As for the impact this has on people's belief on God. Personally, I know God exists, and it wouldn't shake my faith even if people start printing out lifeforms from their computer. Maybe I'll find people trying to reason away God more annoying, but it isn't my place to judge.
Good for you! Unfortunately, the crushing majority of previous and contemporary "believers", including commoners, priests, saints, prophets and so on (i.e people probably on more favorable grounds with the deity you worship) would be quite happy to lynch any man who so much as suggests that something other than their most almighty god is responsible for the origin of life. And they have, in the past, for far less ambitious ideas, let alone experiments. It's called heresy. There is a raging BATTLE between scientists and silly folks who are unwilling to accept even the role of evolution in things(try turning on a neoconservative TV channel sometime), because of the texts written by people thousands of years ago, which you are supposed to believe in literally. They have books and essays published to "refute" science and rationalism. In fact, most of them will cast YOU among the lost souls, too, you modernist liberal interpreter of the holy books you.
The fact that you have set your mind on something, regardless of the stark contrast between it and scientific evidence, does not mean that it is okay for the rest of the world. People who understand science won't be very shaken with abiogenesis. It is the people that don't who will be losing sleep.
Maybe most people are justified in linking the belief that life evolved without "supernatural forces" with the belief that life began without supernatural forces.
Like the other poster said, citations badly needed. Men and women do not equate in sexual terms at all, and they cheat for very different reasons usually. Men are far more physically oriented (see media, advertising, popular clothing..etc) because men have almost always dominated the resources available by physical force, so their pick is determined by the physical characteristics of the possible mate more than all the other things (personality, wealth..etc). It is the male who was expected to provide for the family, protect the offspring, care for the pregnant female and so on. Other species have a different equation when the female is more physically able than the male, but that is not the case with us.
As for the polygamy part, it is of course far more beneficial for the man. The female will usually not gain from sexual activity with another male if she is already active with the first one at the same time, even if the second male is a better choice for whatever evolutionary reason. She will likely cause trouble and be deserted, because other feelings that evolved to counter cheating (jealousy..etc) will cause the primary male to kick her ass, whereas the other way round women can be a lot more forgiving even to this day despite the same feelings of jealousy being present to give them and their offspring a better chance.
Statistics taken from anonymous surveys are not going to include as big an ego-factor as you seem to think.
Read up on the DARPA Urban challenge winners, especially the stanford and carnegie-mellon vehicles. Not only could they adjust themselves according to other vehicle behavior (i.e following the directions and speed of multiple objects on the road) they even learned to negotiate intersections. They sure as hell could follow you around;)
Well a lot of us here have clout with congress too, disgusting lot that they are right now. McCain is at least wise enough to not appear as brainwashed as this woman in various stances. Malibu Stacey as president could cause quite a few wrecks with evangelist America behind her.
Who would buy the product? I remember there was some heavy discussion on renaming ReiserFS itself. I can't see the software he comes up with while serving a life sentence for murder as having very high marketable values.
But among the geeks? Of course. We'd use it in a blink. It could be an immense hit.
Dude, you completely misunderstood the point. Please read in context of what the OP was saying to understand why some of your points may be true but irrelevant. The idea that these people will engage in mass mutual destruction/suicide once they get nuclear weapons is precisely what is being challenged, because it is plain naive.
There are very strong movements of extremist mullahs rallying precisely for the spread of Islam through jihad.
When they have invading ground, air and naval forces under their command, give me a ring.
Don't be silly. Your argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers? Why hasn't bin laden blown himself up to go to heaven and be with allah and the beautiful virgins forever? Why didn't the Iranians cross over into Iraq and do the same? That is the ultimate goal, right?
If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel. By your logic, they don't need a nuclear bomb, they just want provoke war and die in the consequences, and they can do that very easily.
The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion. Now it's mostly madmen who perceive themselves as saviors, unemployed and desperate young men who believe them (terrorist recruits), and dictators trying to stay in power. The muslims right now should be the least of our worries.
Yeah, pretty fascinating. I guess the current avian mascot for Linux should be given the boot, in favor of one of these wondrous creatures. Penguins are vulnerable little fuckers.
Since the development of modern science. When you have no reason to assume something, it's assumption is illogical. It's not "false"(unless it violates others you've proven true), it's just irrelevant.
To clarify: When you have no testable evidence, your claim is meaningless. Science is not like math, where you can define your world and it's axioms of truth (and suffer the consequences ala Godel, but that's another story). Science so far is concerned with making models that work, where the models are statements about the world as we "see" it. The topic being discussed today is pointless, because the reason we are talking about non-sentient things having a "will" is because they are the constituents of something that is thought of as having a "will". The OP and GP posts were collectively saying that you can pretty much rule out this hocus pocus free will stuff, it's wrong, so there is no need for anything else to be said about particles.
