Seems unlikely. There's no indication that their machine will ever reach break-even, and the idea of a piston-powered fusion reactor makes me laugh. As for Los-Alamos, their magnetized-target fusion research seems to have stalled - no updates since 2003. Don't hold your breath on this one.
Well that makes sense, then, and I fully support this decision. Anyone stupid enough to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories should be banned from the planet.
Then you've created a double standard - you're using a different definition of "disprove" for each of the two cases.
Also, if you accept solipsism as valid, you can't prove or disprove anything, regardless of what definition you use, since you accept that none of the data you're using is actually real.
Such a world-view is no more useless than any other world-view.
Nonsense. If I believe that the universe behaves according to immutable natural laws which can be discovered through careful study and testing, I can do a hell of a lot more than if I believe that the world is nothing more than a figment of my imagination. Solipsism is useless because it brings nothing to the discussion, and only serves to detract from subjects which are worth discussing. It's the worst kind of mental masturbation. And, with that said, we're done. You've succeeded in wasting at least a few minutes of my time - you're not getting any more.
I agree with Wyatt Earp's sibling post. Why wouldn't Wikileaks be listed as a terrorist organization?
Why wouldn't greenpeace? Why wouldn't the Salvation Army? Why wouldn't the Girl Guides?
Rephrasing such a ludicrous suggestion in the form of a question doesn't make it any more legitimate. As I said, you two obviously have some serious mental-health issues. Either that or you're just trolling.
If you cannot disprove solipsism, then you cannot disprove anything. Such a world-view is entirely useless, and trying to live by it would lead you straight to the nuthouse.
If you're being serious, you really and truly need to seek psychiatric help. Some level of general paranoia is justified, and might even be warranted, but anyone who honestly thinks that wikileaks is going to make a terrorist list has stepped way off the beaten path.
Exactly. Intelligent, rational people are quite capable of turning off their rationality when it comes to specific subjects. Whatever their motivations may be, it's idiotic to just write them off as "stupid" or "insane".
True. And when pretty much 99.9999% of the people who oppose the Iraq war criticize it because "those durn Amerikkkan Neokkkon Fascist hicks are at it again", your bullshit excuse rings very hollow.
But saying that religion helped man get organized, leave by a certain set of rules, and develop the wheel millions of years ago is one thing, and saying that it still does that today is just plain stupid.
Actually, they're both equally stupid, which is why I didn't say either of those things. RTFP.
You wouldn't dare take seriously a scientists that was also an astrologist, or one that claimed aliens visited him daily
First off states / governments don't have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.
Rights are meaningless without the power to enforce them, so I'd say the two are interchangeable. If being pedantic makes you happy, though, fill your boots - I see no reason to quibble over minor details.
Secondly whether the SCOTUS declares something Constitutional or not doesn't necessarily make it so. The document has a fixed meaning
Hardly. If that were so, slavery would never have been legal in the US, and women would always have had the right to vote. Whether or not you want to admit it, no document in existence has a "fixed meaning".
Since I don't see anything about healthcare or vaccination or control of plagues etc in the Constitution...
In that case, the Public Health Service Act is unconstitutional. I suggest you either get to work challenging it in court, or accept the fact that there are many laws in effect for which you will find no direct link to the constitution. Most of them are justified by the "general welfare" part of the constitution.
On a more fundamental level which would be applied to the States, the government cannot force you to be vaccinated if you should choose not to.
I disagree, as do the courts.
In a free society the individual is free to make their own decisions, even if they are poor decisions, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others
Sure; except that your decision not to vaccinate yourself does infringe on the rights of others. Namely on their right to life, which, judging by the fact that it's named first in the constitution, is probably an important one.
In the case which I already mentioned, the Supreme Court made the following comment:
"The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State."
Using your earlier reasoning, you could argue that it's unconstitutional to make drunk-driving illegal. Both arguments would be equally "valid".
Phrases like "ends of the earth" stem from the fact that, at one point, people did believe that the earth was flat. The fact that we now use it metaphorically doesn't mean that it was never used literally. And if you bother reading the bible, you'll find that it repeatedly suggests that the earth is flat. It talks about the four corners of the earth, the ends of the earth, the edges of the earth, and talks about seeing the entire earth from a mountain top. You could excuse one or two such occurrences as "similes" or "metaphors", but if you follow the general narrative it quickly becomes obvious that the people who wrote this book really did think that the earth was flat.
Atheism isn't a religion, in the same sense theism isn't a religion.
Correct.
But just as it's obviously impossible to find a theist who does not in fact have a religion, I think it's not possible to find anyone who is "only" an atheist.
