People tell me I'm weird because I wear mine on my dominant hand. So I doubt this would be a worthwhile attack; I honestly don't know anyone else who is does wear it on their dominant hand (granted, small sample size).
On a personal note, I'm not worried. I figured out how to type my pin without any visible movement of my hand (the unavoidable movements being covered by my other hand). This was because there were a number of cases of people installing cameras near ATMs to steal PINs. I just checked, and my non-smart watch doesn't move more than a milimetre in any direction. If I upgrade to a smart watch, they're still not getting anything.
Baa, baa, black sheep, have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir: three bags full
One for the master and one for the dame
And one for the little boy who lives down the lane
I assume that you will be able to distinguish the rhyme above from the actual argument I am making here. The argument has nothing to do with black sheep or the feudal system that was prevailant at the time that rhyme was written. I say you should be able to distinguish the rhyme from the argument because they take different forms. In particular, the rhyme has a meter, and (as the name suggests) the ends of each pair of lines rhyme. But I could have included a descriptive analogy which would have a more similar form to this and you still would have been able to distinguish it from from a factual argument. Humans are smart that way (at least, when they want to be).
As to who gets to say which is which; you get to decide which is which. But if you make unreasonable declarations, don't expect people to take you seriously.
As to 'a translation of translation of a translation', that hasn't been true for more than 400 years (not that I'm saying it was true before that; just that I've never thought it important enough to investigate the translation process of non-extant translations – but now I'm kind-of curious). These days it's translated from the earliest known manuscripts. These reach back to before 100CE for the NT (that is with 35 years of when some of them were written) and back at least 100BCE for parts of the OT. And comparing the older manuscripts with newer ones show the only changes over time have been in the spelling of words (particularly names).
But are you saying that translations have to be 100% accurate to be useful and trustworthy? Because for most cases, nobody would expect them to be (because it is somewhere between impossible and impractical). If, however, you are determined to never trust a translation, feel free to go back to the original languages (Hebrew and Ancient Greek). You can buy bibles published in the original language. In fact, a lot of the original manuscripts are available online. There are courses which will teach you how to read those languages. You don't have to take anyone's word for it.
Of course, I don't expect you to listen to any of this. You know you're 'right' and you'll come up with some lame excuse to discount it all.
'Established': You could argue that the world is established; in that there hasn't been any significant changes since that time. Or on the basis that the Earth is no longer a protoplanet. Then again, you could argue that a world is never really established, only still extant and changing or not extant. There are many options for defining the Earth as established or not depending on your definition of the word.
'Cannot be moved': This isn't saying that it is impossible to move the Earth. On the contrary, it is simply saying that we cannot move it (at least, not in any significant way). This hasn't really changed since then. I mean, there are theoretical ways we could move it; but none of them are practical in any sense of the word...
'Firm and secure': Well, I suppose we have climate change and the extremely rare asteroid catastrophes which could challenge the 'secure' bit. But even then they don't really threaten the world so much as the life on it. That said, Psalms is a book of poetry/song lyrics. This is like judging human science based on the comments of a rapper...
'Middle of the land', 'Visible to the ends of the Earth': This is a vision. Visions aren't known for realism; far from it! What they show is purely symbolic, like the statue made of different types of metal – nobody ever believed that actually existed somewhere. The important part of a vision is the message conveyed through the symbolism. Imagine someone gave an analogy of a car which could go 700km/h, how stupid would someone need to be to invalidate the argument because such a car doesn't exist?
'Circle of the Earth': Most of the time this verse is quote in support of a belief in a round Earth. The Hebrew word is used for 'circle', 'oval', 'sphere', 'round', etc. That it was translated as circle does not make it wrong. The writer may have meant 'circle' or 'sphere'; we have no way to know.
'Why this should be relevant': I'm not going to argue that it should. But you appear to have set out with the approach of demonstrating it to be wrong, and lo! you succeeded in convincing yourself that you have achieved that. Congratulations! That ranks you right up there with the intellectual giants like B.o.B. and the creationists you so deride. If you earnestly want to be actually right (as far as that is even possible), you'd be better off spending your energies earnestly trying to prove yourself wrong. Measuring yourself against stupid people can only progress you a little further than them.
The M5 East tunnel in Sydney is a great example of why that information would be useful for a navigation system.
The tunnel was completed in 2001 with enough capacity, as stated, to last 20 years. It started to exceed its capacity within 5–10 years of completion.
