How can it be moving on interia alone when it is still gaining ground? It isn't accelerating as it once was but it has by no means stopped.
Not to nitpick, but that's exactly how I would describe "going on inertia alone". "Losing momentum" might be a more technical way of putting it. Not that I know enough to say whether that's actually happening...
But still, if there was such a thing, cosmic rays would have created one "naturally" by now.
Okay, so it sounds like the theory is that you could create a microscopic black hole that would immediately sink to the center of the earth and orbit there, very slowly accreting matter. But we argue against the possibility saying "cosmic rays would already have created them". Is it possible that they already have and that mini black holes are milling about the earth's center as we speak? Hmm, we have had a lot of earthquakes lately...
There actually is a win32 binary version of wine that runs in cygwin. They say it was created as an additional test of the code's portability, and for some other reasons that I can't remember right now. Funny but TRUE!
The problem with god is that if can't do something better than Penn & Teller, I guess he should move back to babylon and give it up.
What if there is a God, and he COULD do something better than Penn & Teller, but just doesn't feel like having to constantly prove himself to his creatures? Just sayin'. A true skeptic considers all possibilities.
But if there is a God, isn't it possible that he isn't something you can just express as a theory and use to make predictions?
That is option #2.
No, I mean nothing like #2. I mean what if God affects the universe, but not in predictable ways. YOUR actions can not be described by a formula (okay, you may argue that they can, but without the formula you can not scientifically prove it). I can't use you to make predictions, but that doesn't mean you don't exist.
If there were a verified miracle, i.e. something that can't be explained, it would be interesting, yes. But, there hasn't and every public claim has been debunked easily.
Have they? I would bet that very few have been debunked because most are just ignored. And even of those that have been challenged, remember that coming up with an alternative explanation isn't proof that something supernatural DIDN'T happen. I would wager that most claims of the supernatural (e.g., "I saw a ghost/angel/whatever" or "God healed me of cancer") CAN'T be disproved. Granted, that doesn't make them true, but it doesn't make them false, either.
You said it would be interesting if you saw something that couldn't be explained by natural laws. I see magicians do things all the time that APPARENTLY can't be explained by natural laws. That makes me wonder, what could God do that couldn't be explained away? If he made a whole mountain invisible, people would just think "I've seen that kind of trick before". Levitation, teleportation,... it can all be faked. So if there is a God and you want some physical proof... what would the proof have to be? Forgive me, but I haven't watched much of TNG (I'm more of a TOS fan), so I don't know what all Q can do.
I wonder how close such predictions have been to the actual results in past elections? I saw "past elections" on the site, but they only had past results, not past predictions.
LOL, proof is often made up of facts. It can be made up of a coherent theory that both explains current observations and makes verifiable predictions....
But if there is a God, isn't it possible that he isn't something you can just express as a theory and use to make predictions?
(1) God can affect the universe in ways that can not be explained. That would provide proof that there is a "god" or god-like being. "Q" from TNG comes to mind.
There are many people who claim to have experienced all sorts of inexplicable things like this, but of course they could be mistaken or could be lying. Nevertheless, you might be hasty in dismissing all of that evidence and instead claiming a complete lack of evidence.
(2) God can not affect the universe outside the laws that govern it, and thus there can be no proof of god.
That's an interesting subject that is debated in Theological as well as Philosophical circles. I think most people who believe in God believe he COULD affect the universe, but some think that he does not... that he "started up" the universe and that he is now just observing it. It may be more complicated than that -- for example if there is a God who created the universe, and is now just watching it unfold, you could say he doesn't affect it, or you could just as well say he is responsible for every little thing that happens because he planned it that way when he created it.
I've been surprised at this policy myself but it seems to be quite common. I wonder if there isn't some merit in it, though. For a non-technical person, the fax probably seems a lot more secure than email. Email requires spam filters and virus scanners and training in security practices for users. That makes the content of email pretty suspect.
Also, I wonder if a fax is more auditable... I mean, you generally know what phone number it came in on, as opposed to an email whose originating ip can be easily forged. Legally, that might be meaningful if they had to hold you to the fact that you signed something. It might be easier for you to deny having sent an email with your signature than to deny having sent a fax that originated from your home or business phone number.
I have no cable or dsl offerings where I live, and I have "wdsl", which is basically 802.11 equipment with antennas at my house and a small ISP about 3 mi away. It's not blazingly fast (512kbps down, and I think 128 up, which wasn't the fastest choice), but much better than dial up and decent upload and latency (unlike satellite). Even if there's no ISP offering that, it sounds like you could use the same equipment to "share" with a neighbor (don't know what the cable company would think of that).
My in-laws are even farther out in the country, and they have one of those "unlimited" data plans through a cell company (I forget which one). They actually get better bandwidth than I do now.
Other than that little detail, I don't think I said anything fundamentally disagreeing with the book itself?
No, it was just that your statements were a bit broad. You said stuff about "every planet", while the books only mention organic life on 2 planets other than the earth (plus some references to life on the far side of the moon in the 3rd book), and specifically claim that some planets never had or will have organic life.
