On 14/04/2011 06:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 5:21, Invisible wrote:
>> On 14/04/2011 13:16, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Do that here, and you *will* get jailtime (up to several years). That's
>>> not even a hypothetical.
>>
>> OK, that's scary... I didn't realise there were any countries like that.
>
> You're joking, right? Or did you mean "western, secular countries" when
> you said "any"?

Well, yeah, obviously. I'm sure there are remote countries that nobody 
has ever heard of where people still regularly get stonned to death. But 
you don't expect that kind of thing in the civilised world.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>
> Yes, unfortunately, one that manages somehow to wield political power in
> order to advance their agenda.

I wonder how many people *actually* believe this insanity vs how many 
just go along with it because it benefits them.

>> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
>> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
>> that's not terribly significant, however...)
>
> You've met several up here (though not in person which is what I suspect
> you mean), but you should know better by now than to make generalisations
> about a society where you have a very small sample size.  If you don't,
> it's time that you learned that lesson.

That would be why I tossed in "not terribly significant".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 06:11 PM, Darren New wrote:

> I mean, there were always stupid gullible people. But until you gave
> them something like the internet, where everyone in the country could
> hear them and find other stupid gullible people, the few rational people
> around them could keep them in check by saying "No, sorry, that's stupid
> and gullible, please keep that to yourself."
>
> But now you can get on the internet and get all the reinforcement of
> stupid ideas you need and ignore all the objections thereto by simply
> not looking at them.

That doesn't explain why this phenomenon seems to be largely unique to 
America.

> I personally think it was basically harmless until you gave the loonies
> a platform where they could reach other loonies without the rational
> people hearing them.

Yeah, probably...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 06:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> [Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally
>> gives up
>> trying to understand and asks me about something else.]
>
> That's not stupid. That's just not thinking like a computer scientist.

> It's only simple if you think his job should be to understand the
> scripts. I'd say his failure was asking you for the details in the first
> place.

Arguably yes.

Still, if "script X creates script Y and then runs it" is too complex 
for this guy to understand, how the hell is he going to cope when we 
have to decide between two competing products, both of which have a 
complex chain of dependencies and pose a different complex mix of 
certification requirements? Given that this is the exact thing we pay 
this guy to decide... slightly worrying.

Similarly, we have a guy who we employ for the sole purpose of writing 
our procedure documents. All day, every day, all this guy does is write 
documents. That's his only purpose. And yet, every document he's written 
has been a complex, twisted mess of poor grammer, ambiguous phrases and 
confusing sentence structure. WTF, people?

>> Perhaps
>> this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P
>
> Go read Dilbert. ;-)

First you laugh...

...and then you weep.

> Plus, you're interacting with them in a very restricted way about a very
> restricted topic. If you went out to the pub with them and asked them
> the meaning of life, they might be tremendously insightful. (Or not, mind.)

I don't know, whenever I've watched these guys at work, whether 
installing software or just casually chatting while they go through 
their email, they always seemed very dim to me. Not that I have any 
/highly/ objective way to measure that...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 9:59, Warp wrote:
>    So it's a kind of concession in the face of insurmountable evidence?

That's my understanding. I never heard of anyone talking about "kinds" vs 
"species" until people started claiming "you've never seen species" and 
others started saying "here's a list, yes."

For the same reason the nut-cases here are getting a platform to nut-case at 
others, you're also seeing the more blatant and easily-refutable claims 
being modified in a move-the-goalposts sort of way to account for the fact 
that it's trivial to look up a list of known specieation events.

> Yet variation, speciation and natural selection is what the theory of
> evolution is all about.

Yep. The claim is now generally that God put all the information about every 
species into the prototype "kind" creature, and you're not seeing any 
change, just differences showing up, sort of like getting a tan.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:00, Warp wrote:
>    I think Canada proves that hypothesis wrong, as Canada isn't any less
> multicultural as the US (and guns are quite popular there too).

Perhaps evidence against, yes. I think there's much more inter-culture 
hatred in America (intolerance?) than in Canada, even if there are the same 
number of different cultures. That's more what I was talking about.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:16:42 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:34:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > I don't even understand what rational reason there is to oppose that
>> > idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing?
> 
>> Yes, because it costs money to come up with alternatives, and people
>> are generally lazy and don't want to spend.  Especially here in the US
>> with the 'consumer society' we live in, it's all about getting *stuff*.
>>  We'd have to actually control our impulses in order to reduce
>> consumption.
> 
>   One problem with that lazy ideology is that most people assume fossil
> fuels will last forever. If we don't come up with alternative ways of
> producing energy, we are going back to the 19th century whether we want
> it or not, and that's going to happen relatively soon.

