I don't understand why biologists thought that evolution could not repeat itself. Seems like if the environment is A, changes to B, then changes back to A, the organisms would also follow the environment in their evolution.
As supporting evidence, consider the large number of completely unrelated but similar appearing plants that live in the desert and look like Yucca. If multiple species can adopt a similar appearance in response to a similar environment, then why can't that happen within a single species?
RealPlayer accepts a fake address, and you're not missing anything by diverting those helpful marketing messages.
A lot of people will put foo@test.com in. Don't do that. The test.com mail admin will hate you. Use something @example.com instead. example.com is never going to be a live domain.
But, the format they used, while it has some problems, might be useful. I think a show-off night would be more fun. Everyone brings their laptops with their code on it, and they take turns showing off what they've done to the group on the big screen. While I wouldn't want to try this with a full theater, it'd be fun with 30-40 people.
It was shown a long time ago that your ideas are faulty. In a nutshell, what you are not considering is that by retaining people as unskilled workers you are limiting their potential. When you send the unskilled jobs out of the country, you benefit from the liberated potential of a human being. And the country receiving the unskilled job also benefits.
flight attendant: Would you like some peanuts? passenger: I think you should work on your pronounciation.
flight attendant: Would you like some peanuts? passenger: Are you a cross-dresser? I thought you were a woman.
flight attendant: Would you like a pillow? passenger: How about just the pillowcase?
flight attendant: Are you Mr. John Holmes? John Holmes: Yes I am. How did you know? flight attendant: You keep hitting the flight attendant call button.
flight attendant: In the event of water sports, your seat cushion can be used as a flagellation device.
No, object files are built one at a time with a makefile. The correlation would be if we just typed "gcc" in a directory and the compiler built every cpp file into an object. What if I didn't want a file compiled? What if that file was supposed to be copied into a directory after it was built with another tool? In that case, gcc would be doing the wrong thing by building every.o automatically.
A makefile lets me control the building of each and every.o file myself, allowing for all sorts of things that I might want to do.
Precompiled headers should work the same way, or they won't be as flexible as the.h files.
Because that sort of thing can get screwed up easily and cause all sorts of problems. I'm thinking of how Borland's precompiled headers sometimes goofed up, or my horrible experiences with Sun's cached templates on their C++ compiler. I'd rather explicitly tell the compiler exactly what I want done in terms of precompilation than to let it guess and screw up on its own.
I don't have a Palm because I used to have a Newton, and I got attached to the handwriting recognition. Now that grafitti is going, Palm is looking more attractive to me. The only thing that I need now is a little more power.
Re:That's some seriously awsome support.
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 1
Obviously that's a joke. They're linking to Microsoft support there.
I see no application for the true Scotsman fallacy to our discussion.
A recap:
1) I provided my definition of a skeptic. 2) You declared that definition to be a romantic one. 3) I expanded it to say that all definitions would be romantic. I was thinking that if all definitions are romantic, then the term really doesn't distinguish anything. I wasn't disagreeing with you really. 4) You hypothesized that I might not accept a sweeping generalization of a theist. 5) I replied that you would be wrong, because I don't believe that a specific definition would be useful or applicable (the true Scottsman fallacy). You can't discount a person (who tends to defy strict categorization) from a category just because they don't strictly fit. Hence, I *would* accept a very general description from you, as described in #4.
Am I being clear as mud?
Though, it seems to me that we most likely have vastly different understandings of what it means to "know" something. Not surprising as there is no one well accepted theory of epistemology.
I skipped the middle part, because I think you've got it right there.
This does not counter my point at all, which was that you provided a sweeping generality that was false. Somehow I doubt that you would let me off the hook with an equally sweeping generalization of theists. I could be wrong on that point.
Yes, you would be wrong. I do not fall prey to the "true Scotsman" fallacy.
The principles of the law of universal conformity and of the law of noncontradiction have no possible proof.
