We're so screwed. All politicians are so technologically ignorant they can't tell when a lobbyist is lying to them, and even if they could tell many wouldn't care.
I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news. US is going to have some massive brain drain soon, I predict.
Its voluntary if you don't want to advance. Some people can advance in their lives (career, family, whatever you want) without a car. The fact of the matter is (at least in the US) you generally NEED a car to fulfill the expectations placed on us by those who can facilitate our advancement in whatever direction we choose.
To say because it is "voluntary" it invalidates the argument is a bit naive.
Most artists and actors (think local, like the guy who makes murals for cities or organizes local productions) aren't paid outrageous salaries. We only hear of the ones that do thanks to a for-profit news media.
Is it actually more likely for a body to be directed away from Earth than to Earth by Jupiter? I mean, it seems that a body not destined for Earth could otherwise hit if affected by Jupiter's gravity sufficiently.
I don't comment that often but does anyone have any idea on the viability of stereoscopic facial recognition? Wouldn't that make a 3d model required to be presented to the input instead just a 2d one? Or two 2d images offset at the right angle for the distance from the cameras?
Thanks to evolution, my butt is growing to provide more padding for my digital lifestyle.
If EA is reading this
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
If you're reading this, EA, I will pirate this game. That is the only way I can think of to teach you that you can't try to control my computer. Not wise to treat your customers like criminals.
Couldn't this conversely be just interactions below our precision of measurement? It seems like a dangerous conclusion to jump to that atoms must have "free will" just as it is to say "god did it".
I think free will is an illusion of causal relationships that exist outside our precision of measurement, be it our five senses used as our input for stimuli which causes our responses, or the interactions of subatomic particles. Ideas like the article presents just reek of arrogance of our importance in the grand scheme of things.
This "article" is advertising. Why the hell would you give apple free advertising on the front page. At least MS pays for a banner. Keep your guard up people, advertisers spend about as much money as the government on psychological studies of the public so they know how to get under the radar of most people.
So you're asserting that this falls under the category "Stuff That Matters". I think don't think it falls in that category, but "Stuff That Matters" is completely subjective. In the context of what this site generally geared toward in my opinion I don't think the piece was appropriate. The importance of history and recovering and archiving can't be overstated. But, ignoring the religious nature of the texts involved, what about the story made it either "News For Nerds" or "Stuff That Matters"? I really hope I'm not seeming like I'm trolling in this thread, I honestly am wanting to know if I'm screwing up somewhere in my reasoning in my justification for bringing up this topic for comment and my questioning of the validity of this article as valid news relative to generally accepted perceptions of what/. should share as news.
Their complete history of support and rejection of scientific thought doesn't address the point that the controversial through history are ones that directly contradict a statement or implication in the Bible or church regardless of empirical data. To believe the stories of creation as the Bible describes, you are forced to ignore what evidence is showing to be true through scientific observation. To believe in something with no real evidence (as far as I know) over something that has repeatable outcomes in experiments and observations seems to be very dangerous to me regarding our ability to surpass the traditionally accepted limitations of our species as a whole.
I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke who said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
With our technology, we are approaching "godlike" power as a species, and we are seeing contradictions in the claims of churches that adopts a literal interpretation of the texts.
I personally believe that there is much to learn from the Bible, and there is also much to learn from Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Judaism, Hinduism, Satanism, and Wicca and that our ability to learn from and apply the principles of the philosophies is true regardless of the existence of god. Basically, I think that religion adds nothing to the potential of the human spirit, but limits you to the constraints which it demands you obey regardless of empirical evidence. Note I did not say that religion doesn't contribute to the human spirit, but instead the potential. I do believe that many people have taken religion in the most positive way and used it is something to empower themselves and contribute to the human spirit, and for them I am grateful. But the reasons for this is not the religion necessarily, it may be just their humanity.
Again, I hope that none of you are offended by the points I hold. If I'm provably wrong in my statements above I would be grateful to be informed so I can sharpen my understanding of the universe, because I am not traditionally educated on the subject and may be mistaken.
I'm terribly sorry to have the negative comment on this article, because I'm sure a lot of you are going to mod me down for this. But I think that the point of view that this article has no place as/. news article is a valid issue to be discussed, so please don't discard my opinion without considering it, because I mean it in the spirit of open discussion.
Why is this considered newsworthy? I understand the science and technology of recovering and archiving ancient texts for future research, and it is a noble end and vital if we learned any lesson from the library at Alexandria. But this article isn't about the science of it, or the tech of it. It is about a specific book being archived and shared for public viewing, which I do not consider news.
