Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fallacy (Score 1) 842

by WillKemp (#47899429) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?

Yes, you do. The point you're trying to make is not clear. You seem to be offering this as evidence that "atheists flock to science" - but it's not evidence of that at all. It says nothing about atheists. However, it may say something about scientists. It may be evidence that scientists "flock" to atheism - but that's a totally different thing altogether, and has nothing to do with atheists flocking to science.

Comment: Re:Fallacy (Score 1) 842

by WillKemp (#47899411) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

It has nothing to do with atheism, but atheists flock to it because it gives them the proof and rationality they crave.

Was that your attempt to illustrate what a straw man is?

I've never noticed atheists having any more interest in science than christians. Atheists, however, tend to question things - and that's what science is all about, therefore some atheists may tend to have an affinity with science for that reason.

Comment: Lesson (Score 0) 90

by WillKemp (#47805325) Attached to: Researchers Say Neanderthals Created Cave Art

The lesson from the recent bout of frantic backpedaling on Neanderthals is not to take the slightest bit of notice of the extrapolations of archaeologists. The raw data of their findings is interesting, but it's always open to interpretation. However, archaeology as a science seem to be largely incapable of objective interpretation. Maybe it's time they stuck to digging things up and stopped trying to interpret what they find. That interpretation really requires quite a different discipline.

Comment: Re:New for Nerds? (Score 4, Informative) 132

News Ltd owns the only national daily paper, as well as the only daily paper in four state capitals, one territory capital, and a number of large regional centres - of the capitals, only Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra have competing daily papers. Admittedly, that covers nearly half the population - but that leaves a massive proportion of Australia dominated by Murdoch.

Comment: Re:New for Nerds? (Score 4, Insightful) 132

It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.

Comment: Re:Jungles, but I'm too scared (Score 1) 246

by WillKemp (#47652137) Attached to: I'd most like to (personally) explore:

1.8 what? If you're talking about deaths, then so what? The difference between 0.0018% and 0.0034% is minimal. But I'm talking about danger in general, not just danger of death. The chance of getting randomly bashed by a gang of drunken thugs on the streets of Kabul is zero - in London, it's high.

Comment: Re:Jungles, but I'm too scared (Score 2) 246

by WillKemp (#47645579) Attached to: I'd most like to (personally) explore:

In the UK there is pretty much nothing that can hurt you by way of flora and fawna (bee stings and bramble prickles aside).

Humans are fauna and the UK is the most violent country I've ever been to (I grew up there). I worked in Afghanistan in 06 and 07 and people would comment on how dangerous it was walking around Kabul - I used to answer "not nearly as dangerous as it is walking around London". One difference between the two cities is that if someone kills you in Kabul, it will be for a reason - in London it's just as likely to be because they don't like your shirt.

Real jungles are very tame places compared to that concrete one.

You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on. -- Hepler, Systems Design 182