Neither does anything else. When I said proved, I meant that it should satisfy all skeptics. I didn't mean in the sense that a notion could be declared absoultely true. No knowlege has that status, as you appear to know.
1) Laws are mathematical formulas that describe what happens.
2) Using telescopes, we can see a huge chunk of the universe. There is absolutely no observation that indicates that the laws of physics are different in another part of the universe. There are literally millions of observations that do indicate that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
Remember, science is a practical thing, and for all practical purposes, the objections that you have raised have been answered. That doesn't mean that you are absolutely wrong - far from it in fact. It is possible that you are right, but the chance of you being right is very small.
Anyway, how does that particular tidbit pertain to the skeptical worldview? Are you claiming that if the laws of physics varied then there wouldn't be any skeptics by definition? I can't see how you're making your point.
That's what it would take for them to be reliable. Is it just me, or is everyone finding that out of 10 disks they pick up, about 8 of them won't even format properly?
That is a rather romantic depiction of a skeptic. However, as skeptics tend to be humans they tend not to live up to that idealized depiction.
All definitions are romantic then, since humans don't fit neatly into the categories defined. So your objection is countered.
Not to mention that the skeptic bears as much onus to prove the foundations of the skeptical worldview as a constituent of any other belief system has for his or hers.
That's true, and the foundations have been proven. Science is based on skepticism, and if you compare the progress in scientific knowlege compared to the progress from other methods (revelation, prophesy, astrology, tea-leaf reading, random guessing, etc.) it's quite clear that skepticism has proven to be very successful. To deny the success of the skeptical worldview is to deny all the many inventions and ideas that we have at our disposal today.
Unfortunately for the consistent skeptic, many of the axioms of the skeptical worldview are improvable.
Such as what? Enlighten me. What are the axioms of the skeptical worldview?
We'll catch him in meta. I metamod twice a day, every day. Approximately 20% of the moderations that I see are completely wrong. If more people did the metamoderations faithfully, the bad moderators would be removed from the pool.
That particular argument is a strawman. The original talked about belief in god, but you argued about the wider topic of "spirituality".
I'm an atheist, and I don't deny spirituality at all. The feeling I get when 60 million year old photons from a galaxy far far away bounce off a parabolic mirror onto my retinas is intensely spiritual, though there's no god involved in that.
A skeptic IMO is just someone who doubts the veracity of a popular opinion just because it's a popular opinion, and sets about disproving it.
Wrong, completely wrong. A skeptic is the very definition of an open mind. Many laugh, but that's just because they don't understand the difference between an open mind and an uncritical mind.
I will explain:
A skeptic is one who accepts no statment without reason (evidence, backing, logic) to support it. The skeptic never needs to disprove anything, because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Once the claim is demonstrated or proven to the skeptics' satisfaction, then the skeptic has no choice to accept it.
The person with a close mind might appear to be a skeptic at first glance, but after the claims and closed-minded person's objections have all been addressed, the closed minded person will still refuse to accept something. Think of it like an issues list on a project. After the work is done and the issues are resolved, the project should be done. When proving your claim to a skeptic, all the issues have to be resolved and closed. If your debate partner acknowleges that all his questions have been answered, yet still refuses to believe, that's a signal that the person might be closed minded.
Never confuse a closed mind with a skeptical one. And never confuse an open mind with a credulous one.
If you let your employer call you at home when he feels like it,
I know it's offtopic, but once a sales person once half-jokingly said that he thought I wasn't as dedicated to the job as he thought I should be. He wasn't my boss, and that comment was uncalled for.
So, a couple weeks later I was flying back from somewhere and he told me to call him when I got back to town. I took great pleasure in waking him up at 3 in the morning to tell him that I was back in town. The next day in the office he complained to me and I responded that I am devoted to my job 24 hours a day, and I assumed that he was too.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why biologists thought that evolution could not repeat itself. Seems like if the environment is A, changes to B, then changes back to A, the organisms would also follow the environment in their evolution.