And to the Scientists: Goodness gracious, people. It's not like quantum field theory is already out of the way and under your belt, so you can talk about implications in the human mind, which is much less understood. The philosophers make the mistake of talking about shit they don't understand, so let's not make science commit the same crime.
David was more or less ordered (specifically challenged) to bring in foreskins as proof of body counts. Yes this would be rather gross today.
You don't need to say more. It is gross at any time, particularly the "challenge" part. He was challenged to bring back proof that he killed human beings of a different ethnic origin, and in his poetic wisdom he brought back parts of their genitals. Isn't that just grand?
Re:Shell as a general-purpose language...
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, knowing how to write and defend against malicious scripts is indeed badass stuff. Hey it took all of 10 minutes to do, and he never noticed because everything was up again next day! Sorry if I came across as arrogant, dear coward. I was making a joke. Posting anonymously to insult someone, in contrast, is very manly and mature, touche;)
You don't understand. We will never try to duplicate the emotion machine. All serious studies being done now are
a) at a primitive level, trying to understand basic underpinnings like memory.
b) targeted at creating sentience, not emotion. In general, sentience without egoistical or similar motives tends to be completely neutral in relation to other beings, and what will most likely happen is that we give the machines incentives other than the human-evolved ones to keep it going, and thinking. This is an immense task.
c) restricted by neuro-science, not our own design ability. The reason why undesirable parts of the rat brain are being included in the study is because, as mentioned above, psychology is rather primitive at the moment, and people for the last 100 years or so have tried to learn more about "what part does what" by chopping bits off, attaching things on..etc. Just read some of the academic literature. It's hilarious. True understanding at a molecular level is what is needed, and when it comes it will be unlikely that anything will "go wrong" with the final products, any worse than what goes wrong with human beings in these "civilized" times. You know, that race that rapes, kills, ravages, tortures and tries to completely obliterate its own kind, boh mentally and physically, for reasons completely outside the realm of logic or even survival?
Science is never harmful. Human intentions are the problem, and they've been here for a while.
Re:Shell as a general-purpose language...
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Bash scripting is dangerous. I wrote a client script to test a Helix multimedia server, once - we're talking millions of socket connections purely from a shell here (not even using netcat), and the professor gave us a B+ for the project. Needless to say, I wrote another script that summer, much smaller and more elegant, that thrashed and brought down the clueless bastard's website.
Parents: talk to your kids about Bash, before someone else does.
On Vista UAC may block your access to the file by default as well, the easiest way to get around this (aside from disabling UAC altogether) is to run your editor with elevated privileges.
On a side-note, blocking UAC is something that should be done by default, particularly if you are a slashdot reader. There is no reason at all for it to be there. It makes no sense for someone to use Windows for convenience, like myself, then have to put up with the inconvenient nonsense MS has deployed to eat up developer hours and show around at section meetings in Redmond.
The GP is not talking about it being "an option" for the companies. It is an option for technical people who can get around advertising with minimal effort. If you're going to be a geek then there's no reason for you to suffer along with the masses.
American soldiers were not exactly acting under orders, and when discovered they were tried and punished. The serbs enslaved women for weeks. And you may be technically correct about the Serbs falling short of the definition, though the people massacred were all of one religious group, making ethnic cleansing a suitable term. I short, I am glad we acted in the Kosovo conflict. Our action stopped the suffering of thousands of people. Something tells me that the government that assassinates journalists and beats dissidents in the streets does not care the same way we do. That is all.
What? Do you have any idea how many moslem women were systematically gang raped by serbian forces over the course of their captivity? Have you not seen pictures of the mass graves of their husbands? Do you really think NATO went to war for ideals like the ones coming from Putin?
And like others have stated, just because there is no "good guy" in this conflict doesn't mean we cannot put correct labels on the respective atrocities being committed by either side. Georgia bombed and killed 1500 civilians in their sleep. There is nothing at all you can say about anybody else's actions that will make this look better.
I hate the Russian government, especially that animal Putin, and I also hate the seemingly fashionable play-down of genocide on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the youtube comments on the video you linked to. Much more entertaining than the video.
As for the impact this has on people's belief on God. Personally, I know God exists, and it wouldn't shake my faith even if people start printing out lifeforms from their computer. Maybe I'll find people trying to reason away God more annoying, but it isn't my place to judge.