The position my Garmin is usually fairly accurate. This is probably because the slowing of traffic begins before the tunnel while the device still has signal. When the traffic is at its worst, however, the Garmin decides that since I was moving at 25km/h when I entered the tunnel, I should have been out of the tunnel by now and thus there must be something else blocking the GPS signal—when in reality I'm still stopped somewhere in the tunnel waiting for the traffic to move again.
If the stated information was available to the navigation calculations, it would know that I had slowed, stopped, moved a bit, stopped, inched forward a bit more, stopped, stopped, still stopped, grown incredibly impatient and started to curse the government which built a tunnel with very a short life expectancy and without any thought for expansion, etc.
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord; but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.
(I'm writing from one of the buildings currently in lock-down because of this situation)
Vah, amicus! Et dedisti mihi, squilla, rudis! 'Pissed' plures significationes. Tu magis sonant plus sicut a doletium 'pom', Britannus.
Ego obtuli, 'aerogard' ultimum volutpat vestibulum.
Si non intelligitur, spero gallina ad 'emus' pullis vestra delenda ad latrina.
It's either the thing you launch coming back down on the head of a young child; or its that the thing you launched is found by a group of people who think it's the most wonderful thing ever until it starts causing societal break down and leading to one of those people embarking on a journey to the edge of the earth to dispose of it.
I really don't get this build quality argument. Up until recently the main consideration in my laptop purchases was price: whatever was cheapest was what I bought. All of those laptops lasted for at least 6 years before they were discarded - not because of failures, but because they were replaced with something faster. My brother dropped one of my laptops from a height of about 2 metres onto a tiled floor: the screen cracked, but the computer continued to work fine.
Seriously, what is so magical about Mac build quality?
The worst thing I've ever seen was on the hilly motorway between Wollongong and Sydney, in rain where I could barely see out of the front wind-shield with the wipers on the fastest setting. I'm usually a faster driver, but I slowed down in those conditions (but was still going about 100km/h;) ). Coming up behind me was a Land-cruiser doing a much higher speed than I was. They either didn't know or didn't care that they were snaking across both lanes - and sometimes venturing into the stopping lanes. Given the way this car was going, both I and the only other car I could see pulled off the side of the road until it had passed. As it passed I had a look; the lady behind the wheel had one hand holding a phone to her ear, the other was waving around just above the wheel.
You misunderstand me. My point is not that you should believe something without evidence - that is obviously stupid. My point is that miracles do not have to screw up our understanding of the universe. Further, I am saying it may not be a case of 'there is no evidence', but possibly 'there is no clear evidence' - which in such cases is a significant difference.
I think you're living in the 'ad absurdum' world; where things must be one extreme or the other. If God exists, he could use the universe how we use a computer: as in, most of the actual instructions to the CPU are predefined software, and any interaction by the user usually goes through that. In such a case, the rules would look very consistent even if the user was actually doing something.
But perhaps the reason you haven't seen something requiring God is that he's left the universe on overnight whilst it does something that doesn't require interaction...
I can't say that is false, no. If it is true, and you are trying to save me from myself: thank you.
But my point is that it is the burden of the claimant to prove their claims true: but only for themselves. It is the burden of the listener to come to their own conclusion. If they need further proof from the claimant, then they should press them for it. If the claimant fails to provide further proof, the listener can ignore the claimant's claims, but still can't disprove it on lack of evidence alone. That is the point I am trying to address.
Instead you add to the stuff you know as things get demonstrated/shown to you to be true. That way you can be reasonably sure that your knowledge is getting closer to the truth over time and that models based on what you know already are more likely to be right.
This is my view of things also. But I do not make any sort of final judgements about things I cannot demonstrate one way or the other. Admittedly I tend to give them a mental grading of how likely they are; but I try not to let that guide my reaction when I find someone who is sure about it. I would rather be wrong because I failed to understand something someone said to me, than be wrong because I rejected it out of hand as being impossible.
I am not saying you have to believe what they are saying is true. What I am saying is that what they believe isn't your responsibility, (nor, as some seem to believe, the right of intelligent people).
If God is there, he seems has a history of doing things in a scientifically consistent way. And that makes some sense: why would you create a hammer, and then continue to push the nails in with your hand? But even if he did circumvent the system, science would then be studying the new state; and would be looking for whatever answers are available.
Regardless, it's my opinion that if you ever stop looking for answers and say "God did it", you fail as a scientist and should hang up your coat and goggles.
Certainly. I am not someone who has problem with people disagreeing with me; especially on any subject there is some level of doubt. My only problems are with people who insist that that doubt is reason enough for them to insist that someone else changes their beliefs. Where there is a rational reason to change peoples' minds, I'll support it. But I certainly do not see that in this case.