I don't think those who are lazy about it think they'll last forever, 
just that they'll last long enough to be someone else's problem.  Why 
solve a problem today when a future generation can deal with the 
consequences and adapt to it tomorrow?

>   Well, at least pollution will be reduced when we run out of fossil
>   fuels.
> Something positive at least.

I'm sure we'll come up with new ways to pollute the planet and then deny 
that we're impacting the environment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:04, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Saying "shut down 80% of the power plants in your
>> country and go back to 19th century technology" is something else.
>
>    How about "shut down 80% of the power plants in your country and move
> to the 21st century already"? Producing energy by eg. burning coal is just
> utterly stupid.

And what would you suggest for (say) a country that wants to industrialize 
that doesn't have the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors? A big city 
in Kenya, say, where 50 miles away people still spin wool by hand? How are 
you going to build a safe nuclear reactor? Or do you want to Chernobyl all 
over again?

Or China, where there was great outrage that they flooded out hundreds of 
square miles of villages to make a dam? Or in South America, where huge 
swaths of rainforest are drowned by dams?

Other renewable sources just don't cut it, really. Not yet, at least. But 
shutting down civilization before we've built a replacement is probably a 
bad idea. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:16, Warp wrote:
> fuels will last forever.

No, but there's a whole lot more natural gas and coal left than there ever 
was oil. :-)  It's just inconvenient to power vehicles with it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:31:06 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>>
>> Yes, unfortunately, one that manages somehow to wield political power
>> in order to advance their agenda.
> 
> I wonder how many people *actually* believe this insanity vs how many
> just go along with it because it benefits them.

Now *that* is a good question.  There are many followers of the 
Republican party that I know of who think the religious fundamentalist 
whackjobs are out of their minds, but they want fiscal conservatism and 
the only way to get that (that they can see) is to vote for the religious 
fundamentalist whackjobs because the alternative are those "pinko-commie-
socialist liberals" in the Democratic party.

That's how the whackjobs get into power - they have their loony ideas 
about science, but they at least *look good* on paper when it comes to 
fiscal responsibility (though in reality, they're really no better than 
the Democrats in most cases) or they appeal to the social conservatives 
for their stands on things like abortion and gay marriage.

Many people who vote Republican tend to vote on a single (or small number 
of issues), whereas liberals tend to vote more on 'big picture' (which 
has the unfortunate side effect of being very difficult to articulate, so 
often they get votes because they're *not* Republicans more than 
anything, I think).

>>> (I don't know about crazy, but all the American people that I've
>>> personally met have been notably stupid. Given the tiny sample size,
>>> that's not terribly significant, however...)
>>
>> You've met several up here (though not in person which is what I
>> suspect you mean), but you should know better by now than to make
>> generalisations about a society where you have a very small sample
>> size.  If you don't, it's time that you learned that lesson.
> 
> That would be why I tossed in "not terribly significant".

Fair point. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, yeah, obviously. I'm sure there are remote countries that nobody has
> ever heard of where people still regularly get stonned to death.

Like, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Pakistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Afghanistan

Please tell me you've heard of at least one of those countries.

Contrast with

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom#20th_and_21st_centuries>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States#Prosecution_for_blasphemy>

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> decide between two competing products,

He asks his experts and evaluates their response.  *His* job is to evaluate 
which experts to hire.  Now, it's entirely possible he can't do his job 
either, but that's a different thing there.

> been a complex, twisted mess of poor grammer, ambiguous phrases and
> confusing sentence structure. WTF, people?

I've noticed that sort of thing, yes.

> I don't know, whenever I've watched these guys at work, whether installing
> software or just casually chatting while they go through their email, they
> always seemed very dim to me.

It's possible your company hires lots of stupid people. It's possible your 
preconceptions make you notice their stupid bits and forget their smart 
bits. But generalizing that to an entire country makes *you* sound stupid 
even when you're not. See how that works? :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:22, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> First, I think this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't remember
>> anything beyond arguing over abortion and making fun of TV megachurch
>> preachers until maybe 20 years ago. Nobody argued over evolution or kicked
>> people out of school for saying "One Nation Under God" or whatever. Religion
>> was just a non-subject for the most part.
>
>    I don't think that's completely true. See for example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Not completely true, no. But I mean this trial was a big thing even at the 
time, with the arguments coming from presidential candidates and such.