Once again - correct. How do you get from that, to calling atheism a religion?
That communists aren't "only" atheists are obvious to all - except communists themselves, a rather important exception.
I'd say it's obvious to communists, also.
There were several problems with soviet-style "atheism":
1. You cannot legislate belief. You can persecute people, the way most religions have done to eachother for thousands of years, and you can get those whom you're persecuting to say that they now believe what you believe, but you can't actually make someone believe something by threatening or harming them.
2. Atheism without religion is meaningless. Every child is born an atheist, but there's a massive difference between the atheism of a newborn, and the atheism of, say, Richard Dawkins. Atheism based on ignorance is no better than religion.
I tend to hate religion as a rule, but even I gotta say: you're being an idiot. Not only are such broad generalizations completely useless, but the basic premise is obviously flawed. Most of modern science is the result of hundreds of years of research by people who were religious to some extent. If there were any substance to your claim, we'd be chowing down on raw antelope in a cave instead of having a conversation by throwing photons at each-other from halfway around the world.
A federal mandatory-vaccination law might or might not be unconstitutional - no such law has ever existed, so it's never been tested in the courts. Vaccination programs in the US are controlled by individual states, and their ability to enforce mandatory programs has been upheld by the supreme court. Look up Jacobson v. Massachusetts for details. However, even though they have the right to institute such programs, the vast majority of states (all of them, maybe?) do not. Every state whose laws I've seen provide for exemptions to the usual vaccinations schedule, which means that the programs are not mandatory.
So, basically, his argument fails at every possible level.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems unlikely. There's no indication that their machine will ever reach break-even, and the idea of a piston-powered fusion reactor makes me laugh. As for Los-Alamos, their magnetized-target fusion research seems to have stalled - no updates since 2003. Don't hold your breath on this one.
... Gypsy scientists make significant breakthrough in fusion energy. Expect to have commercial reactors ready within 3 years.
I don't think fusing your hand to the stove is what we're talking about here ....
I wonder, if we USians had nearly limitless energy sources without the use of petrochemicals, would we need 11 humongous aircraft carriers?
Yes.
Just a passing thought...
Should have let it pass. I pass wind at least a few times a day, but I don't feel the need to share it with others.
Well that makes sense, then, and I fully support this decision. Anyone stupid enough to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories should be banned from the planet.
+5 Facepalm
That's wrong. I can disprove that 2+2=5.
Then you've created a double standard - you're using a different definition of "disprove" for each of the two cases.
Also, if you accept solipsism as valid, you can't prove or disprove anything, regardless of what definition you use, since you accept that none of the data you're using is actually real.
Such a world-view is no more useless than any other world-view.
Nonsense. If I believe that the universe behaves according to immutable natural laws which can be discovered through careful study and testing, I can do a hell of a lot more than if I believe that the world is nothing more than a figment of my imagination. Solipsism is useless because it brings nothing to the discussion, and only serves to detract from subjects which are worth discussing. It's the worst kind of mental masturbation. And, with that said, we're done. You've succeeded in wasting at least a few minutes of my time - you're not getting any more.
I agree with Wyatt Earp's sibling post. Why wouldn't Wikileaks be listed as a terrorist organization?
Why wouldn't greenpeace? Why wouldn't the Salvation Army? Why wouldn't the Girl Guides?
Rephrasing such a ludicrous suggestion in the form of a question doesn't make it any more legitimate. As I said, you two obviously have some serious mental-health issues. Either that or you're just trolling.
If you cannot disprove solipsism, then you cannot disprove anything. Such a world-view is entirely useless, and trying to live by it would lead you straight to the nuthouse.
I'm waiting for Wikileaks to make State's list
If you're being serious, you really and truly need to seek psychiatric help. Some level of general paranoia is justified, and might even be warranted, but anyone who honestly thinks that wikileaks is going to make a terrorist list has stepped way off the beaten path.
Exactly. Intelligent, rational people are quite capable of turning off their rationality when it comes to specific subjects. Whatever their motivations may be, it's idiotic to just write them off as "stupid" or "insane".
Either you were drunk when you read my comment, or you really have some serious reading-comprehension problems.
True. And when pretty much 99.9999% of the people who oppose the Iraq war criticize it because "those durn Amerikkkan Neokkkon Fascist hicks are at it again", your bullshit excuse rings very hollow.
I was going to respond in detail, until I noticed your sig. Carry on!
And people would be complaining that the stuff is making them ill, filing lawsuits etc.
They'll do that, anyway. If you stop product development out of a fear that crazy people will sure you, you'll never develop anything.
