What do you lot think of this?
-
On the third day, he arose, hungry for brains.... :laugh:
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
I'll make sure I go for a head shot to keep the zombies down. :laugh:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
It's good that it may not be running out but bad that an endless supply would dampen the enthusiasm for finding cleaner and more efficient means of power generation.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
I agree. The question I have is how do you get people who know that it is good to use cleaner energy and use it more efficient to do so? It's funny, not ha ha funny, how technology changes faster and further than people. We can split the atom, but not employment for everyone. When money's involved the bottom line turns into the moral and ethical right.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
When religion is finally gone and reason and logic remain maybe humanity can actually be civil and peaceful. Until then let the small minded bigots and carnival barkers of politics and fear carry on.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Interestingly, that seems to be slowly happening, albeit slowly... Every time I see one of those global surveys on religion, the atheist population seems to get a little bigger. Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one
-- John Lennon, "Imagine"Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I'll make sure I go for a head shot to keep the zombies down. :laugh:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
On the third day, he arose, hungry for brains.... :laugh:
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
I agree. The question I have is how do you get people who know that it is good to use cleaner energy and use it more efficient to do so? It's funny, not ha ha funny, how technology changes faster and further than people. We can split the atom, but not employment for everyone. When money's involved the bottom line turns into the moral and ethical right.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
When money's involved the bottom line turns into the moral and ethical right.
That said, has anyone covered how much the 'unlimited supply' of oil would cost to produce? Even with all of it we'd ever need, if it's too expensive someone will make inroads with other technologies. The real problem right now is that Oil is still cheaper than most of it's alternatives, even before taking into account the infrastructure changes required to support them. Short of long lasting quick charge power cells for vehicles, which would still require some changes, there are some massive logistical hurdles behind any change over that would impact the average person directly. Which corporate bull is likely to just make that much worse, say if apple goes into the iCar market with it's proprietary power cell technology that it expects everyone else to keep in stock, while four other companies do the same thing, with different shapes, sizes, and anything they can to restrict people to their tech.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
When money's involved the bottom line turns into the moral and ethical right.
That said, has anyone covered how much the 'unlimited supply' of oil would cost to produce? Even with all of it we'd ever need, if it's too expensive someone will make inroads with other technologies. The real problem right now is that Oil is still cheaper than most of it's alternatives, even before taking into account the infrastructure changes required to support them. Short of long lasting quick charge power cells for vehicles, which would still require some changes, there are some massive logistical hurdles behind any change over that would impact the average person directly. Which corporate bull is likely to just make that much worse, say if apple goes into the iCar market with it's proprietary power cell technology that it expects everyone else to keep in stock, while four other companies do the same thing, with different shapes, sizes, and anything they can to restrict people to their tech.
There are already moves afoot to stop phone manufacturers from having proprietry power supplies. From, (I believe, but am not 100% sure), 2014 all mobile phones sold in europe will have to have the same charger connection. That will piss off Apple! :) The same will happen with electric cars, the same size/rating/connections for batteries or else it will fail.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
There are already moves afoot to stop phone manufacturers from having proprietry power supplies. From, (I believe, but am not 100% sure), 2014 all mobile phones sold in europe will have to have the same charger connection. That will piss off Apple! :) The same will happen with electric cars, the same size/rating/connections for batteries or else it will fail.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
I wish I could 5 that!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
-
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Look up. Sky, clouds, outer space Look down. Crust, mantle, outer core, inner core No proof that heaven and hell exist, so doesn't it make more sense to just believe your eyes (Or, in the case of "down," seismographic research), and to file those things away with flying pink elephants, talking fish, and other things you might see while high on drugs?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Do you have proof they do not exist, or do you just have faith they don't? I believe little invisible pink elephants are not flying around my head. Do you believe they are not flying around yours? But I don't know what exists around and through this universe. I know that string theory talks about a lot of dimensions we can't measure. Are you absolutely certain stuff isn't going on in those dimensions you don't know? I'm not asking him to believe, just to realize he has a belief, like you do.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
When religion is finally gone and reason and logic remain maybe humanity can actually be civil and peaceful. Until then let the small minded bigots and carnival barkers of politics and fear carry on.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Do you have proof they do not exist, or do you just have faith they don't? I believe little invisible pink elephants are not flying around my head. Do you believe they are not flying around yours? But I don't know what exists around and through this universe. I know that string theory talks about a lot of dimensions we can't measure. Are you absolutely certain stuff isn't going on in those dimensions you don't know? I'm not asking him to believe, just to realize he has a belief, like you do.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You know, there's a good quote that seems to apply here. "Atheism is a religion in the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." This is the same... It's not a matter of believing in the negative. It's a matter of NOT believing in the positive. It doesn't take "belief" or "faith" to see the utter lack of pink elephants flying around my head. It just takes working eyes. Until someone shows me proof of flying pink elephants, I have no reason to believe they exist. Until someone shows me proof of "god", I have no reason to believe that he/she/it exists.