Good for you! Unfortunately, the crushing majority of previous and contemporary "believers", including commoners, priests, saints, prophets and so on (i.e people probably on more favorable grounds with the deity you worship) would be quite happy to lynch any man who so much as suggests that something other than their most almighty god is responsible for the origin of life. And they have, in the past, for far less ambitious ideas, let alone experiments. It's called heresy. There is a raging BATTLE between scientists and silly folks who are unwilling to accept even the role of evolution in things(try turning on a neoconservative TV channel sometime), because of the texts written by people thousands of years ago, which you are supposed to believe in literally. They have books and essays published to "refute" science and rationalism. In fact, most of them will cast YOU among the lost souls, too, you modernist liberal interpreter of the holy books you.
The fact that you have set your mind on something, regardless of the stark contrast between it and scientific evidence, does not mean that it is okay for the rest of the world. People who understand science won't be very shaken with abiogenesis. It is the people that don't who will be losing sleep.
Maybe most people are justified in linking the belief that life evolved without "supernatural forces" with the belief that life began without supernatural forces.
Why is it that the most optimistic people I meet on the internet always have the most foreboding nicknames?
DeathByDDOS wishes you a happy birthday and many more to come! And flowers!!
Like the other poster said, citations badly needed. Men and women do not equate in sexual terms at all, and they cheat for very different reasons usually. Men are far more physically oriented (see media, advertising, popular clothing..etc) because men have almost always dominated the resources available by physical force, so their pick is determined by the physical characteristics of the possible mate more than all the other things (personality, wealth..etc). It is the male who was expected to provide for the family, protect the offspring, care for the pregnant female and so on. Other species have a different equation when the female is more physically able than the male, but that is not the case with us.
As for the polygamy part, it is of course far more beneficial for the man. The female will usually not gain from sexual activity with another male if she is already active with the first one at the same time, even if the second male is a better choice for whatever evolutionary reason. She will likely cause trouble and be deserted, because other feelings that evolved to counter cheating (jealousy..etc) will cause the primary male to kick her ass, whereas the other way round women can be a lot more forgiving even to this day despite the same feelings of jealousy being present to give them and their offspring a better chance.
Statistics taken from anonymous surveys are not going to include as big an ego-factor as you seem to think.
Read up on the DARPA Urban challenge winners, especially the stanford and carnegie-mellon vehicles. Not only could they adjust themselves according to other vehicle behavior (i.e following the directions and speed of multiple objects on the road) they even learned to negotiate intersections. They sure as hell could follow you around ;)
Well a lot of us here have clout with congress too, disgusting lot that they are right now. McCain is at least wise enough to not appear as brainwashed as this woman in various stances. Malibu Stacey as president could cause quite a few wrecks with evangelist America behind her.
Who would buy the product? I remember there was some heavy discussion on renaming ReiserFS itself. I can't see the software he comes up with while serving a life sentence for murder as having very high marketable values.
But among the geeks? Of course. We'd use it in a blink. It could be an immense hit.
I haven't laughed so hard in a while. Do you realize, kind sir, that you are asking slashdot to basically pack up and go on vacation?
Objectivity. Distinction between conviction and sentence judgements. People more knowledgable than us. Discarding of mathematical certainty.
Well, I forgive you: it is Friday night, you'll see you error tomorrow morning..
Dude, you completely misunderstood the point. Please read in context of what the OP was saying to understand why some of your points may be true but irrelevant. The idea that these people will engage in mass mutual destruction/suicide once they get nuclear weapons is precisely what is being challenged, because it is plain naive.
There are very strong movements of extremist mullahs rallying precisely for the spread of Islam through jihad.
When they have invading ground, air and naval forces under their command, give me a ring.
Don't be silly. Your argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers? Why hasn't bin laden blown himself up to go to heaven and be with allah and the beautiful virgins forever? Why didn't the Iranians cross over into Iraq and do the same? That is the ultimate goal, right?
If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel. By your logic, they don't need a nuclear bomb, they just want provoke war and die in the consequences, and they can do that very easily.
The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion. Now it's mostly madmen who perceive themselves as saviors, unemployed and desperate young men who believe them (terrorist recruits), and dictators trying to stay in power. The muslims right now should be the least of our worries.
Confucius also say "Those who do not understand different programming paradigms are bound to start flamewars for no reason."
But the hands.. where are the hands? If it can't grasp Eve's hand in the galactic loneliness of deep space, then it is nothing like Waaaaall-EEEE.
PS: shouldn't robots on a battlefield all have arms, to move crap out of the way..etc?
Yeah, pretty fascinating. I guess the current avian mascot for Linux should be given the boot, in favor of one of these wondrous creatures. Penguins are vulnerable little fuckers.
Since the development of modern science. When you have no reason to assume something, it's assumption is illogical. It's not "false"(unless it violates others you've proven true), it's just irrelevant.
