The Vasa museum is a commemoration of a spectacular failure (and is a good museum). That's naval history rather than modern tech, but the principles are the same.
I remember having stuff like that in the late 80s and early 90s in Utah. I suspect that manufacturers eventually realized they could make more appealing packaging for a small amount of money and dramatically increase sales.
I liked it, but it's extremely densely written. That denseness is part of what I like- I found the Bene Gesserit entirely believable, and the details of how the ecosystem worked were fascinating to me. Different strokes for different folks.
Separately, I think the BG "Litany on Fear" is masterful, and I find that useful in my own life.
I think that the romance of trains vs. planes might be related to how miserable commercial airline travel has become. Of course, it's still cheaper than rail for pretty much any distance, so perhaps you get what you pay for?
God has promised not to destroy the planet again until the second coming. Ie, no more global deluge
Important Theology Nitpick: the actual promise is that God will not destroy the world via water/flood again. This doesn't mean that He wouldn't use other means, just not *that*.
Part of the viability of claim-jumping is the notion of getting away with it. At least for the foreseeable future, there will be a lot of eyes on any given asteroid mining operation.
I basically agree, but have a nitpick: the old boy's color was more red than pink - since the advent of synthetic colors we have a lot more variety. Blue was definitely a girly color in the past.
I'm very surprised that they wouldn't be at least planning to recover the craft - that would give them all sorts of validation about the actual impact (heh) of launch and re-entry, and could help them get to the next iteration faster. I assume they know what they're doing, but TFA didn't include anything approaching a reason for not attempting recovery.
I confess the possibility of misunderstanding. However, when I've had multiple Atheists assert that belief in God is {foolhardy, evil, insert_negative_emotion}, that does seem to be a parsimonious explanation.
I do not think that Dawkins' formulation of the existence of God as a scientific proposition makes much sense, and it's an example of over-scientification of matters of philosophy - he fails to account for the idea of undecidable propositions (the existence of God being among them). Dawkins is actually a good example of someone who makes a bunch of attacks on Theism (cf the title of his book), when if it is merely a matter of him personally not having a belief, why would he care so much? Further, the spectrum displays a profound ignorance of religious people - doubt is a normal part of the religious experience, and he denies that sincerely religious people experience doubt (that is, the expressions of typical religious people would have a lot more degrees between his "1" and his "2"). .
I have a conviction that there are no such bunnies, due to lack of atmosphere.
I take it that you don't study much philosophy or theory of knowledge - there is a gigantic conceptual difference between "absence of evidence of X" and "evidence of absence of X". In code terms, it's the difference between an as-yet-undeclared variable and a variable set to (null).
Atheism is an absence of belief, not a belief in absence. Few people who self-identify as "atheist" have an affirmative belief/faith in the non-existence of a deities. Atheism is just the default position of an absence of belief through faith. It doesn't require "proof" of anything.
This doesn't describe most of the Atheists I've met, who affirmatively proclaim the non-existence of God(s). Perhaps a differentiation could be made between "atheists" and "Atheists" - the former would be as you describe, and the latter would describe a person who expresses a conviction that there is *not* a God.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanna rock and roll all night, and part of every day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
https://m.xkcd.com/1523/
Sounds like that delivery would make sparks fly.
The Vasa museum is a commemoration of a spectacular failure (and is a good museum). That's naval history rather than modern tech, but the principles are the same.
That's no moon!
Isn't there already a pistol emoji? And for that matter, a bomb emoji?
Right; there we go: from an iPhone: ðY"ðY'£
So what's the issue with a rifle?
I remember having stuff like that in the late 80s and early 90s in Utah. I suspect that manufacturers eventually realized they could make more appealing packaging for a small amount of money and dramatically increase sales.
I liked it, but it's extremely densely written. That denseness is part of what I like- I found the Bene Gesserit entirely believable, and the details of how the ecosystem worked were fascinating to me. Different strokes for different folks.
Separately, I think the BG "Litany on Fear" is masterful, and I find that useful in my own life.
I don't disagree with anything you said.
I think that the romance of trains vs. planes might be related to how miserable commercial airline travel has become. Of course, it's still cheaper than rail for pretty much any distance, so perhaps you get what you pay for?
Important Theology Nitpick: the actual promise is that God will not destroy the world via water/flood again. This doesn't mean that He wouldn't use other means, just not *that*.
Back to the rest of the conversation...
Part of the viability of claim-jumping is the notion of getting away with it. At least for the foreseeable future, there will be a lot of eyes on any given asteroid mining operation.
you do realize the Kyoto treaty was never ratified by the US Senate (in fact, the Clinton administration never submitted it), right?
I wish I had a million mod points. Security is *hard*.
The essence of a secure system is one which doesn't connect to any systems which have a lower security threshold.
I just wanted to say "thanks" for many, many hours playing your games. Well done, sir!
nitpick - the Victorian pink really was just pale red, rather than the crazy hot pink we have nowadays (hooray for synthetics!).
Your point stands.
I basically agree, but have a nitpick: the old boy's color was more red than pink - since the advent of synthetic colors we have a lot more variety. Blue was definitely a girly color in the past.
To deal with the "no food" issue with synthroid, I think right before bed works pretty well.
I'm very surprised that they wouldn't be at least planning to recover the craft - that would give them all sorts of validation about the actual impact (heh) of launch and re-entry, and could help them get to the next iteration faster. I assume they know what they're doing, but TFA didn't include anything approaching a reason for not attempting recovery.
The only part of iGoogle I liked was reader, and that got killed as part of the G+ implementation. *sniff*.
That made me use less google.
I encourage reading more philosophy.
I confess the possibility of misunderstanding. However, when I've had multiple Atheists assert that belief in God is {foolhardy, evil, insert_negative_emotion}, that does seem to be a parsimonious explanation.
I do not think that Dawkins' formulation of the existence of God as a scientific proposition makes much sense, and it's an example of over-scientification of matters of philosophy - he fails to account for the idea of undecidable propositions (the existence of God being among them). Dawkins is actually a good example of someone who makes a bunch of attacks on Theism (cf the title of his book), when if it is merely a matter of him personally not having a belief, why would he care so much? Further, the spectrum displays a profound ignorance of religious people - doubt is a normal part of the religious experience, and he denies that sincerely religious people experience doubt (that is, the expressions of typical religious people would have a lot more degrees between his "1" and his "2"). .
I have a conviction that there are no such bunnies, due to lack of atmosphere.
I take it that you don't study much philosophy or theory of knowledge - there is a gigantic conceptual difference between "absence of evidence of X" and "evidence of absence of X". In code terms, it's the difference between an as-yet-undeclared variable and a variable set to (null).
This doesn't describe most of the Atheists I've met, who affirmatively proclaim the non-existence of God(s). Perhaps a differentiation could be made between "atheists" and "Atheists" - the former would be as you describe, and the latter would describe a person who expresses a conviction that there is *not* a God.
But how long does it take to copy a 17MB file?
We need baryon reform now!