... an infinite number of faiths in all sorts of stupid stuff that... is impossible to prove wrong....
So... you're saying that atheism is stupid?
If you narrow the definition down to things people are serious about, then I am perfectly happy with the definition. If you have serious reasons to believe that there are elephants on distant planets, I am perfectly willing to listen to your theories. But I will make up my own mind as to what I believe; and I will do so based on the information I have, not on your insistence that disagreeing with you is, well, stupid.
The reason that the neutrino scientist are trying to replicate the results is because it has significant impacts on our current ideas about how the universe works. Whether God exists or not has no bearing on our ability to understand how the universe works. If he does exist, science is merely studying how he made it work. If he doesn't exist, science is studying how it works. Except where there are specific testable hypothesis, science and religion remain independent. That's what makes intelligent design so ridiculous.
That said, until something is demonstrated to be either true or false, it cannot be said to be definitely either. That's the point that I am trying to address. The idea may seem to be ridiculous; but most people I meet have semi-rational reasons for what they believe. Given the uncertainty, I am not going to take that away from them.
But I agree with you. There are a large number of ignorant people of various convictions who refuse to listen to reason, and yet seek to push their ideas on others. Of those I find Apple-fanatics the most troubling...
What I want you to believe is that just because you have come to the conclusion that it is wrong does not make it so. What I want you to believe is that it is entirely possible that someone else has a very good reason to believe what they do. And it is entirely possible that the reason isn't that they are mad, or insane, or ignorant, or just stupid. Don't take the nutter's word for it, sure. But don't just presume them to be wrong because of your own prejudices.
Actually, no. I don't really care what you think. Just stop trying to use science or logic as your excuses for your delusions of grandeur.
Slashdot Mirror
People tell me I'm weird because I wear mine on my dominant hand. So I doubt this would be a worthwhile attack; I honestly don't know anyone else who is does wear it on their dominant hand (granted, small sample size).
On a personal note, I'm not worried. I figured out how to type my pin without any visible movement of my hand (the unavoidable movements being covered by my other hand). This was because there were a number of cases of people installing cameras near ATMs to steal PINs. I just checked, and my non-smart watch doesn't move more than a milimetre in any direction. If I upgrade to a smart watch, they're still not getting anything.
Baa, baa, black sheep, have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir: three bags full
One for the master and one for the dame
And one for the little boy who lives down the lane
I assume that you will be able to distinguish the rhyme above from the actual argument I am making here. The argument has nothing to do with black sheep or the feudal system that was prevailant at the time that rhyme was written. I say you should be able to distinguish the rhyme from the argument because they take different forms. In particular, the rhyme has a meter, and (as the name suggests) the ends of each pair of lines rhyme. But I could have included a descriptive analogy which would have a more similar form to this and you still would have been able to distinguish it from from a factual argument. Humans are smart that way (at least, when they want to be).
As to who gets to say which is which; you get to decide which is which. But if you make unreasonable declarations, don't expect people to take you seriously.
As to 'a translation of translation of a translation', that hasn't been true for more than 400 years (not that I'm saying it was true before that; just that I've never thought it important enough to investigate the translation process of non-extant translations – but now I'm kind-of curious). These days it's translated from the earliest known manuscripts. These reach back to before 100CE for the NT (that is with 35 years of when some of them were written) and back at least 100BCE for parts of the OT. And comparing the older manuscripts with newer ones show the only changes over time have been in the spelling of words (particularly names).
But are you saying that translations have to be 100% accurate to be useful and trustworthy? Because for most cases, nobody would expect them to be (because it is somewhere between impossible and impractical). If, however, you are determined to never trust a translation, feel free to go back to the original languages (Hebrew and Ancient Greek). You can buy bibles published in the original language. In fact, a lot of the original manuscripts are available online. There are courses which will teach you how to read those languages. You don't have to take anyone's word for it.
Of course, I don't expect you to listen to any of this. You know you're 'right' and you'll come up with some lame excuse to discount it all.
Have a good day.
If it was just the paint, sure. But with the window breaking there was a possibility of minor cuts and bruises!
The M5 East tunnel in Sydney is a great example of why that information would be useful for a navigation system.
The tunnel was completed in 2001 with enough capacity, as stated, to last 20 years. It started to exceed its capacity within 5–10 years of completion.