As supporting evidence, consider the large number of completely unrelated but similar appearing plants that live in the desert and look like Yucca. If multiple species can adopt a similar appearance in response to a similar environment, then why can't that happen within a single species?
RealPlayer accepts a fake address, and you're not missing anything by diverting those helpful marketing messages.
A lot of people will put foo@test.com in. Don't do that. The test.com mail admin will hate you. Use something @example.com instead. example.com is never going to be a live domain.
Boring, way boring.
But, the format they used, while it has some problems, might be useful. I think a show-off night would be more fun. Everyone brings their laptops with their code on it, and they take turns showing off what they've done to the group on the big screen. While I wouldn't want to try this with a full theater, it'd be fun with 30-40 people.
False attribution. The drop in your salary has nothing to do with computer jobs sent overseas.
It was shown a long time ago that your ideas are faulty. In a nutshell, what you are not considering is that by retaining people as unskilled workers you are limiting their potential. When you send the unskilled jobs out of the country, you benefit from the liberated potential of a human being. And the country receiving the unskilled job also benefits.
flight attendant: Would you like some peanuts?
passenger: I think you should work on your pronounciation.
flight attendant: Would you like some peanuts?
passenger: Are you a cross-dresser? I thought you were a woman.
flight attendant: Would you like a pillow?
passenger: How about just the pillowcase?
flight attendant: Are you Mr. John Holmes?
John Holmes: Yes I am. How did you know?
flight attendant: You keep hitting the flight attendant call button.
flight attendant: In the event of water sports, your seat cushion can be used as a flagellation device.
Last word: cockpit
Sort of a high jack?
Only problem is that to me auto means to put the variable on the stack - the opposite of static.
Wouldn't that vehicle be more efficient in a rocket configuration?
No, object files are built one at a time with a makefile. The correlation would be if we just typed "gcc" in a directory and the compiler built every cpp file into an object. What if I didn't want a file compiled? What if that file was supposed to be copied into a directory after it was built with another tool? In that case, gcc would be doing the wrong thing by building every .o automatically.
.o file myself, allowing for all sorts of things that I might want to do.
.h files.
A makefile lets me control the building of each and every
Precompiled headers should work the same way, or they won't be as flexible as the
Because that sort of thing can get screwed up easily and cause all sorts of problems. I'm thinking of how Borland's precompiled headers sometimes goofed up, or my horrible experiences with Sun's cached templates on their C++ compiler. I'd rather explicitly tell the compiler exactly what I want done in terms of precompilation than to let it guess and screw up on its own.
I don't have a Palm because I used to have a Newton, and I got attached to the handwriting recognition. Now that grafitti is going, Palm is looking more attractive to me. The only thing that I need now is a little more power.
Obviously that's a joke. They're linking to Microsoft support there.
How hard can it be to implement the thing? Put your name on a list, no calls allowed. Penalty for violation is death by guillotine, wheel, or garotte.
I see no application for the true Scotsman fallacy to our discussion.
A recap:
1) I provided my definition of a skeptic.
2) You declared that definition to be a romantic one.
3) I expanded it to say that all definitions would be romantic. I was thinking that if all definitions are romantic, then the term really doesn't distinguish anything. I wasn't disagreeing with you really.
4) You hypothesized that I might not accept a sweeping generalization of a theist.
5) I replied that you would be wrong, because I don't believe that a specific definition would be useful or applicable (the true Scottsman fallacy). You can't discount a person (who tends to defy strict categorization) from a category just because they don't strictly fit. Hence, I *would* accept a very general description from you, as described in #4.
Am I being clear as mud?
Though, it seems to me that we most likely have vastly different understandings of what it means to "know" something. Not surprising as there is no one well accepted theory of epistemology.
I skipped the middle part, because I think you've got it right there.
Do you have Prince Rupert in a can? well...
This does not counter my point at all, which was that you provided a sweeping generality that was false. Somehow I doubt that you would let me off the hook with an equally sweeping generalization of theists. I could be wrong on that point.
Yes, you would be wrong. I do not fall prey to the "true Scotsman" fallacy.
