You're arguing for the metaphor to be literally true, instead of arguing that the thing it is a metaphor for is true.
That's why you don't comprehend your own argument; you bait-and-switched yourself.
Hard atheists who claim to have the answers are rare. The problem are the ones that don't claim to have the answer, they just assert that your answer is wrong.
Your metaphor regarding the distance to the moon is irrelevant to the discussion of Atheists. If the moon is 5 miles away is measurable; you don't have to prove a negative there. You can prove a positive to show the claim is false! Arguments regarding religion, however, are not falsifiable. You can't prove negatives. You don't understand, but it is a real thing. Take just one science class in your life, please.
It may be true as a general rule, but in your example it is not true.
It is too stupid to be worth a lot of analysis.
You can't sue people for having donated money to somebody else. If you find a lawyer and try it, you don't get to a lawsuit, you get to a hearing where a judge decides how much to fine your lawyer.
Computers don't "just happen" to "understand" programming languages. They don't understand it at all. Luckily the engineers who designed the computer do understand the languages involved, which is why the designed the machine in the way that they did.
Just because you comprehend a few of the words, doesn't imply that the words you didn't understand were in error.
Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.
Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.
This is why Atheists are generally disgruntled Theists who are simply against what they used to be a member of, and probably still believe much of. Often they're actually cryptotheists who simply believe that the churches are full of liars, but actually do believe in the root metaphysics.
Atheist as a word would seem to mean "non-Theist," but it really means anti-theist, and agnostic means non-theist. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Currently, not a lot of people are used to put doubt into video
I know, I was watching some music video and the artist showed her nipple, and everybody got really exited, and then some mean people were going to fine the broadcaster, and then when they went frame-by-frame to extract the evidence, they realized there was stage tape over her nipple, all they ever showed was stage tape and there wasn't gonna be any fine. That was like, `86 or something.
Before VHS and the pause button, there was no way to know what you were really seeing! And even with it...
I was watching some K-pop videos a few weeks ago and I realized in one scene the performer sticks her tongue out... I'd watched it 100 times before I perceived the uncanny valley and went back to check... sure enough, prosthetic tongue! Angel tongues are too sexy for Korea, they had to wrap that naughty wet thing! lol
Also, you won't know how successful individual details used to obscure the identity of experimental aircraft were. You won't know what people could really detect from the ground without some people who don't have access to the program looking up with serious intent and making observations. UFO sightings have those characteristics; they're an important resource for the military in numerous ways.
There is nothing about aliens in the words "Unidentified Flying Object."
Unidentified means you don't know what it is. If you knew it was aliens, it would be an identified object.
Flying just means it is in sustained motion without touching the group. The most common flying objects I see are birds and insects.
Object, just means it is a physical thing.
A thing, in the air, and you don't know what it is. If you don't see them nearly every day, it just means you don't understand the words.
I suspect the military is actually spending a much larger amount of money than that investigating all the objects that are flying that have yet to be identified!
In my first year computer science classes we even did programming on 3x5 cards and executed them using humans. You can do that for any computer software. It works for everything, even video output; how many pixels do you have on the screen? OK, make a grid with that many slots. You can break every step under the hood, even the wiring in the video card, to steps that humans would take to manipulate "memory;" which can be pen and paper, or a whiteboard, etc.
You can break down every CPU instruction into a set of steps, and have a human do those steps, and if you don't make mistakes you get the same result as running the program on the computer. This is broadly true for all digital logic.
No, a computer language is a human language like a book of engineering tables is written in a human language.
All you did is wave your hands, and make a claim. But it breaks down if you do a deeper analysis; if you understand how the computer works, why it works (because an engineer decided!) and all that, then you can understand: Computers don't understand anything, much less language! Also if you look at where computer languages come from, it becomes instantly obvious that they come from humans, and are written to communicate with other humans and that the computer is just a complicated transcription device.
Claiming that computer languages are not human languages is like claiming that a recipe is written to be read by your oven. Your oven understands as much of the recipe as the computer understands of the program!