If this book was just as old, but NOT the bible, would it have been submitted? I wasn't forced to read it, and I'm not offended by it. But I'm more so concerned with something that to me core seems like a contradiction to the tenet of "News for Nerds, News that Matters".
Basically, no topics should be holy. By which I mean that no subject should get preferential treatment in any way. And I feel that the only way this article could have gotten onto the main page is through the bias many people inherently give toward giving validity and credence to the relevance of Christianity (and all religion in general).
Religious topics have a place for discussion, but considering the damage Christianity (and other religions) has caused to science historically, I do not think that place is on/.
If anything, I believe the appropriate discussion regarding religion would be regarding the direct contradictions between the empirical evidence used in scientific study and the present positions held in current theology.
Is it not more important for the progression of scientific reasoning to address the sincere danger posed by religion on influencing the general perception of the public regarding a host of complex issues such as evolution, genetic research, and medical technology? Because the majority of Americans still believe in a "giant invisible man in the sky" interpretation of religion, if I am to trust the polls I have seen over a period of years and if you'll excuse the callous categorization of that type. I have also seen a number of polls which have shown a correlation between levels of education and religiosity being inversely proportional, which I hope I can trust without being more arrogant than I have already been. Perhaps the correlation can affect behavior in the direction opposite from the intuitive "education implies skepticism which implies questioning of faith". Perhaps by directly confronting people about the absurdity of their beliefs relative to scientific explanations would affect education in that it would spurn people to be skeptics about many other things in the world around them.
I think that it isn't moreso that we don't want to admit that some of us can be criminals. I think that as being abused and isolated from normal society, we feel entitled to be above the law. We as a culture have been mistreated and disrespected in our youth often, and it carries into adulthood easily.
Weigh what Google will use for versus what Viacom will use it for however. Google can't sue you for content, but they can use the information to make a more effective search engine which in turn will be beneficial to internet users. Viacom will use it to try to exploit you and take your money through advertising or litigation with no additional product or service.
Slashdot Mirror
We're so screwed. All politicians are so technologically ignorant they can't tell when a lobbyist is lying to them, and even if they could tell many wouldn't care.
I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news. US is going to have some massive brain drain soon, I predict.
What the hell is a "condom" and why should we care?
Its voluntary if you don't want to advance. Some people can advance in their lives (career, family, whatever you want) without a car. The fact of the matter is (at least in the US) you generally NEED a car to fulfill the expectations placed on us by those who can facilitate our advancement in whatever direction we choose.
To say because it is "voluntary" it invalidates the argument is a bit naive.
Is is accurate to say driving a car is used as a justification to tax (road maintenance) and control (traffic laws, requirement to own insurance)?
if it will be able to perceive black people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM
Yeah, he should rightfully be remembered as that guy who got killed while in god mode in the game he created.
http://www.gamestooge.com/2009/01/02/feature-the-day-lord-british-died/
Unless you have cats.
Is that not true of "randomness" we see in natural systems as well? Know enough about its elements and you can predict its behavior?
Determinism, we don't need no stinkin' determinism.
Mod up. The relationship between space and time is very interesting and parent has a good explanation. GP is doing it wrong.
Or you could bury it with so much similar BAD stuff so that none of it is believable.
Noise up, signal down.
I was following you until the part about warrants. What are you thinking could possibly require one that is related to this?
Most artists and actors (think local, like the guy who makes murals for cities or organizes local productions) aren't paid outrageous salaries. We only hear of the ones that do thanks to a for-profit news media.
Why aren't we doing this!
Is it actually more likely for a body to be directed away from Earth than to Earth by Jupiter? I mean, it seems that a body not destined for Earth could otherwise hit if affected by Jupiter's gravity sufficiently.
I don't comment that often but does anyone have any idea on the viability of stereoscopic facial recognition? Wouldn't that make a 3d model required to be presented to the input instead just a 2d one? Or two 2d images offset at the right angle for the distance from the cameras?
Thanks to evolution, my butt is growing to provide more padding for my digital lifestyle.
If you're reading this, EA, I will pirate this game. That is the only way I can think of to teach you that you can't try to control my computer. Not wise to treat your customers like criminals.
That is just what THEY want you to think!
Couldn't this conversely be just interactions below our precision of measurement? It seems like a dangerous conclusion to jump to that atoms must have "free will" just as it is to say "god did it". I think free will is an illusion of causal relationships that exist outside our precision of measurement, be it our five senses used as our input for stimuli which causes our responses, or the interactions of subatomic particles. Ideas like the article presents just reek of arrogance of our importance in the grand scheme of things.
This "article" is advertising. Why the hell would you give apple free advertising on the front page. At least MS pays for a banner. Keep your guard up people, advertisers spend about as much money as the government on psychological studies of the public so they know how to get under the radar of most people.