The principles of the law of universal conformity and of the law of noncontradiction have no possible proof.
Neither does anything else. When I said proved, I meant that it should satisfy all skeptics. I didn't mean in the sense that a notion could be declared absoultely true. No knowlege has that status, as you appear to know.
1) Laws are mathematical formulas that describe what happens.
2) Using telescopes, we can see a huge chunk of the universe. There is absolutely no observation that indicates that the laws of physics are different in another part of the universe. There are literally millions of observations that do indicate that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
Remember, science is a practical thing, and for all practical purposes, the objections that you have raised have been answered. That doesn't mean that you are absolutely wrong - far from it in fact. It is possible that you are right, but the chance of you being right is very small.
Anyway, how does that particular tidbit pertain to the skeptical worldview? Are you claiming that if the laws of physics varied then there wouldn't be any skeptics by definition? I can't see how you're making your point.
Here's one on EBay
That's what it would take for them to be reliable. Is it just me, or is everyone finding that out of 10 disks they pick up, about 8 of them won't even format properly?
That is a rather romantic depiction of a skeptic. However, as skeptics tend to be humans they tend not to live up to that idealized depiction.
All definitions are romantic then, since humans don't fit neatly into the categories defined. So your objection is countered.
Not to mention that the skeptic bears as much onus to prove the foundations of the skeptical worldview as a constituent of any other belief system has for his or hers.
That's true, and the foundations have been proven. Science is based on skepticism, and if you compare the progress in scientific knowlege compared to the progress from other methods (revelation, prophesy, astrology, tea-leaf reading, random guessing, etc.) it's quite clear that skepticism has proven to be very successful. To deny the success of the skeptical worldview is to deny all the many inventions and ideas that we have at our disposal today.
Unfortunately for the consistent skeptic, many of the axioms of the skeptical worldview are improvable.
Such as what? Enlighten me. What are the axioms of the skeptical worldview?
We'll catch him in meta. I metamod twice a day, every day. Approximately 20% of the moderations that I see are completely wrong. If more people did the metamoderations faithfully, the bad moderators would be removed from the pool.
That particular argument is a strawman. The original talked about belief in god, but you argued about the wider topic of "spirituality".
I'm an atheist, and I don't deny spirituality at all. The feeling I get when 60 million year old photons from a galaxy far far away bounce off a parabolic mirror onto my retinas is intensely spiritual, though there's no god involved in that.
A skeptic IMO is just someone who doubts the veracity of a popular opinion just because it's a popular opinion, and sets about disproving it.
Wrong, completely wrong. A skeptic is the very definition of an open mind. Many laugh, but that's just because they don't understand the difference between an open mind and an uncritical mind.
I will explain:
A skeptic is one who accepts no statment without reason (evidence, backing, logic) to support it. The skeptic never needs to disprove anything, because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Once the claim is demonstrated or proven to the skeptics' satisfaction, then the skeptic has no choice to accept it.
The person with a close mind might appear to be a skeptic at first glance, but after the claims and closed-minded person's objections have all been addressed, the closed minded person will still refuse to accept something. Think of it like an issues list on a project. After the work is done and the issues are resolved, the project should be done. When proving your claim to a skeptic, all the issues have to be resolved and closed. If your debate partner acknowleges that all his questions have been answered, yet still refuses to believe, that's a signal that the person might be closed minded.
Never confuse a closed mind with a skeptical one. And never confuse an open mind with a credulous one.
If you let your employer call you at home when he feels like it,
I know it's offtopic, but once a sales person once half-jokingly said that he thought I wasn't as dedicated to the job as he thought I should be. He wasn't my boss, and that comment was uncalled for.
So, a couple weeks later I was flying back from somewhere and he told me to call him when I got back to town. I took great pleasure in waking him up at 3 in the morning to tell him that I was back in town. The next day in the office he complained to me and I responded that I am devoted to my job 24 hours a day, and I assumed that he was too.
Got him!