Who told you that? It's about finding the simplest answer that will suffice. If the evidence points to things being more complicated, you need a more complicated explanation. It has nothing to do with plausibility.
You're definition is the correct one, of course, but to say it has nothing to do with plausibility is incorrect. What is found plausible or implausible is often based on the complexity of the explanation.
Or spelling Nazis (grammar).
The Judeo-Christian God may or may not exist; that's a philosophical question and not a scientific one.
In that science is evidence-based reasoning, science can be applied to the claims, and the Judeo-Christian God looks like any number of mythologies that Christians would snort at.
As Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
You should try reading the article where that quote comes from. Einstein completely rejected the idea of a Christian god or of any personal god. He was speaking of a more general, higher-level religion more in line with Buddhism, or as Einstein called it, "cosmic religious feeling":
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself."
I reject Einstein's notion of "religion", as he wants to define it, because it comes with too much baggage. Instead I prefer secular humanism, though it's pretty close.
There are four articles here with Einstein's writings on science and religion. The quote comes from the third:
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "
In relation to the topic at hand, evolution, from the same article:
"We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself."
Of course a modern knowledge of biochemistry and DNA completely supports this view.
No, not at all. Because rather than reducing the difficulty of the problem, you now have the increased difficulty of explaining the origin of the unknown intelligent agent. You've gone a step backwards.
Occam's Razor is about finding the most plausible answer. If the most plausible answer is "intelligent design", then Occam's Razor applies. True, you now have a new problem to solve, but that doesn't mean you can just discount the first step. As an example, intelligent design is the kind of thing we're looking for in the search for extraterrestrial life.
That said, I'm an atheist and believe the evidence is very much in favor of random, natural evolution over intelligent design.
That being said, a sheriff saying that America is a war zone when it is clearly not and using that as an excuse is pretty damn worrying. If you want better equipment, fine, say that. But when I walk outside my house, a war zone is not what I see. Sort of makes you wonder that, if America is a war zone, who are the police fighting against?
It's just a bullshit excuse for some redneck yahoo sheriff of a 14,000 person county to buy an expensive man-toy.
Sometimes 9/11 is compared to Pearl Harbor. But in all seriousness 9/11 does not compare to Pearl Harbor at all. During that attack we lost ships and sailors and airmen that we would need to save our nation and the pain to our nation included the threat of loss of the nation.
You're overplaying Pearl Harbor. The United States mainland was not in danger because of Pearl Harbor. All it did was set back our naval operations and gave Japan some breathing room in theirs. But due to our isolation, huge size, and manufacturing power, it was only a matter of time before we replenished and then some.
What it did do, however, just like 9/11, was shock the nation. And it wasn't just "some expensive buildings", it was the Twin Towers, the crown jewels of New York city, and also a direct hit on the Pentagon, a center for military operations. It showed a determined and coordinated enemy capable of great attacks.
Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for us, they didn't have good followups, but to say it wasn't a major attack on the nation is folly.
Yes, and I did say that it can result in a mess if misapplied.
You can't tell me it's being misapplied when the origin applies it in exactly that manner. You misunderstood, that is all.
While I agree that the principle can result in a mess if misapplied, my interpretation has always been that "be liberal in what you accept" only means that you should avoid defining rigid input formats full of arbitrary rules.
If you read the Wikipedia article, you'll see that it came about as advice for implementing the TCP protocol.
I don't think you quite understand the reason a lot of slashdot 'mods' (perhaps the parent) mod somebody a troll.
Mostly: Troll mod = "How dare you have that opinion, you fucking moron."
It's a garbage principle that makes a mess of the ecosystem, because then you have each implementation making different decisions on just how much slop you allow, resulting in programs that work differently on different systems. It's better to have hard errors.
Are you actually disagreeing with me?
I thought it was pretty obvious.
I don't think people set out to spend more than they can possibly make.
You're a responsible person who makes an effort to live within your means. There are many people who do not, and it isn't because they can't, it's because they do not want to.
Hint: Or they are just irresponsible and live beyond their means.
The uneducated masses just look at the end result, they see a site that makes it easy to get copyright infringing material, and they blame the site. A simplistic analysis and little value. Try digging a bit deeper.
Try making arguments based in reality and not on your flawed assumptions that you refuse to budge from, despite the facts being in plain sight and pointed out to you.
TPB adminstrators have gone out of the way to setup the systems so their actions are not contributing to copyright infringment.
This is complete bullshit. They advertise as a pirate site. They have a link on their front page to TV shows. In their About page, their only concern is that the content should match the description:
"The Pirate Bay only removes torrents if the name isn't in accordance with the content. One must know what is being downloaded.
(accordance with the content also means any torrents which description is made to match a certain search phrase that is not relevant will also be deleted)
Only torrent files are saved at the server. That means no copyrighted and/or illegal material are stored by us. It is therefore not possible to hold the people behind The Pirate Bay responsible for the material that is being spread using the tracker. Any complaints from copyright and/or lobby organizations will be ridiculed and published at the site."
That's their argument, not your stupid "oh gee, we dunno, maybe their is copyrightable material being linked to, maybe not, herp derp, we are just a common carrier".
The fact that you resort to personal attacks say more about your values that it does about me, so grow up.
It says I'm frustrated by somebody playing dumb. At least for your sake I hope you are just playing dumb and don't actually believe your own stupid statements, which are in complete contradiction with reality.
Now if you excuse me, I'm tired of repeating myself and responding to willful ignorance.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