The position my Garmin is usually fairly accurate. This is probably because the slowing of traffic begins before the tunnel while the device still has signal. When the traffic is at its worst, however, the Garmin decides that since I was moving at 25km/h when I entered the tunnel, I should have been out of the tunnel by now and thus there must be something else blocking the GPS signal—when in reality I'm still stopped somewhere in the tunnel waiting for the traffic to move again.
If the stated information was available to the navigation calculations, it would know that I had slowed, stopped, moved a bit, stopped, inched forward a bit more, stopped, stopped, still stopped, grown incredibly impatient and started to curse the government which built a tunnel with very a short life expectancy and without any thought for expansion, etc.
$05000 is only $2560. Make it $0x5000.
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord; but at this stage we don't know that it's not some nut-job who is trying to capitalise on the ISIS popularity.
(I'm writing from one of the buildings currently in lock-down because of this situation)
Vah, amicus! Et dedisti mihi, squilla, rudis! 'Pissed' plures significationes. Tu magis sonant plus sicut a doletium 'pom', Britannus.
Ego obtuli, 'aerogard' ultimum volutpat vestibulum.
Si non intelligitur, spero gallina ad 'emus' pullis vestra delenda ad latrina.
Disclaimer: my Latin is terrible.
It's a little bit crass, I agree.
I thought that too... but then I realised that even though I've never seen it used before, I still know what it means. Metric is awesome!
Can we not find a better way?
I have a world map by an Australian company which doesn't include Tasmania... It has Campbell Is. (NZ), but not Tasmania.
It's either the thing you launch coming back down on the head of a young child; or its that the thing you launched is found by a group of people who think it's the most wonderful thing ever until it starts causing societal break down and leading to one of those people embarking on a journey to the edge of the earth to dispose of it.
Seriously, what is so magical about Mac build quality?
Worst driver ever.
You misunderstand me. My point is not that you should believe something without evidence - that is obviously stupid. My point is that miracles do not have to screw up our understanding of the universe. Further, I am saying it may not be a case of 'there is no evidence', but possibly 'there is no clear evidence' - which in such cases is a significant difference.
But perhaps the reason you haven't seen something requiring God is that he's left the universe on overnight whilst it does something that doesn't require interaction...
What I was pointing out was that 'no answer' does not mean 'automatically false'.
But my point is that it is the burden of the claimant to prove their claims true: but only for themselves. It is the burden of the listener to come to their own conclusion. If they need further proof from the claimant, then they should press them for it. If the claimant fails to provide further proof, the listener can ignore the claimant's claims, but still can't disprove it on lack of evidence alone. That is the point I am trying to address.
Instead you add to the stuff you know as things get demonstrated/shown to you to be true. That way you can be reasonably sure that your knowledge is getting closer to the truth over time and that models based on what you know already are more likely to be right.
This is my view of things also. But I do not make any sort of final judgements about things I cannot demonstrate one way or the other. Admittedly I tend to give them a mental grading of how likely they are; but I try not to let that guide my reaction when I find someone who is sure about it. I would rather be wrong because I failed to understand something someone said to me, than be wrong because I rejected it out of hand as being impossible.
I am not saying you have to believe what they are saying is true. What I am saying is that what they believe isn't your responsibility, (nor, as some seem to believe, the right of intelligent people).
Regardless, it's my opinion that if you ever stop looking for answers and say "God did it", you fail as a scientist and should hang up your coat and goggles.
Certainly. I am not someone who has problem with people disagreeing with me; especially on any subject there is some level of doubt. My only problems are with people who insist that that doubt is reason enough for them to insist that someone else changes their beliefs. Where there is a rational reason to change peoples' minds, I'll support it. But I certainly do not see that in this case.
... an infinite number of faiths in all sorts of stupid stuff that ... is impossible to prove wrong. ...
So... you're saying that atheism is stupid? If you narrow the definition down to things people are serious about, then I am perfectly happy with the definition. If you have serious reasons to believe that there are elephants on distant planets, I am perfectly willing to listen to your theories. But I will make up my own mind as to what I believe; and I will do so based on the information I have, not on your insistence that disagreeing with you is, well, stupid.
That said, until something is demonstrated to be either true or false, it cannot be said to be definitely either. That's the point that I am trying to address. The idea may seem to be ridiculous; but most people I meet have semi-rational reasons for what they believe. Given the uncertainty, I am not going to take that away from them.
But I agree with you. There are a large number of ignorant people of various convictions who refuse to listen to reason, and yet seek to push their ideas on others. Of those I find Apple-fanatics the most troubling...
Actually, no. I don't really care what you think. Just stop trying to use science or logic as your excuses for your delusions of grandeur.