I didn't literally mean *nobody* argued over evolution. Just that it wasn't 
a part of the normal culture. I never heard of anyone filing a lawsuit over 
christmas trees on government lawns, or over saying "under god" in school 
each morning, or getting kicked out for wearing a t-shirt that says you're 
an atheist or wearing christian jewelry.  You got yelled at for writing 
swear words on the blackboard, not religious words.  None of that crap was 
part of the daily political scene 25 years ago.

You can point to a well-publicized big thing like that, but that's like 
showing one airliner crash and saying "see, since it was in all the news, 
planes must be much more dangerous than cars."

On the other hand, maybe back before 1950 or so, it *was* a bigger thing. I 
wasn't around to take note, tho.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> First you laugh...
> ...and then you weep.

http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/10000/8000/900/118932/118932.strip.print.gif

Today's, relevant.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> On 4/14/2011 10:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> First you laugh...
>> ...and then you weep.
> 
>
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/10000/8000/900/118932/118932.strip.print.gif

> 
> 
> Today's, relevant.

a true dickhead. lol

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 10:04, Warp wrote:
> > Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
> >> Saying "shut down 80% of the power plants in your
> >> country and go back to 19th century technology" is something else.
> >
> >    How about "shut down 80% of the power plants in your country and move
> > to the 21st century already"? Producing energy by eg. burning coal is just
> > utterly stupid.

> And what would you suggest for (say) a country that wants to industrialize 
> that doesn't have the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors? A big city 
> in Kenya, say, where 50 miles away people still spin wool by hand? How are 
> you going to build a safe nuclear reactor? Or do you want to Chernobyl all 
> over again?

  And do you think burning coal is the solution?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 10:16, Warp wrote:
> > fuels will last forever.

> No, but there's a whole lot more natural gas and coal left than there ever 
> was oil. :-)  It's just inconvenient to power vehicles with it.

  Did you see the lecture I posted in another thread? Even if there is
more natural gas and coal than oil, it won't last long because the
consumption rate is growing exponentially.

  The only way to make it last longer is to halt the consumption rate
growth.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Now *that* is a good question.  There are many followers of the 
> Republican party that I know of who think the religious fundamentalist 
> whackjobs are out of their minds, but they want fiscal conservatism and 
> the only way to get that (that they can see) is to vote for the religious 
> fundamentalist whackjobs because the alternative are those "pinko-commie-
> socialist liberals" in the Democratic party.

  When will the Americans realize that a two-party system does not work
very well?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 11:48, Warp wrote:
>    And do you think burning coal is the solution?

A solution to global warming? No.  A solution to running out of oil? Quite 
possibly.  A solution to having a power generation technology that a poor 
uneducated population can use without fear of actually killing people on the 
other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I didn't literally mean *nobody* argued over evolution. Just that it wasn't 
> a part of the normal culture. I never heard of anyone filing a lawsuit over 
> christmas trees on government lawns, or over saying "under god" in school 
> each morning, or getting kicked out for wearing a t-shirt that says you're 
> an atheist or wearing christian jewelry.

  I don't understand how it can be legal to expel someone for the sole
reason of wearing a t-shirt that says you're an atheist. That *sounds*
like blatant discrimination and grounds for a juicy lawsuit (not to talk
it being unconstitutional).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 11:50, Warp wrote:
>    The only way to make it last longer is to halt the consumption rate
> growth.

Agreed. And that's why there's so much debate in the global warming circles. 
How do you halt the consumption of fossil fuels without killing (or throwing 
back to pre-industrial age technology) large numbers of people?

You look at graphs like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PU200611_Fig1.png
and you have to wonder who is kidding whom. There's no way for a layman to 
look at that and guess who is right and who is wrong and who is lying.

You look at graphs like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_history.svg
and ask "say we cut our fossil fuel usage in half today. Then what?"


While I think that nuclear energy is probably a good idea, it's hard to deny 
that it can have wide impacts when done wrong, and we don't seem to be able 
to do them right yet. Even if technologically we know how to build a 
completely safe reactor, we'll still have the china syndrome going on. (Not 
the meltdown, but the moral of the movie.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 11:48, Warp wrote:
> >    And do you think burning coal is the solution?

> A solution to global warming? No.  A solution to running out of oil? Quite 
> possibly.  A solution to having a power generation technology that a poor 
> uneducated population can use without fear of actually killing people on the 
> other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.

