can use it for either end. That's true of pretty much anything, including stuff like free speech and democracy.
Does your dog have a history of filing criminal complaints?
I'm guessing not.
Does Apple?
Yes. Hmm, do you think maybe it was Apple, and not his dog?!
He's done his homework. Alex Jones told him everything he needs to know.
[/sarcasm]
Just as there's no rule that religion has to be used for evil, there's no rule that science has to be used for good or evil. You asked for a list and I gave it to you. They were born out of science, and some of them were accepted by the mainstream scientists of the day.
Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
Not just the Nazis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
There's also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Science also brought nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, and all around just better and better ways of killing each other.
I'm a staunch atheist, but the letter reads to me like Haught had some valid criticisms. In particular, the list of "evils" associated religion. You could easily come up with such a list for science. It's not pertinent to a debate on the compatibility of religion and science.
It'll be interesting to see the video. I'm glad Haught changed his mind, and I give him credit for that.
I'm talking about as a user.
Contrary to popular belief, he responded to the crash immediately, working feverishly to try to keep the US federal budget balanced via a combination of taxation and austerity measures, on the advice of his economic advisers who told him that this would restore confidence to the markets (sound familiar?).
It sure does, but so does runaway inflation by government printing money, or building up huge deficits that will be defaulted on. I don't see any solid, good answers coming out of either camp.
Eclipse has SWT. I really hate Swing.
The tech world's gone mad with touch mania. Does this guy really think I'm going to be sticking my arms out touching my monitor while I'm developing for 8+ hours a day?
Gee. If it's all bullshit, what's the point of differentiating?
That's my conclusion. You're welcome to try to differentiate how the Christianity story is different from all the countless religions that people believed in before. Talking about religious books, history, and people dying is hardly unique.
I don't believe God gives out different answers. Though He may, and for His reasons, I don't believe he does.
And your evidence for this is? Where's the history of either the Jewish message or Christian message in cultures that weren't exposed to those religions? Asia, South America, North America, Africa, Australia. People all over the world came up with their own religions.
And all of this while supposedly there's claimed to be an all-powerful god that could provide miraculous and incontrovertible evidence to everybody across the world.
If your question was really why are there multiple religions, well, some must be invalid, 'wrong' or 'lies' as many say. Since we are dealing with faith, then there are no empirical tests for validity.
Occam's razor says it's likely that people, left to their own devices to explain their existence, came up with different answers. To argue "faith" is to argue for giving up on reason and believing one particular story, one that you never would have believed in unless you were born at the right time and place.
Any help at all?
No. You didn't offer any compelling evidence, just vague excuses.
The problem with such evidence is that people have been making up shit, intermixing it with real events, culture and ethics, and then dying over it all over the planet and throughout human history.
Which leads to the following questions:
1) Why do you think Christian and Jewish bullshit is better than anybody else's bullshit.
2) Why an all-powerful god would not give everybody the same message all around the world at the same time.
We are past the point of standing up to the Zetas with blog posts and words, the only way to deal with them is with military force
Did you know that the Zetas were founded by ex-military, most of them deserters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas_Cartel#History
"In the late 1990s, the Gulf Cartel leader, Osiel Cardenas Guillen, wanted to track down and kill rival cartel members as a form of protection. He began to recruit former Mexican Armyâ(TM)s elite Grupo Aeromovil de Fuerzas Especiales (GAFE) soldiers. Some of the initial members of the group received specialized military training in counter-insurgency and locating and apprehending drug cartel members in the United States at Fort Benning, Georgia in the early 1990s while still members of the Mexican military.
Cardenas Guillen's top recruit, lieutenant Arturo Guzman Decena, brought with him approximately 30 other GAFE deserters enticed by salaries substantially higher than those paid by the Mexican government. The role of Los Zetas was soon expanded, collecting debts, securing cocaine supply and trafficking routes known as plazas (zones) and executing its foes, often with grotesque savagery."
But yeah, that's the OpenBSD way - they sell the One True Install media to ensure you're getting a pristine copy and not something potentially hacked up with hidden vulnerabilities and such.
They're just trying to extract money.
and having a way to distribute unmodified CDs is quite hard
No it isn't. All you need is a secure checksum for the image.
On one side, I see global warmongers saying that those that don't believe in Global Warming are flat-earthers and science obviously proves that GW is happening and it's all man's fault. On the other side, I see "skeptics" claiming that Global Warmongers are government supported scientists looking for grants and anti-capitalists looking to gain power. Who is telling the truth?
It's not a black and white issue and there are people who fall along a spectrum between the two extremes you have laid out. Your question is a false dichotomy.
The problem is, as I've stated, is that this guy was NEVER a climate skeptic and those that say he was are lying to my face.
What you should be looking for is somebody who has scientific integrity and tries to approach the problem in a scientific manner. I believe Richard Muller fits that description. He HAS been skeptical when it's called for, and the point of this study was to address concerns that came out of Climategate (which occurred in 2009. Your quote was from 2008).
Where others made weak excuses over "hide the decline", Muller was correctly appalled at the deceit:
"They added the same temperature data to three different plots, giving you the illusion that there were three different sets going up. [..] And what is the result, in my mind? Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore. You're not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards. [..] This is why I'm now leading a study to redo all this in a totally transparent way."
By the way, that clip was taken from a longer talk that was really interesting, and will probably give you a perspective on global warming that you haven't heard before. The guy's a total realist, and in my mind comes as close to a modern day Feynman on this issue as you're going to find.
Those non-technical and non-scientific fields have never been the focus of Slashdot.
Nobody forces anybody to attend private schools. I really hate this nanny state mentality that government need to shutdown private colleges. They just need to stop funding their exorbitant tuition.
For-profit schools. Shut them down. Period.
Your response to rising education costs is to reduce the number of suppliers?
If we required a for-profit school to pay back even just 50% of the loan that was defaulted on, you'd see the default rate decrease overnight.
This is a much better direction, but I think the problem is the government needs to set a strict limit on just how much they're willing to guarantee in loans. Education has far outpaced inflation, and it's because government has an open checkbook.
That "ending state" is a probability function. No hidden variables.
The whole point in quantum computing is that it is not random but completely deterministic through the wavefunction.
This is an odd thing to say, as the wave function is inherently a probability function. "Completely deterministic" gives the wrong idea.
You're just one person among a populace. There's no perfect system. However, if enough people were people a single issue then it could be changed.
I don't know why I'm risking my karma by pointing this out
I don't know either: -1 Pedantic
There's nothing "fair" about your statement. The images were designed to induce epilepsy. Your average video isn't. Your reply comes off as some kind of excuse for true trollish behavior (some people think "I disagree" in an argument means the other side is trolling).