The novels also had an interesting perspective on the "created in God's image" thing, too, IIRC. It was an iterative process...
That is interesting. I never really saw it in that way before.
I never made it through the third book, though. I remember it being very, very dull.
The 3rd book does start off very slow, but it actually gets quite interesting by the end (at least it did to me).
It basically covers all the bulletpoints you just brought up. Of course, it's just C.S. Lewis' personal opinion, but he opines that every planet has its own Garden of Eden, every planet has its 'main species' tempted by some version of the devil, but most planets do not 'fall' like Earth did.
That's not quite right. C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite authors and I have read all 3 books in that series. In the first book, "Out of the Silent Planet", he goes to Mars, and has an entirely different experience. For one thing, there were 3 intelligent species on Mars.
Lewis throws out some very interesting "what ifs". For one thing, the idea that even if there is rational life outside of earth, humans may be the only "fallen" species. I also like how he portrays "Eldila" (basically angels or spirits) as part of the physical world, but having a form that is undetectable to us unless they intend to be detected. I'm not sure he got all the science exactly right (I mean based on the science of his day, not counting things like describing the canals on Mars, which we now know don't really exist), but since the main points of the stories are philosophical, any science errors are easily ignored.
70% of American think the first amendment (right to free speech and worship) should be scrapped.
source?
People with enough common sense to realize scrapping the first amendment is a bad idea.
If 70% of people hold the opposite view, it is obviously not "common" sense. True democracy (or what I've heard called "mob-ocracy") would truly be rule by "common" sense.
Anyways, just wanted to say that I imagine there's a lot of us who would like to use Linux but can't for one reason or another, and I imagine that as time goes by, we'll slowly all convert over as our particular problems are solved.
You hit on what I think is a big problem for Linux popularity. While Linux is ahead of Windows in some respects, it's always playing catch up in terms of hardware support and application programs. In the end, it's the latter that defines what the end user can "do". I currently have an XP / Ubuntu dual boot system. The main reason I boot up Ubuntu is to show people the nifty compiz desktop effects, but when I need to do actual work, I usually wind up back in Windows, because that's where all my programs are. Wine is great, but it's not perfect, and I currently prefer XP + cygwin to Ubuntu + Wine.
Wouldn't that mean they were murdered? That is if you accept the religious side of the house...
Wow! Look at the discussion you started!
I'll put in my 2 cents and say that according to my views, those embryos are murdered, and the scientists at best have an insanity defense, because they don't understand the consequences of their actions.
It's interesting to me that in Genesis, Adam and Eve disobey God in order to eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", and today we have all these discussions about science and ethics. I realize there are many different views on ethics, but I'm concerned that on the whole, our society is "bending" their ethical standards for the promises of scientific research, which is basically saying "the ends justifies the means".
Slashdot Mirror
The warming trend has been levelling off for the past few years.
That's because I bought a hybrid. You're welcome.
How can it be moving on interia alone when it is still gaining ground? It isn't accelerating as it once was but it has by no means stopped.
Not to nitpick, but that's exactly how I would describe "going on inertia alone". "Losing momentum" might be a more technical way of putting it. Not that I know enough to say whether that's actually happening...
To me, "back in the day" implies more than 3 years ago.
Modded "Informative"? Really? It sounds like it was meant to be a joke.
Hopefully, there will be exceptions for:
that his boss and friends support the idea. I imagine him asking, "Is no-one going to say 'please don't go'?"
Okay, so it sounds like the theory is that you could create a microscopic black hole that would immediately sink to the center of the earth and orbit there, very slowly accreting matter. But we argue against the possibility saying "cosmic rays would already have created them". Is it possible that they already have and that mini black holes are milling about the earth's center as we speak? Hmm, we have had a lot of earthquakes lately ...
The Sarbanes Oxley Act makes trusting your employees illegal.
There actually is a win32 binary version of wine that runs in cygwin. They say it was created as an additional test of the code's portability, and for some other reasons that I can't remember right now. Funny but TRUE!
... sanbase. You can get prints, or set up Dynamic Paintings, and be the envy of the art department.
... what causes all the rage on /.?
So is most of the extra weight in your arms?
What if there is a God, and he COULD do something better than Penn & Teller, but just doesn't feel like having to constantly prove himself to his creatures? Just sayin'. A true skeptic considers all possibilities.
That is option #2.
No, I mean nothing like #2. I mean what if God affects the universe, but not in predictable ways. YOUR actions can not be described by a formula (okay, you may argue that they can, but without the formula you can not scientifically prove it). I can't use you to make predictions, but that doesn't mean you don't exist.
If there were a verified miracle, i.e. something that can't be explained, it would be interesting, yes. But, there hasn't and every public claim has been debunked easily.Have they? I would bet that very few have been debunked because most are just ignored. And even of those that have been challenged, remember that coming up with an alternative explanation isn't proof that something supernatural DIDN'T happen. I would wager that most claims of the supernatural (e.g., "I saw a ghost/angel/whatever" or "God healed me of cancer") CAN'T be disproved. Granted, that doesn't make them true, but it doesn't make them false, either.