  Burning coal is only a temporary solution, and a bad one. I don't think
poor countries need any more pollution than they already have. (After all,
many parts of eg. Africa are already really polluted. For example, many
rivers that used to be pristine 100 and even 50 years ago are nowadays so
polluted that you could clean your paintbrushes in them. You certainly
wouldn't want to swim in them.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 11:52, Warp wrote:
>    When will the Americans realize that a two-party system does not work
> very well?

Oh, I think we figured that out a while ago. (Actually, it's not a two-party 
system. It just devolved into that. There's nothing in the original 
constitution about political parties at all, and it was one of the early 
amendments that said the president and vice president had to come from the 
same party.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In any case, the real problem (as in any government) is when you realize 
it's broken, it's the people already in power who have to make the change. 
If you don't get it right to start with, it stays broken in any way that 
benefits the continuance of the power of people in power.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 12:04, Warp wrote:
>    Burning coal is only a temporary solution, and a bad one. I don't think
> poor countries need any more pollution than they already have.

Suggest an alternative. Note that "ox-driven pumps" is not an alternative. :-)

 > (After all,
> many parts of eg. Africa are already really polluted. For example, many
> rivers that used to be pristine 100 and even 50 years ago are nowadays so
> polluted that you could clean your paintbrushes in them. You certainly
> wouldn't want to swim in them.)

Sure. And some rivers in India are also polluted just because of how many 
people live and bathe and crap in them. The problem is less "industry" and 
more "people". Industry just lets you put too many people in too small a place.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 11:55, Warp wrote:
>    I don't understand how it can be legal to expel someone for the sole
> reason of wearing a t-shirt that says you're an atheist.

The authorities treated it the same as someone wearing a shirt that said 
"nigger" on it or something. Basically, it was insulting and harassing the 
people who aren't atheists. They treated it the same way as they would have 
treated someone religious preaching at you during class.

The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that they 
can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way they are, 
and that's somehow harmful to them. Of course, it *is* harmful to their 
beliefs, but they're not going to argue "it points out how wrong we are" as 
a bargaining point, so instead you get this generalize "offends me" kind of 
argument.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:04:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

>> A solution to global warming? No.  A solution to running out of oil?
>> Quite possibly.  A solution to having a power generation technology
>> that a poor uneducated population can use without fear of actually
>> killing people on the other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.
> 
>   Burning coal is only a temporary solution, and a bad one.

I'd have to agree with Darren here, it may be a bad solution, but unless 
there is another solution, the alternative is "well, it sucks to be you 
since you won't have power - deal with it."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:52:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Now *that* is a good question.  There are many followers of the
>> Republican party that I know of who think the religious fundamentalist
>> whackjobs are out of their minds, but they want fiscal conservatism and
>> the only way to get that (that they can see) is to vote for the
>> religious fundamentalist whackjobs because the alternative are those
>> "pinko-commie- socialist liberals" in the Democratic party.
> 
>   When will the Americans realize that a two-party system does not work
> very well?

Some of us realise that already - but unfortunately, what Douglas Adams 
observed in one of the Hitchhiker's books rings very true over here:

http://www.elorasoap.com/working_k/karensloop/lizard.html

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:16:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them.

Except that that didn't work in the appeal on Prop 8, as I understand it 
- didn't the court find that those who claimed that gay marriage harmed 
them didn't actually have standing to sue because they couldn't 
demonstrate how they were harmed?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 06:56 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 10:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, yeah, obviously. I'm sure there are remote countries that nobody
>> has
>> ever heard of where people still regularly get stonned to death.
>
> Like, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc?

Yes, like those.

> Please tell me you've heard of at least one of those countries.

*sigh* It appears I am doomed to forever be taken literally.

> Contrast with
>
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom#20th_and_21st_centuries>
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States#Prosecution_for_blasphemy>

Damn. I had no idea the country I live in is so stupid...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> decide between two competing products,
>
> He asks his experts and evaluates their response. *His* job is to
> evaluate which experts to hire.

I don't think he knows that. He seems to think is job is "to be in 
control of *everything*, so I look as important as possible".

> Now, it's entirely possible he can't do
> his job either, but that's a different thing there.

;-)

>> been a complex, twisted mess of poor grammer, ambiguous phrases and
>> confusing sentence structure. WTF, people?
>
> I've noticed that sort of thing, yes.