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You know, there's a good quote that seems to apply here. "Atheism is a religion in the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." This is the same... It's not a matter of believing in the negative. It's a matter of NOT believing in the positive. It doesn't take "belief" or "faith" to see the utter lack of pink elephants flying around my head. It just takes working eyes. Until someone shows me proof of flying pink elephants, I have no reason to believe they exist. Until someone shows me proof of "god", I have no reason to believe that he/she/it exists.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That would be a good quote, if I was saying atheism is a religion. You have a faith, a belief in something for which you have no proof. There is not proof that god exists, or that god doesn't exist. Lack of evidence in either direction proves only lack of knowledge. There is only one logically consistent answer to the question. Don't know, don't care, or don't know, but care are not beliefs. I know there isn't, that is a belief.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That would be a good quote, if I was saying atheism is a religion. You have a faith, a belief in something for which you have no proof. There is not proof that god exists, or that god doesn't exist. Lack of evidence in either direction proves only lack of knowledge. There is only one logically consistent answer to the question. Don't know, don't care, or don't know, but care are not beliefs. I know there isn't, that is a belief.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I don't KNOW there isn't. I simply have no reason to believe that there is. It's a numbers game. Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being pink elephants flying around my head? Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being some all-powerful invisible overlord in the sky? Both of these are close enough to zero that I seem the probability insignificant, so unless I'm shown new evidence that changes the equation, I assume that neither exist.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I don't KNOW there isn't. I simply have no reason to believe that there is. It's a numbers game. Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being pink elephants flying around my head? Given the available evidence, what are the chances of there being some all-powerful invisible overlord in the sky? Both of these are close enough to zero that I seem the probability insignificant, so unless I'm shown new evidence that changes the equation, I assume that neither exist.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours. I know what I have is belief, often not as much as I'd like. But I have to to hand it to you. No joke, serious.:thumbsup: I respect that you are willing to say you are making an inference, so many atheists are not. In my memory, which is faltering, I don't remember another, at least online.. And so many people with religious faith are unwilling to be reasonable, as well. I'm not giving ignorance a pass on either side. Well, maybe ignorance, if they are willing to educate themselves. But stupidity definitely gets no pass on either side. It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken. [edit] I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you. I'm more willing to get in a knock-down drag out with atheists. I tend to address non-atheists with a less hostile tone. After all, I may be questioning their religion. I can't question the religion of an atheist. :laugh: [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours. I know what I have is belief, often not as much as I'd like. But I have to to hand it to you. No joke, serious.:thumbsup: I respect that you are willing to say you are making an inference, so many atheists are not. In my memory, which is faltering, I don't remember another, at least online.. And so many people with religious faith are unwilling to be reasonable, as well. I'm not giving ignorance a pass on either side. Well, maybe ignorance, if they are willing to educate themselves. But stupidity definitely gets no pass on either side. It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken. [edit] I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you. I'm more willing to get in a knock-down drag out with atheists. I tend to address non-atheists with a less hostile tone. After all, I may be questioning their religion. I can't question the religion of an atheist. :laugh: [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours.
So if someone on LSD sees pink elephants flying around their head, do we consider that as factual evidence to the existence of said elephants? The timing of this is kind of funny, as I just finished jury service on a criminal trial. Spent an entire afternoon digging through evidence and debating with the other jurors. With a case like this, you have to look at the evidence on either side, and consider its credibility... On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims. On the other side, we have a similar period of scientific advancement, that contradicts that book on numerous points. Each contradiction damages the credibility of the book, just as a witness testimony would seem less reliable if they were caught in a lie. Now, I referred to that credibility as a statistical likelihood, and it's pretty much the same thing... Maybe this is a better analogy though.
RichardM1 wrote:
It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken.
Hard to tell which... I've noticed surveys that show an increasing atheist population worldwide, but I wonder what the breakdown is on a geek forum.
RichardM1 wrote:
I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you.
Understood :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
That is right. You don't know. You assume. You make a statistical inference. But why do you think the probability is small? Any reason other than you believe it? Lack of any evidence in either side leads to a lack of conclusion. Others look at the statistics, and their personal experience, and make a different inference. My point is that their inference is as supportable by fact as yours.
So if someone on LSD sees pink elephants flying around their head, do we consider that as factual evidence to the existence of said elephants? The timing of this is kind of funny, as I just finished jury service on a criminal trial. Spent an entire afternoon digging through evidence and debating with the other jurors. With a case like this, you have to look at the evidence on either side, and consider its credibility... On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims. On the other side, we have a similar period of scientific advancement, that contradicts that book on numerous points. Each contradiction damages the credibility of the book, just as a witness testimony would seem less reliable if they were caught in a lie. Now, I referred to that credibility as a statistical likelihood, and it's pretty much the same thing... Maybe this is a better analogy though.
