Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Surely just any thinking at all would do it (Score 4, Insightful) 1258

Although I'd agree with you, I think it's necessary to point out that these aren't the normative beliefs of Christianity. As those assertions go, they're over-represented among Christians in the U.S., so it skews our sample set; but that doesn't mean that it's the definitive rebuttal of Christian belief.

Just sayin'...

Comment Re:Uh, okay? (Score 5, Informative) 59

It's simply meant to be an implementation of a heuristic, based on the traveling salesman problem, that takes into account physical considerations (speed, acceleration, direction) and processing limitations (RAM, processor cycles) for both initial setup and decision-making at each step.

The speed/direction stuff reminds me of the kind of skating that hockey players do (is it more effective to go in one direction, stop, and turn around, or is it better to modify your line and preserve momentum? in this game, too, is it better to accelerate greatly and bounce off a wall behind your target, or approach more slowly in order to modify your line without an abrupt change in direction?).

The processing limitations are interesting too, and provide for an interesting optimization exercise.

Or, by "I don't understand", should I simply answer "it's fun"...? ;)

Comment Re:Adult stem cells better then fetal? (Score 4, Informative) 236

Right now, Fetal Stem cells have many more advantages.

Except that these are multipotent, not pluripotent stem cells, and therefore, we're not talking about fetal stem cells.

The sources for MSCs include "umbilical cord blood, adipose tissue, adult muscle or the dental pulp of deciduous baby teeth"... but not fetal stem cells.

Nice try, though...

Comment Re:Of course it does (Score 2) 1797

Nearly every job requires a BS or BA...even if they don't care which subject. A University should be a place of higher learning and research, not a factory for just the next step in education.

Umm... that's exactly the idea! The subject, in some ways, shouldn't matter -- after all, it's higher education, not technical school! If you spend the time working on a degree, regardless in which department, you've ostensibly grown in knowledge, in a "Renaissance 'man'" kind of way! It's precisely in its mission as "not a technical school factory" that the university exists!

Comment Re:Science is being bullied (Score 1) 947

Religion by definition is the enemy of science. It's believing something without evidence. The minute you have evidence that religion becomes science.

That's not at all the case, although it's close.

Science is the search for evidence of provable, physical phenomena and the development of theories based on an understanding of that evidence. Religion speaks to a metaphysical reality and an understanding of it. Physical evidence does not play the role in religion that it does in science.

When one attempts to play either game by the other's rules, one either fails, and/or misunderstands one -- or both -- endeavors...

Comment Re:Science is being bullied (Score 1) 947

You're wrong in your assumption that smart people with convincing evidence can convert religious people into accepting science as a good method to describe the world.

Wow... whose post are you responding to? Certainly not mine... I didn't suggest that convincing evidence always succeeds in winning arguments -- however, I *am* saying that it's necessary to have teachers who are able to present the convincing evidence.

Again... pardon? Where did I say that there isn't enough supporting evidence?

There are many people who just don't listen, and it's hard to convince anyone who just doesn't listen.

Apparently, there are also many people who don't read... and it's hard to convince anyone of your points if they don't read them outside of their own internal monologues... ;^)

Comment Re:Science is being bullied (Score 1) 947

Oops... forgot to sign in before posting this. Didn't want to post AC, so just IDing this as my post...

No... science is being *questioned* and that's a Good Thing. Now, what we need is people who can answer the questions with supporting evidence, and an explanation that helps people see that Science .NE. Religion, and neither poses a threat to the other. Science doesn't answer religious questions, and religion doesn't answer science questions. Period. It's only when we "cross the streams", and try to make one discipline answer the other's problems that we get into trouble.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 779

Interesting discussion! (Nonetheless, it's filled with mis-assumptions about Christian belief; moreover, it's pretty much a point-for-point rehash of Medieval Islamic Philsophy -- see, back then, Islamic philosophers were dealing with the implications of Ancient Greek philosophy, and had a hard time reconciling it with their belief in an omnipotent Allah. They, too, posited that, since God could do everything, that everything that happened wasn't really our own free will -- or even action -- but rather, just the act of a puppet.)

For example, one famous argument was that, since God was omnipotent, the idea that we actually act runs counter to that argument. Therefore, if we put a lit match up to some cotton, the resulting fire couldn't be anything that we caused, or else it would nullify God's omnipotence. Instead, there was just the illusion that the fire that we thought we initiated actually caused the fire in the cotton; rather, God simply put the fire there, ex nihilo, in order to keep up the illusion he created. You can see what this does to free will, and how it dovetails with your argument.

As another has noted in this thread, "God works through us" doesn't mean "God directs our actions"; rather, it simply means that we work, and in doing so -- out of our own volition -- we may do the will of God.

The implication is that, although God knows the result of the soccer game, he doesn't take any action to influence that outcome. He's outside of the space/time construct; therefore, for him, it's "preknowledge", although to us, it appears as "predestination".

Calvinists would disagree with this argument -- they would argue for strict predestination. However, to argue that this is what Christianity teaches -- or moreover, that this is what it implies -- is to make an overly broad and reaching assertion...

Slashdot Top Deals

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw