Interestingly, the Christian story and the simulation story are the only ones that solve every one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Christians actually follow the teachings of the Bible's new testament, and consider the old testament laws to be a fulfilled chapter of their predecessors, the Jews. With respect, my suggestion is that you read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.

Why, you must be referring to the "North American Blizzard of 1999"! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_blizzard_of_1999

Forrest, in what ways did your mother and father contribute, indirectly or directly, to your eventual success in science and technology?

I actually think it's pretty reasonable to question the emotional health of a person who (1) willingly insults people, and (2) "needs" to have half a million dollars per year just to be happy. Because I did just look up housing in San Francisco, and there are 2BR houses, with a patio, *in SF* that are as low as $350k. Are they common? Maybe not. Could you also rent? Yes. But really, this is an internet argument, so we could argue back-and-forth for days... I question you, you insult me, I question you back. You know how it goes. So let's stop. Because I (from your last reply) can already tell what you're like to work with, in general. So, you answered my question. Thank you.

Why should we trust someone who claims to "need" the amount of (250000 x 2) dollars just to stay happy? And I guess I'm really asking: What are you like to work with?

Well, since we (as humans) tend not to converse in math, why don't you explain it in English? I agree that explaining it in math would probably be wasting your time.

From the article: "Our research found that the fourth power is often inaccurate, " continuing: "More importantly, pavement serviceability is often not the most relevant measure used by highway agencies to trigger maintenance activities."

Just kidding.

One potential problem with that argument is that the societal masses can be too-easily manipulated, either from within or by external influences. Another is that you'd assert, then, that "society can say that it, itself is correct or incorrect," since society grants moral authority; thereby making all societies a form of collective leadership (see the Wikipedia series on Communism for more info). You can't guarantee that one sect within a global society wouldn't rise to dominance, and further that the one sect wouldn't be "wrong" (Perhaps they, themselves, believe they are right?). Moral relativism doesn't scale, even if you wish it so. Collective leadership never works, even if you wish it so. And, yes, the United States of America does grant rights based on a formal document (never challenged by any American party, president, or congress, ever) which assigns the right-granting power to a Creator. Just because you don't see it that way (where do you live, by the way?) doesn't mean it isn't the case for us. It's something we struggled with, in the past, and something that means a lot to us-- perhaps because of the value of our own struggles, and our eventual success. Show me who does it better.

Not according to the United States of America's Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html). Formally, in the USA, our Creator endows us with our rights as humans. Using this same model, we (as the creators of machines) would grant rights to our creations as we see fit. And we're not offended if you don't like it-- We'd actually be happy if you created the perfect country, with perfect rights for all. Go for it.

So, then, no fact exists outside of science? If so, doesn't the fact that science requires observation and repeatability imply a weakness? Perhaps a factual, world-knowledge-altering event is witnessed by a lone observer (assume this person is known to be of sound scientific background), yet the observation is (perhaps by its nature) unrepeatable and unknowable to anyone else. The observer stands fast to their belief that the details of the witnessed event are now fact, but no one else in the scientific community believes it. So, the observation, however unscientific, remains fact to at least one observer. Were it to happen, what would you make of this experience? Does science allow for it? Would any newly-witnessed facts be true? False? Would there be a superposition of "fact" and "not fact" from some reference frame?

Raise your hand if you guessed this was a girlintraining post before you even looked up the author!

I guess I should have read all of the comments before I posted, huh?! I said something to the same effect. School bullying is often the root cause of school shootings. So, stop the bullying if you want to stop more of the shootings.

Do we have a bigger school shooting problem, or a bigger bullying problem?