To be completely fair, you *could* imagine that the guy wrote a document 
that was clean and simple, and then a dozen people said "change X, take 
out Y, add Z, rearrange these two sections..." and it ended up being 
spaghetti.

Then again, this person's entire job function is to make it *not* be 
spaghetti, so... that's not really much of a defense.

> It's possible your company hires lots of stupid people. It's possible
> your preconceptions make you notice their stupid bits and forget their
> smart bits. But generalizing that to an entire country makes *you* sound
> stupid even when you're not. See how that works? :-)

Well, I did point out it was a small sample size...

You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing 
that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people 
live there. Then again, I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world 
thinks us British people still wonder around wearing top hats and 
tailcoats...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 12:53, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:23:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>>> It's a fairly fine distinction, I think.
>>>
>>>
>> Not that fine IMO
>
> How so?
>
> Jim

You can beleive something based on knowlege, but you can also beleive in 
something outside of any knowlege.

Strictly, beleif don't need to rely on knowlege and knowlege don't lead 
to beleiving.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:53:16 -0400, Alain wrote:

> You can beleive something based on knowlege, but you can also beleive in
> something outside of any knowlege.
> 
> Strictly, beleif don't need to rely on knowlege and knowlege don't lead
> to beleiving.

I can see that - and in the broader discussion of what is antithetical to 
knowledge, "faith" is a better answer than "belief".

But belief and faith are similar if belief isn't based on knowledge; the 
'fine distinction' I'm referring to is that faith implies no (need for) 
knowledge, whereas belief has no such inference.

I guess in some ways it depends on which definition of 'belief' you're 
using (much the same as my earlier discussion on the proper usage of 
'theory' by creationists).

OED says there are several definitions; the definition that requires 
knowledge (or one of them, in any event) has to do with 'mental 
acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground 
of authority or evidence.'.  That differs from definitions pertaining to 
religious belief, or the 'trust in God'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/13 18:02, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 4/13/2011 7:24 AM, Warp wrote:
>> (For example, what possible reason
>> can a creationist have to believe that genetic mutations are rare and
>> always destructive and cannot possibly explain the diversity of life?
>> There is no reason other than that they are just expanding their aversion
>> to the entirety of the theory and perceive it to be *entirely* wrong
>> in all
>> possible aspects, even in aspects that don't really matter from a
>> religious
>> point of view.)
>>
> Standard trope for them is that there are only a small number of
> "Kinds", of which humans are the unique one, without any kin, and that
> all the diversity came about shortly after the flood, when god simply
> "poofed" all the variations into existence. They need this to be true,
> otherwise the Ark and Noah's flood are not possible.

It seems like Noa was in fact Gilgamesh, modified in some romantic way 
making him older and whiser, and the Great Flood realy an exeptional, 
but still localised, flood in Mesopotamia. That "All Animals Of 
Creation" was rather "most commonly domesticated animals".

Viewed that way, the Ark was rather a compound rafts ship: A ship made 
up of a collection of several rafts linked together to reduce the 
manpower needed for navigation and increase the cargo capacity.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:47:58 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Damn. I had no idea the country I live in is so stupid...

Surprise, stupidity is a global phenomenon; one might say it's a human 
characteristic.

Scott Adams once said 'we're all idiots from time to time'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 12:41, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/13/2011 23:11, Warp wrote:
>> I don't really even understand why they are so fixated
>> about that "kind hypothesis" anyways, as if it was somehow crucial.
>
> Because we have examples of observed evolution of new species during
> sufficiently recent history that it's scientific evidence. Hence, they
> can't say a kind is a species, because then they'd be admitting
> evolution actually happens.
>

Since Darwin published his theory there have been many experiments made 
to test it. Some are under way right now, several that where started way 
back then.

Some preliminary results show mice and others that diverged from a 
common stock so much as to be incapable to cross breed. Including with 
decendents of the original population that lived under normal conditions.
You have mice that lived in total darkness, or high temperature, of near 
freesing temperature, with very scarse food, almost no water, to much 
water, that need to travel long distance to get food and water,... for 
over 200 generations and counting.
You also have insects subjected to such environments for over 1000 
generations.

We have created entirely new and distinct species that way.

Those very long term experiments are proving the validity of the theory.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 09:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Scott Adams once said 'we're all idiots from time to time'.

"Every man is a damned fool for at least five minutes of every day. 
Wisdom consists of not exceeding that quota." (?)