RichardM1 wrote:
It's just easier, in an educated forum, to disagree with atheists. They are either more numerous, or more outspoken.
Hard to tell which... I've noticed surveys that show an increasing atheist population worldwide, but I wonder what the breakdown is on a geek forum.
RichardM1 wrote:
I said that you said "inference", but you did not. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was talking about a concept, not trying to quote you.
Understood :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)does this explain why I say "no evidence = no conclusion" in a reasonable way?[tl;dr]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims.
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad. :-D There is a lot more going on here than we can detect and measure, per string, superstring and other theories generalized into M-theory. LQG maybe only needs 4 dimensions, but doesn't seem to prohibit being embedded in higher dimensions, possibly into M-theory. There are some theoretical reasons to believe the universe is a 4D object embedded in higher space, and no experimental reason to think there is not. Other than not detecting the other dimensions, though I understand (not really) that is not considered a pattern breaker. too simple explanation The surface of a piece of paper is like a 2D+time universe. You peel two pieces of paper apart, and the surface sort of comes into being. You can draw things into being, draw them somewhere else to move them, erase them out of being. Glue another piece of paper on top of it and the surface ceases to exist. The surface is a 2D+T object embedded in our 3D+T universe. You exist outside of the object, but you can effect it. By peeling paper apart, you create the surface, create stuff in it, remove things, destroy it. That is pretty random, as in no rules. Instead of drawing by hand, you have a bunch of overlapping Spirographs, drawing according to the gears, and erasing after themselves, bouncing off each other, etc. Laws of physics. I'm coming up with this rules/laws analogy on the fly, so bare with me, the Spirograph idea just came to me in a flash of divine inspiration :) . I may not be explaining it well. If you think the explanation is hosed, as opposed to what I am trying to explain, let me know. I know you will tell me about the 'what'. The paper, wet it and stick it to you forehead, and you have omnipresence! ;P The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3
-
does this explain why I say "no evidence = no conclusion" in a reasonable way?[tl;dr]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
On the side of religion, you have a 2000-year-old storybook, along with people who claim enlightenment but have no evidence to back up their claims.
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad. :-D There is a lot more going on here than we can detect and measure, per string, superstring and other theories generalized into M-theory. LQG maybe only needs 4 dimensions, but doesn't seem to prohibit being embedded in higher dimensions, possibly into M-theory. There are some theoretical reasons to believe the universe is a 4D object embedded in higher space, and no experimental reason to think there is not. Other than not detecting the other dimensions, though I understand (not really) that is not considered a pattern breaker. too simple explanation The surface of a piece of paper is like a 2D+time universe. You peel two pieces of paper apart, and the surface sort of comes into being. You can draw things into being, draw them somewhere else to move them, erase them out of being. Glue another piece of paper on top of it and the surface ceases to exist. The surface is a 2D+T object embedded in our 3D+T universe. You exist outside of the object, but you can effect it. By peeling paper apart, you create the surface, create stuff in it, remove things, destroy it. That is pretty random, as in no rules. Instead of drawing by hand, you have a bunch of overlapping Spirographs, drawing according to the gears, and erasing after themselves, bouncing off each other, etc. Laws of physics. I'm coming up with this rules/laws analogy on the fly, so bare with me, the Spirograph idea just came to me in a flash of divine inspiration :) . I may not be explaining it well. If you think the explanation is hosed, as opposed to what I am trying to explain, let me know. I know you will tell me about the 'what'. The paper, wet it and stick it to you forehead, and you have omnipresence! ;P The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The real trick, of course, is that the whole "You can't disprove it" argument is worthless, because aside from pure mathematics, you can't prove a negative.
Oh, come on. In fact, you can prove a negative, even in the real world. By its nature, you can't prove that you can't prove a negative. Proving it proves a negative, which disproves itself. I can prove that I can prove a negative: Make positive conjecture that can only be true when the negative is true. Prove the positive. The negative is proved if the positive is proved. negative....Prove tigers are not eating my arm. positive....if the skin on my arms is intact, no tigers can be eating my arm. proof........Skin on my arm is intact, therefore no tigers are eating my arm There aren't even tigers in this room. But in your house, not only is there no proof the tiger isn't eating your arm, you can't even prove you can't prove it. <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html">Whenever we find a positive statement to be true, an infinite number of negatives are also proven simultaneously. Determining that the sun is a ball of Hydrogen automatically rules out the possibility of the sun being made of Cheese Whiz or the souls of flushed gold fish. These things are 'proven false' when the one idea is proven true.</a>[<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] If I might quote that famous non-theist, Carl Sagan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof">"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan">"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] You are pulling the kind of argument atheists bitch about theists pulling. I got to get some sleep, I've got an early morning, and it already is early I'm gonna have to school you on the rest of your post tomorrow. :) :zzz: [edit I had my wording wrong: true for false, disproved for proved, vice versa for both. cleaned up unclear wording and syntax written too late at night. If you got email notification of t