Incidentally, that is why they are called "languages." They're how you engage in automated communication between the engineers who designed the computer, and the programmer. They're all human languages, too; in the same sense that braille is a human language, not a language that little metal plates attached to signs use to talk to each other.;) And written English is a human language, not a language that books use to talk to each other, and not a language that authors use to talk to books.
It is only reasonable to disagree if you believe something absurd, so agree with me I demand it
No, actually, that is totally whack and you're full of shit. What news is on which aggregator has nothing to do with the gubermint, and nothing to do with "managing the economy."
No surprise that you then want people to re-post propaganda they know is propaganda. There is nothing odd about it at all, just look at the rest of your statement. But they're not going to do that for you; that would be stupid. For them. And not because of complicated things like lizard people controlling the gubermint. Because it is just plain stupid to post false data after you know it is false. Why would they? You'll never say your real reasons, because you'd have to pull your neckbeard up out of your shirt to explain it.
The Humanist Report isn't a news source, though; it is a podcast. "TYT" (The Young Turks) is a youtube (google) channel that is also on some cable networks. David Pakman is a TV and internet video commentator.
None of that is crap that would be on Google News. The Google News format is that of an aggregator of internet newspapers. They then also link videos related to the story. The videos linked are generally news videos, not commentary.
I understand, you only watch and listen, you don't read. But still, you should recognize that Google News just isn't the type of thing you want, and you don't know the details of what it is. Because it isn't the internet version of AM radio so you didn't pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
You're arguing for the metaphor to be literally true, instead of arguing that the thing it is a metaphor for is true.
That's why you don't comprehend your own argument; you bait-and-switched yourself.
Hard atheists who claim to have the answers are rare. The problem are the ones that don't claim to have the answer, they just assert that your answer is wrong.
Your metaphor regarding the distance to the moon is irrelevant to the discussion of Atheists. If the moon is 5 miles away is measurable; you don't have to prove a negative there. You can prove a positive to show the claim is false! Arguments regarding religion, however, are not falsifiable. You can't prove negatives. You don't understand, but it is a real thing. Take just one science class in your life, please.
Better advice instead is when you read "CDC" to remember it as "CDC" and not change it to "government-funded scientific organizations."
I mean, you're using a bunch of extra words just to say something that you already know is false.
It may be true as a general rule, but in your example it is not true.
It is too stupid to be worth a lot of analysis.
You can't sue people for having donated money to somebody else. If you find a lawyer and try it, you don't get to a lawsuit, you get to a hearing where a judge decides how much to fine your lawyer.
I'm a firmware programmer, who's the moron?
You probably didn't understand what I said.
Computers don't "just happen" to "understand" programming languages. They don't understand it at all. Luckily the engineers who designed the computer do understand the languages involved, which is why the designed the machine in the way that they did.
Just because you comprehend a few of the words, doesn't imply that the words you didn't understand were in error.
Uuh, no.
It actually might also mean a few other things you didn't consider.
Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas.
Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.
Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.
This is why Atheists are generally disgruntled Theists who are simply against what they used to be a member of, and probably still believe much of. Often they're actually cryptotheists who simply believe that the churches are full of liars, but actually do believe in the root metaphysics.
Atheist as a word would seem to mean "non-Theist," but it really means anti-theist, and agnostic means non-theist. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
The logical problem with it is that you only can know that you don't know, you can't know what anybody else knows.
Proving negatives isn't possible.
Currently, not a lot of people are used to put doubt into video
I know, I was watching some music video and the artist showed her nipple, and everybody got really exited, and then some mean people were going to fine the broadcaster, and then when they went frame-by-frame to extract the evidence, they realized there was stage tape over her nipple, all they ever showed was stage tape and there wasn't gonna be any fine. That was like, `86 or something.
Before VHS and the pause button, there was no way to know what you were really seeing! And even with it...
I was watching some K-pop videos a few weeks ago and I realized in one scene the performer sticks her tongue out... I'd watched it 100 times before I perceived the uncanny valley and went back to check... sure enough, prosthetic tongue! Angel tongues are too sexy for Korea, they had to wrap that naughty wet thing! lol
https://youtu.be/N5wzkQvzp4c?t...