"There are only two things which are infinite - the universe, and human 
stupidity. And I'm not even sure about the first one." (Einstein)

"In summary, people are a problem." (Adams)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 12:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:16:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
>> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
>> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them.
>
> Except that that didn't work in the appeal on Prop 8, as I understand it
> - didn't the court find that those who claimed that gay marriage harmed
> them didn't actually have standing to sue because they couldn't
> demonstrate how they were harmed?

Oh, it doesn't *always* work. But certainly it convinced a whole boatload of 
people that their own marriages were at risk due to gays still being allowed 
to marry.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 13:00, Warp a écrit :
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 4/13/2011 23:16, Warp wrote:
>>> Neeum Zawan<fee### [at] festercom>   wrote:
>>>> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
>>>> beliefs.
>>>
>>>     The US is not the only western country where gun ownership is legal and
>>> popular. It is not the explanation.
>
>> I've heard it's much more likely the diversity of culture here than the
>> presence of guns. Give the same number of guns to the Swiss or the Japanese,
>> and you (do/would) get no problems at all.  But here we have neighbors each
>> thinking the other shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen because of their
>> skin color, their religious belief, etc.
>
>    I think Canada proves that hypothesis wrong, as Canada isn't any less
> multicultural as the US (and guns are quite popular there too).
>

Canada may be more multicultural than the USA.
Yes, guns are popular, mostly in the rural regions. In the cities, they 
are'nt.

There is a BIG difference:
In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take 
the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from 
abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".

In Canada, you are encouraged to, within the confine of the common laws 
and respect to all other cultures, keep your culture and *share* it with 
the society. We try hard to "Be Friends"! Make our difference something 
that brings us together.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 14:53, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/14/2011 11:48, Warp wrote:
>> And do you think burning coal is the solution?
>
> A solution to global warming? No. A solution to running out of oil?
> Quite possibly. A solution to having a power generation technology that
> a poor uneducated population can use without fear of actually killing
> people on the other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.
>

Burning coal is very poluting. More than oil.

Cheap? Not realy, with all those, potentialy toxic, ashes to dispose of, 
and the transportation of the needed coal.

If you must use coal power plants, make them as powerfull and effecient 
as possible and install good and effecient antipolution equipment.

That way, you'll mitigate the problem.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:42:24 -0400, Alain wrote:

> In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take
> the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from
> abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".

I don't really see the majority opinion being the 'melting pot', but 
rather an "adopt our way of doing things or get out".  The melting pot 
idea is more about integrating other cultures into ours and the US 
growing that way, and there's an apparently strong movement to move 
towards less integration of other cultures' ideas into US culture and a 
strong push towards "you moved here, you're American now, so act like 
it!" (obvious in statements like 'learn English if you move here' and the 
recent laws that have been passed banning Sharia law (which I really 
don't understand the need for, quite stupid and ignorant if you ask me)).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:28:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 14/04/2011 09:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Scott Adams once said 'we're all idiots from time to time'.
> 
> "Every man is a damned fool for at least five minutes of every day.
> Wisdom consists of not exceeding that quota." (?)
> 
> "There are only two things which are infinite - the universe, and human
> stupidity. And I'm not even sure about the first one." (Einstein)
> 
> "In summary, people are a problem." (Adams)

Yep, all of those are relevant. :)  (The last being Douglas - rather than 
Scott - Adams.)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:31:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/14/2011 12:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:16:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
>>> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
>>> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them.
>>
>> Except that that didn't work in the appeal on Prop 8, as I understand
>> it - didn't the court find that those who claimed that gay marriage
>> harmed them didn't actually have standing to sue because they couldn't
>> demonstrate how they were harmed?
> 
> Oh, it doesn't *always* work. But certainly it convinced a whole
> boatload of people that their own marriages were at risk due to gays
> still being allowed to marry.

Absolutely.  But the court (rightly, IMNSHO) set them straight in ruling 
that they didn't have standing to sue over it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 14:07, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/04/14 14:53, Darren New a écrit :
>> On 4/14/2011 11:48, Warp wrote:
>>> And do you think burning coal is the solution?
>>
>> A solution to global warming? No. A solution to running out of oil?
>> Quite possibly. A solution to having a power generation technology tha
t
>> a poor uneducated population can use without fear of actually killing
>> people on the other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.
>>
>
> Burning coal is very poluting. More than oil.