Seeing as how your entire comment can be summed up as:
"Nuh-uh!"
I'm gonna guess that we're done here. Ignoring my points while repeating your own is not a discussion - it's a waste of both our time.
But saying that religion helped man get organized, leave by a certain set of rules, and develop the wheel millions of years ago is one thing, and saying that it still does that today is just plain stupid.
Actually, they're both equally stupid, which is why I didn't say either of those things. RTFP.
You wouldn't dare take seriously a scientists that was also an astrologist, or one that claimed aliens visited him daily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies
Boy, it really doesn't take much to get you excited, does it? The ladies must just love you.
First off states / governments don't have rights, they have powers. Only individuals have rights.
Rights are meaningless without the power to enforce them, so I'd say the two are interchangeable. If being pedantic makes you happy, though, fill your boots - I see no reason to quibble over minor details.
Secondly whether the SCOTUS declares something Constitutional or not doesn't necessarily make it so. The document has a fixed meaning
Hardly. If that were so, slavery would never have been legal in the US, and women would always have had the right to vote. Whether or not you want to admit it, no document in existence has a "fixed meaning".
Since I don't see anything about healthcare or vaccination or control of plagues etc in the Constitution ...
In that case, the Public Health Service Act is unconstitutional. I suggest you either get to work challenging it in court, or accept the fact that there are many laws in effect for which you will find no direct link to the constitution. Most of them are justified by the "general welfare" part of the constitution.
On a more fundamental level which would be applied to the States, the government cannot force you to be vaccinated if you should choose not to.
I disagree, as do the courts.
In a free society the individual is free to make their own decisions, even if they are poor decisions, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others
Sure; except that your decision not to vaccinate yourself does infringe on the rights of others. Namely on their right to life, which, judging by the fact that it's named first in the constitution, is probably an important one.
In the case which I already mentioned, the Supreme Court made the following comment:
"The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State."
Using your earlier reasoning, you could argue that it's unconstitutional to make drunk-driving illegal. Both arguments would be equally "valid".
Religion is stifling "modern science" rather than advancing it forward.
That's always been the case. None of what you've said has anything to do with what he was saying, though.
It's the wrong starship troopers, though.
Phrases like "ends of the earth" stem from the fact that, at one point, people did believe that the earth was flat. The fact that we now use it metaphorically doesn't mean that it was never used literally. And if you bother reading the bible, you'll find that it repeatedly suggests that the earth is flat. It talks about the four corners of the earth, the ends of the earth, the edges of the earth, and talks about seeing the entire earth from a mountain top. You could excuse one or two such occurrences as "similes" or "metaphors", but if you follow the general narrative it quickly becomes obvious that the people who wrote this book really did think that the earth was flat.
Atheism isn't a religion, in the same sense theism isn't a religion.
Correct.
But just as it's obviously impossible to find a theist who does not in fact have a religion, I think it's not possible to find anyone who is "only" an atheist.
Once again - correct. How do you get from that, to calling atheism a religion?
That communists aren't "only" atheists are obvious to all - except communists themselves, a rather important exception.
I'd say it's obvious to communists, also.
There were several problems with soviet-style "atheism":
1. You cannot legislate belief. You can persecute people, the way most religions have done to eachother for thousands of years, and you can get those whom you're persecuting to say that they now believe what you believe, but you can't actually make someone believe something by threatening or harming them.
2. Atheism without religion is meaningless. Every child is born an atheist, but there's a massive difference between the atheism of a newborn, and the atheism of, say, Richard Dawkins. Atheism based on ignorance is no better than religion.
I tend to hate religion as a rule, but even I gotta say: you're being an idiot. Not only are such broad generalizations completely useless, but the basic premise is obviously flawed. Most of modern science is the result of hundreds of years of research by people who were religious to some extent. If there were any substance to your claim, we'd be chowing down on raw antelope in a cave instead of having a conversation by throwing photons at each-other from halfway around the world.
However, the fact that the monstrosities that are common here are essentially laughed at in developing countries says a lot
Yeah, it says you're lying. I was born in Europe and spent half my life there. I still go back on occasion. You're full of shit.
A federal mandatory-vaccination law might or might not be unconstitutional - no such law has ever existed, so it's never been tested in the courts. Vaccination programs in the US are controlled by individual states, and their ability to enforce mandatory programs has been upheld by the supreme court. Look up Jacobson v. Massachusetts for details. However, even though they have the right to institute such programs, the vast majority of states (all of them, maybe?) do not. Every state whose laws I've seen provide for exemptions to the usual vaccinations schedule, which means that the programs are not mandatory.
So, basically, his argument fails at every possible level.