You said it would be interesting if you saw something that couldn't be explained by natural laws. I see magicians do things all the time that APPARENTLY can't be explained by natural laws. That makes me wonder, what could God do that couldn't be explained away? If he made a whole mountain invisible, people would just think "I've seen that kind of trick before". Levitation, teleportation, ... it can all be faked. So if there is a God and you want some physical proof ... what would the proof have to be? Forgive me, but I haven't watched much of TNG (I'm more of a TOS fan), so I don't know what all Q can do.
I wonder how close such predictions have been to the actual results in past elections? I saw "past elections" on the site, but they only had past results, not past predictions.
But if there is a God, isn't it possible that he isn't something you can just express as a theory and use to make predictions?
(1) God can affect the universe in ways that can not be explained. That would provide proof that there is a "god" or god-like being. "Q" from TNG comes to mind.There are many people who claim to have experienced all sorts of inexplicable things like this, but of course they could be mistaken or could be lying. Nevertheless, you might be hasty in dismissing all of that evidence and instead claiming a complete lack of evidence.
(2) God can not affect the universe outside the laws that govern it, and thus there can be no proof of god.That's an interesting subject that is debated in Theological as well as Philosophical circles. I think most people who believe in God believe he COULD affect the universe, but some think that he does not ... that he "started up" the universe and that he is now just observing it. It may be more complicated than that -- for example if there is a God who created the universe, and is now just watching it unfold, you could say he doesn't affect it, or you could just as well say he is responsible for every little thing that happens because he planned it that way when he created it.
I'm just curious ... what would you accept as proof of a creator? Or rather what would you expect to be different?
I've been surprised at this policy myself but it seems to be quite common. I wonder if there isn't some merit in it, though. For a non-technical person, the fax probably seems a lot more secure than email. Email requires spam filters and virus scanners and training in security practices for users. That makes the content of email pretty suspect.
Also, I wonder if a fax is more auditable ... I mean, you generally know what phone number it came in on, as opposed to an email whose originating ip can be easily forged. Legally, that might be meaningful if they had to hold you to the fact that you signed something. It might be easier for you to deny having sent an email with your signature than to deny having sent a fax that originated from your home or business phone number.
I'm not sure it's exactly the same thing, in light of this article.
I have no cable or dsl offerings where I live, and I have "wdsl", which is basically 802.11 equipment with antennas at my house and a small ISP about 3 mi away. It's not blazingly fast (512kbps down, and I think 128 up, which wasn't the fastest choice), but much better than dial up and decent upload and latency (unlike satellite). Even if there's no ISP offering that, it sounds like you could use the same equipment to "share" with a neighbor (don't know what the cable company would think of that).
My in-laws are even farther out in the country, and they have one of those "unlimited" data plans through a cell company (I forget which one). They actually get better bandwidth than I do now.
No, it was just that your statements were a bit broad. You said stuff about "every planet", while the books only mention organic life on 2 planets other than the earth (plus some references to life on the far side of the moon in the 3rd book), and specifically claim that some planets never had or will have organic life.
The novels also had an interesting perspective on the "created in God's image" thing, too, IIRC. It was an iterative processThat is interesting. I never really saw it in that way before.
I never made it through the third book, though. I remember it being very, very dull.The 3rd book does start off very slow, but it actually gets quite interesting by the end (at least it did to me).
That's not quite right. C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite authors and I have read all 3 books in that series. In the first book, "Out of the Silent Planet", he goes to Mars, and has an entirely different experience. For one thing, there were 3 intelligent species on Mars.
Lewis throws out some very interesting "what ifs". For one thing, the idea that even if there is rational life outside of earth, humans may be the only "fallen" species. I also like how he portrays "Eldila" (basically angels or spirits) as part of the physical world, but having a form that is undetectable to us unless they intend to be detected. I'm not sure he got all the science exactly right (I mean based on the science of his day, not counting things like describing the canals on Mars, which we now know don't really exist), but since the main points of the stories are philosophical, any science errors are easily ignored.
source?
People with enough common sense to realize scrapping the first amendment is a bad idea.If 70% of people hold the opposite view, it is obviously not "common" sense. True democracy (or what I've heard called "mob-ocracy") would truly be rule by "common" sense.
You hit on what I think is a big problem for Linux popularity. While Linux is ahead of Windows in some respects, it's always playing catch up in terms of hardware support and application programs. In the end, it's the latter that defines what the end user can "do". I currently have an XP / Ubuntu dual boot system. The main reason I boot up Ubuntu is to show people the nifty compiz desktop effects, but when I need to do actual work, I usually wind up back in Windows, because that's where all my programs are. Wine is great, but it's not perfect, and I currently prefer XP + cygwin to Ubuntu + Wine.
Wow! Look at the discussion you started!
I'll put in my 2 cents and say that according to my views, those embryos are murdered, and the scientists at best have an insanity defense, because they don't understand the consequences of their actions.
It's interesting to me that in Genesis, Adam and Eve disobey God in order to eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", and today we have all these discussions about science and ethics. I realize there are many different views on ethics, but I'm concerned that on the whole, our society is "bending" their ethical standards for the promises of scientific research, which is basically saying "the ends justifies the means".