Yes. People are starting to conflate the beginning of this thread (global
 
warming) with a comment by Warp that oil will run out soon. Coal won't ru
n 
out nearly as soon as oil. That doesn't have anything to do with the glob
al 
warming question.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 14-4-2011 21:16, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 11:55, Warp wrote:
>> I don't understand how it can be legal to expel someone for the sole
>> reason of wearing a t-shirt that says you're an atheist.
>
> The authorities treated it the same as someone wearing a shirt that said
> "nigger" on it or something. Basically, it was insulting and harassing
> the people who aren't atheists. They treated it the same way as they
> would have treated someone religious preaching at you during class.
>
> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them. Of course, it *is* harmful
> to their beliefs, but they're not going to argue "it points out how
> wrong we are" as a bargaining point, so instead you get this generalize
> "offends me" kind of argument.
>

So you would advise against wearing my '98% Chimp' t-shirt in public in 
the states?



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 17:28, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:42:24 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take
>> the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from
>> abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".
>
> I don't really see the majority opinion being the 'melting pot', but
> rather an "adopt our way of doing things or get out".  The melting pot
> idea is more about integrating other cultures into ours and the US
> growing that way, and there's an apparently strong movement to move
> towards less integration of other cultures' ideas into US culture and a
> strong push towards "you moved here, you're American now, so act like
> it!" (obvious in statements like 'learn English if you move here' and the
> recent laws that have been passed banning Sharia law (which I really
> don't understand the need for, quite stupid and ignorant if you ask me)).
>
> Jim

My statement is more about the *perception* from outside the USA, not as 
it's realy appening.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 4:47 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 10:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 4/14/2011 1:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> When I read stuff like this, I find myself wondering: Are all American
>>> people actually stupid? Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>>>
>> A very vocal and "powerful" minority
>
> I see.
>
>> Romans used to handle the situations: Make
>> sure your supporters are too ignorant to realize what is going on, then
>> distract them, as much as possible, with non-existent threats, and
>> pointless entertainments.
>>
>> There is hardly any point in being smart, if you are ignorant, your
>> history is handed to you by the very people that want to keep you that
>> way, and they know your fears, since they created many of them
>
> Sounds like America is the least-free country in the free world. o_O
>
Well. This trend is always with us, but it has only really become a 
serious problem in the last few generations. The drive to find your own 
path has been lost in many people, replaced with ennui, belief in 
inevitable failure, and laziness. It doesn't help that rejection of 
these things would require rejecting whole swaths of fictional history, 
religious dogma, and political partisanship, which have become a heavy 
part of some people's identities.

> Consider the following conversation:
>
> "So what do all these scripts do then?"
> "This script reads some data from the database and builds this script
> from it. It then runs this script, which does the real work of backing
> up the database."
> "OK. So... this script creates that one?"
> "Yes."
> "Right. So you mean, like, if I were to just completely delete this
> script, that script would recreate it next time you run it?"
> "Yes."
> "Hmm, OK. So why do you need that script then if this one gets created
> automatically?"
> "Because that script is the one that creates it."
> "Right, I see. So I could literally delete this right now and that
> script would recreate it?"
> "Yes."
> "OK, got it. So why don't you just rerun this script each time? Why do
> you have to recreate it?"
> "Because the structure of the database could change, but mainly because
> it copies the files into a folder with today's date on it."
> "Right, cool. So, do you really need to have two scripts?"
> [Repeat this exact conversation 6 or 7 times before the guy finally
> gives up trying to understand and asks me about something else.]
>
> Now if this was some random dude on the street, that would be fine. But
> it wasn't. It was the Senier Director of IT for the entire corporation.
> In other words, the guy in charge of all our IT.
>
> The fact that the Director of IT himself considers it necessary to
> personally understand how a minor piece of scripting works is either
>
> - taking an interest in employee talents
> - a reflection of the small size of our IT department
> - micromanagement / empire-building
>
> depending on your point of view. But the complete inability of the man
> to comprehend a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT even after having me explain it six
> different ways cannot be regarded as a good thing from any perspective.
>
> The other Americans I've worked with have all been similarly dense.
> Perhaps this is a reflection not of America, but of upper management. :-P

That would be the laziness and "partisanship" showing. One of the Faux 
elite, who imagine they need know nothing, understand nothing, and do 
nothing, except make sure other people know, and do things. The logic 
is, "Why should I have to know that, as long as someone else does, and 
it works?"