To clarify: When you have no testable evidence, your claim is meaningless. Science is not like math, where you can define your world and it's axioms of truth (and suffer the consequences ala Godel, but that's another story). Science so far is concerned with making models that work, where the models are statements about the world as we "see" it. The topic being discussed today is pointless, because the reason we are talking about non-sentient things having a "will" is because they are the constituents of something that is thought of as having a "will". The OP and GP posts were collectively saying that you can pretty much rule out this hocus pocus free will stuff, it's wrong, so there is no need for anything else to be said about particles.
And to the Scientists: Goodness gracious, people. It's not like quantum field theory is already out of the way and under your belt, so you can talk about implications in the human mind, which is much less understood. The philosophers make the mistake of talking about shit they don't understand, so let's not make science commit the same crime.
But what, then, is guiding us to believe we have free will?
Sentience.
David was more or less ordered (specifically challenged) to bring in foreskins as proof of body counts. Yes this would be rather gross today.
You don't need to say more. It is gross at any time, particularly the "challenge" part. He was challenged to bring back proof that he killed human beings of a different ethnic origin, and in his poetic wisdom he brought back parts of their genitals. Isn't that just grand?
Yeah, knowing how to write and defend against malicious scripts is indeed badass stuff. Hey it took all of 10 minutes to do, and he never noticed because everything was up again next day! Sorry if I came across as arrogant, dear coward. I was making a joke. Posting anonymously to insult someone, in contrast, is very manly and mature, touche ;)
You don't understand. We will never try to duplicate the emotion machine. All serious studies being done now are
a) at a primitive level, trying to understand basic underpinnings like memory.
b) targeted at creating sentience, not emotion. In general, sentience without egoistical or similar motives tends to be completely neutral in relation to other beings, and what will most likely happen is that we give the machines incentives other than the human-evolved ones to keep it going, and thinking. This is an immense task.
c) restricted by neuro-science, not our own design ability. The reason why undesirable parts of the rat brain are being included in the study is because, as mentioned above, psychology is rather primitive at the moment, and people for the last 100 years or so have tried to learn more about "what part does what" by chopping bits off, attaching things on..etc. Just read some of the academic literature. It's hilarious. True understanding at a molecular level is what is needed, and when it comes it will be unlikely that anything will "go wrong" with the final products, any worse than what goes wrong with human beings in these "civilized" times. You know, that race that rapes, kills, ravages, tortures and tries to completely obliterate its own kind, boh mentally and physically, for reasons completely outside the realm of logic or even survival?
Science is never harmful. Human intentions are the problem, and they've been here for a while.
Bash scripting is dangerous. I wrote a client script to test a Helix multimedia server, once - we're talking millions of socket connections purely from a shell here (not even using netcat), and the professor gave us a B+ for the project. Needless to say, I wrote another script that summer, much smaller and more elegant, that thrashed and brought down the clueless bastard's website.
Parents: talk to your kids about Bash, before someone else does.
On Vista UAC may block your access to the file by default as well, the easiest way to get around this (aside from disabling UAC altogether) is to run your editor with elevated privileges.
On a side-note, blocking UAC is something that should be done by default, particularly if you are a slashdot reader. There is no reason at all for it to be there. It makes no sense for someone to use Windows for convenience, like myself, then have to put up with the inconvenient nonsense MS has deployed to eat up developer hours and show around at section meetings in Redmond.
The GP is not talking about it being "an option" for the companies. It is an option for technical people who can get around advertising with minimal effort. If you're going to be a geek then there's no reason for you to suffer along with the masses.
American soldiers were not exactly acting under orders, and when discovered they were tried and punished. The serbs enslaved women for weeks. And you may be technically correct about the Serbs falling short of the definition, though the people massacred were all of one religious group, making ethnic cleansing a suitable term. I short, I am glad we acted in the Kosovo conflict. Our action stopped the suffering of thousands of people. Something tells me that the government that assassinates journalists and beats dissidents in the streets does not care the same way we do. That is all.
haha what u crshing on she not into u lolz
What? Do you have any idea how many moslem women were systematically gang raped by serbian forces over the course of their captivity? Have you not seen pictures of the mass graves of their husbands? Do you really think NATO went to war for ideals like the ones coming from Putin?
And like others have stated, just because there is no "good guy" in this conflict doesn't mean we cannot put correct labels on the respective atrocities being committed by either side. Georgia bombed and killed 1500 civilians in their sleep. There is nothing at all you can say about anybody else's actions that will make this look better.
I hate the Russian government, especially that animal Putin, and I also hate the seemingly fashionable play-down of genocide on the internet.