So you're asserting that this falls under the category "Stuff That Matters". I think don't think it falls in that category, but "Stuff That Matters" is completely subjective. In the context of what this site generally geared toward in my opinion I don't think the piece was appropriate. The importance of history and recovering and archiving can't be overstated. But, ignoring the religious nature of the texts involved, what about the story made it either "News For Nerds" or "Stuff That Matters"? I really hope I'm not seeming like I'm trolling in this thread, I honestly am wanting to know if I'm screwing up somewhere in my reasoning in my justification for bringing up this topic for comment and my questioning of the validity of this article as valid news relative to generally accepted perceptions of what /. should share as news.
Regards
Their complete history of support and rejection of scientific thought doesn't address the point that the controversial through history are ones that directly contradict a statement or implication in the Bible or church regardless of empirical data. To believe the stories of creation as the Bible describes, you are forced to ignore what evidence is showing to be true through scientific observation. To believe in something with no real evidence (as far as I know) over something that has repeatable outcomes in experiments and observations seems to be very dangerous to me regarding our ability to surpass the traditionally accepted limitations of our species as a whole.
I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke who said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
With our technology, we are approaching "godlike" power as a species, and we are seeing contradictions in the claims of churches that adopts a literal interpretation of the texts.
I personally believe that there is much to learn from the Bible, and there is also much to learn from Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Judaism, Hinduism, Satanism, and Wicca and that our ability to learn from and apply the principles of the philosophies is true regardless of the existence of god. Basically, I think that religion adds nothing to the potential of the human spirit, but limits you to the constraints which it demands you obey regardless of empirical evidence. Note I did not say that religion doesn't contribute to the human spirit, but instead the potential. I do believe that many people have taken religion in the most positive way and used it is something to empower themselves and contribute to the human spirit, and for them I am grateful. But the reasons for this is not the religion necessarily, it may be just their humanity.
Again, I hope that none of you are offended by the points I hold. If I'm provably wrong in my statements above I would be grateful to be informed so I can sharpen my understanding of the universe, because I am not traditionally educated on the subject and may be mistaken.
Peace.
I'm terribly sorry to have the negative comment on this article, because I'm sure a lot of you are going to mod me down for this. But I think that the point of view that this article has no place as /. news article is a valid issue to be discussed, so please don't discard my opinion without considering it, because I mean it in the spirit of open discussion.
/.
Why is this considered newsworthy? I understand the science and technology of recovering and archiving ancient texts for future research, and it is a noble end and vital if we learned any lesson from the library at Alexandria. But this article isn't about the science of it, or the tech of it. It is about a specific book being archived and shared for public viewing, which I do not consider news.
If this book was just as old, but NOT the bible, would it have been submitted? I wasn't forced to read it, and I'm not offended by it. But I'm more so concerned with something that to me core seems like a contradiction to the tenet of "News for Nerds, News that Matters".
Basically, no topics should be holy. By which I mean that no subject should get preferential treatment in any way. And I feel that the only way this article could have gotten onto the main page is through the bias many people inherently give toward giving validity and credence to the relevance of Christianity (and all religion in general).
Religious topics have a place for discussion, but considering the damage Christianity (and other religions) has caused to science historically, I do not think that place is on
If anything, I believe the appropriate discussion regarding religion would be regarding the direct contradictions between the empirical evidence used in scientific study and the present positions held in current theology.
Is it not more important for the progression of scientific reasoning to address the sincere danger posed by religion on influencing the general perception of the public regarding a host of complex issues such as evolution, genetic research, and medical technology? Because the majority of Americans still believe in a "giant invisible man in the sky" interpretation of religion, if I am to trust the polls I have seen over a period of years and if you'll excuse the callous categorization of that type. I have also seen a number of polls which have shown a correlation between levels of education and religiosity being inversely proportional, which I hope I can trust without being more arrogant than I have already been. Perhaps the correlation can affect behavior in the direction opposite from the intuitive "education implies skepticism which implies questioning of faith". Perhaps by directly confronting people about the absurdity of their beliefs relative to scientific explanations would affect education in that it would spurn people to be skeptics about many other things in the world around them.
Just my two cents, no offense intended.
I think that it isn't moreso that we don't want to admit that some of us can be criminals. I think that as being abused and isolated from normal society, we feel entitled to be above the law. We as a culture have been mistreated and disrespected in our youth often, and it carries into adulthood easily.
Weigh what Google will use for versus what Viacom will use it for however. Google can't sue you for content, but they can use the information to make a more effective search engine which in turn will be beneficial to internet users. Viacom will use it to try to exploit you and take your money through advertising or litigation with no additional product or service.