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:31 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Or is it merely a very vocal minority?
>>
>> Yes, unfortunately, one that manages somehow to wield political power in
>> order to advance their agenda.
>
> I wonder how many people *actually* believe this insanity vs how many
> just go along with it because it benefits them.
>
If you want a hint on that, Glen Beck, the "madder than a hater" wacko 
that helped promote the Birther movement in the US was caught on the 
O'Reily show saying that he thought Donald Trump was completely insane, 
if he actually believed it, and that he and O'Reily where simply paid to 
be provocateurs, unlike someone that actually believed that nonsense.

Hell no a lot of them don't believe one bloody bit of it. Mind, depends 
on which "bit" you think they believe. They whine about, for example, 
the life of unborn babies, yet statistically the same right wingers are 
the ones "most commonly" using the services, in some parts of the 
country. So.. What is the real problem they have with it? Well, one Tea 
Party Nation email seemed to imply that it was fear of being out breed 
by non-white people, due to women being able to choose if they have 
children, and the same women being encouraged to have careers (instead 
of being mothers). So.. Which crazy assed stupidity is the one that is 
really driving it? Or is it some third insanity that isn't in either one 
of those objections? The only thing certain is, they know which buttons 
to push among the gullible and clueless, whether or not their real 
reason for wanting it bares any resemblance to that thing or not.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 12:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 11:52, Warp wrote:
>> When will the Americans realize that a two-party system does not work
>> very well?
>
> Oh, I think we figured that out a while ago. (Actually, it's not a
> two-party system. It just devolved into that. There's nothing in the
> original constitution about political parties at all, and it was one of
> the early amendments that said the president and vice president had to
> come from the same party.)
>
Yeah, there was really no "parties" until about the time of the civil 
war. Then, a "Democrat" party rose in the south, in protest of their 
"civil right" to go any where they liked with their slaves, and other 
similar issues (where some northern states declared that slaves where 
flat out not allowed in them). They *wanted* a central government to 
have complete control over what those sorts of rules where. Some where 
along the line the Dems figured out they had been complete idiots, 
started fighting for real civil rights, while keeping the idea that you 
can't do that without a central authority to make it happen. The bigots, 
racists, etc., having no place else to go, changed sides to the 
"Republicans", and started whining about restoring the right of each 
state to screw over its people individually, without input from a 
federal government.

In a general sense, that is where the parties came from. One that 
believed in a nation, the other which, more or less, figured the US 
should be a bunch of individual nation states, with one sort of central 
watch dog, whose sole job was to coordinate things like wars, or the 
like, kind of like a king conscripting knights from other nobles, to 
fight someplace else, but otherwise letting the individual mini-kingdoms 
alone to do what they want. Personally, I can't comprehend, especially 
given some of the complete idiocy you see some states pass, how this 
"one nation divided" theory of government is supposed to work, even if I 
agree that the other system end up having a lot of useless waste, 
inefficiency and can sometimes oppose one "huge" stupidity over the 
whole, all at once. Neither is, I think, entirely workable, but you need 
a clear idea which stuff makes sense to run local and what has to be 
done globally, and not idiots screwing everything up by trying to 
micromanage the local stuff, from the center, or mismanage the global 
stuff, from 50 different states, with dozens to hundreds of different 
districts, all with different opinions on how much, for example, toxic 
waste, is "actually bad".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:53:05 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/14 17:28, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:42:24 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take
>>> the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from
>>> abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".
>>
>> I don't really see the majority opinion being the 'melting pot', but
>> rather an "adopt our way of doing things or get out".  The melting pot
>> idea is more about integrating other cultures into ours and the US
>> growing that way, and there's an apparently strong movement to move
>> towards less integration of other cultures' ideas into US culture and a
>> strong push towards "you moved here, you're American now, so act like
>> it!" (obvious in statements like 'learn English if you move here' and
>> the recent laws that have been passed banning Sharia law (which I
>> really don't understand the need for, quite stupid and ignorant if you
>> ask me)).
>>
>> Jim
> 
> My statement is more about the *perception* from outside the USA, not as
> it's realy appening.

That's fair - I'm also explaining my perception (which may or may not be 
completely accurate - the US is a big place, after all....)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I think it's more controversial what to do about it.  And at least
>> there's something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you
>> actually read the original source stuff.
>
> Certainly for those who believe science stands still - and that our
> understanding hasn't changed (or should I say 'evolved'? ;) ) since
> Darwin wrote about it.

Apparently Darwin didn't even *invent* the idea of evolution. He just 
made it popular by presenting a well-researched and compelling case for 
it, in a single large, self-contained document.

Post a reply to this message