I thought we learned this in the 1980s in the BBS scene!
They went undetected for decades because we expected green skin instead of orange.
Also, you won't know how successful individual details used to obscure the identity of experimental aircraft were. You won't know what people could really detect from the ground without some people who don't have access to the program looking up with serious intent and making observations. UFO sightings have those characteristics; they're an important resource for the military in numerous ways.
There is nothing about aliens in the words "Unidentified Flying Object."
Unidentified means you don't know what it is. If you knew it was aliens, it would be an identified object.
Flying just means it is in sustained motion without touching the group. The most common flying objects I see are birds and insects.
Object, just means it is a physical thing.
A thing, in the air, and you don't know what it is. If you don't see them nearly every day, it just means you don't understand the words.
I suspect the military is actually spending a much larger amount of money than that investigating all the objects that are flying that have yet to be identified!
If you ever learn English, you'll find that the adjective for things from the United States is "American."
The more you know!
IT doesn't make anything, you can explain that job easily, "I'm like a mechanic, but for computers."
Not just uncanny parallels, it is literally true.
In my first year computer science classes we even did programming on 3x5 cards and executed them using humans. You can do that for any computer software. It works for everything, even video output; how many pixels do you have on the screen? OK, make a grid with that many slots. You can break every step under the hood, even the wiring in the video card, to steps that humans would take to manipulate "memory;" which can be pen and paper, or a whiteboard, etc.
You can break down every CPU instruction into a set of steps, and have a human do those steps, and if you don't make mistakes you get the same result as running the program on the computer. This is broadly true for all digital logic.
No, a computer language is a human language like a book of engineering tables is written in a human language.
All you did is wave your hands, and make a claim. But it breaks down if you do a deeper analysis; if you understand how the computer works, why it works (because an engineer decided!) and all that, then you can understand: Computers don't understand anything, much less language! Also if you look at where computer languages come from, it becomes instantly obvious that they come from humans, and are written to communicate with other humans and that the computer is just a complicated transcription device.
Claiming that computer languages are not human languages is like claiming that a recipe is written to be read by your oven. Your oven understands as much of the recipe as the computer understands of the program!
I'm an electron herder.
Like WhyTheLuckyStiff explained in the song, "The Parts of Ruby:"
Get through your head that a program is just words.
http://poignant.guide/soundtra...
Incidentally, that is why they are called "languages." They're how you engage in automated communication between the engineers who designed the computer, and the programmer. They're all human languages, too; in the same sense that braille is a human language, not a language that little metal plates attached to signs use to talk to each other. ;) And written English is a human language, not a language that books use to talk to each other, and not a language that authors use to talk to books.
If you ever learn to read, check back and consider: this isn't about search results.
It is only reasonable to disagree if you believe something absurd, so agree with me I demand it
No, actually, that is totally whack and you're full of shit. What news is on which aggregator has nothing to do with the gubermint, and nothing to do with "managing the economy."
No surprise that you then want people to re-post propaganda they know is propaganda. There is nothing odd about it at all, just look at the rest of your statement. But they're not going to do that for you; that would be stupid. For them. And not because of complicated things like lizard people controlling the gubermint. Because it is just plain stupid to post false data after you know it is false. Why would they? You'll never say your real reasons, because you'd have to pull your neckbeard up out of your shirt to explain it.
The Humanist Report isn't a news source, though; it is a podcast. "TYT" (The Young Turks) is a youtube (google) channel that is also on some cable networks. David Pakman is a TV and internet video commentator.
None of that is crap that would be on Google News. The Google News format is that of an aggregator of internet newspapers. They then also link videos related to the story. The videos linked are generally news videos, not commentary.
I understand, you only watch and listen, you don't read. But still, you should recognize that Google News just isn't the type of thing you want, and you don't know the details of what it is. Because it isn't the internet version of AM radio so you didn't pay attention.
In Soviet Russia, flaw loopholes you!
Yet.
and doesn't even provide any beneficial functionality
Well, at a minimum you can use it to test used monitors and determine if they support the feature. So recyclers might have a use case.
Naw, linux should support all the things. Even the sucky things. Let people choose.