...how does it work? I really don't care about the marketing bumph saying how clever it is - I want to see for myself!
70 posts • joined 18 Aug 2009
Is that a "fact" like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is a "fact"? And do you mean that all 66 books of the Bible written at different times by different people with different world-views and different intentions, some of them explicitly claiming to be historical truth are fiction, or just some bits? I know people argue that Jonah, or Job for example, are historical fiction but would you claim that the bits attested to by archaeology (like Pontius Pilate, to pick a random example) are fiction? And what do you mean by "fiction", anyway? If a story demonstrates a true principle or moral, but isn't actually a historical record is it fact or fiction?
"Having placed the satellite, the SUS can then return to rendezvous with the Skylon and be stowed away again in the payload bay for return to Earth, refuelling and re-use."
The SUS will have quite a lot more kinetic energy than the SKYLON at this point. It's going to "rendezvous" and be "stowed" much like the SM-3 missile that rendezvoused with and was stowed in satellite USA-193.
I don't really care to argue a specific proposition. If I did, then yes the burden of proof (or at least reasonable evidence) would be on me. Likewise, if you wished to convince me of a proposition (be it a negative or positive assertion), then you would be the one who needed to come up with the goods.
My original assertion was that I recommend one not dismiss the possibility of miracles at Lourdes on the basis of assumption. That's still my recommendation, but no one is under any obligation to take my advice. Or to draw any particular conclusion if they do decide to investigate further.
As for the smilies, I thought they might have taken some of the sting out of my sarcasm - keep it light rather than descending into character assassination. I was surprised at your insistence that you didn't want to look at any evidence before forming an opinion, you see. Anyway, either I misunderstood you or the humour didn't work, whatever.
So, sorry about that. Peace?
Please don’t make assumptions.
I looked up the number just before I posted in order to add weight to my argument that miracle healing is bunkum not out of curiosity as to its validity.
Apologies for the assumption. I hope I can make it right by complimenting you on your observance of the fine and honourable tradition of finding your forgone conclusion in the data. I had previously wrongly supposed that you had committed the despicable act of weighing the data and allowing it to inform your opinion.
get some severely critical scrutiny before being acknowledged. Personally I'm unconvinced on theological grounds that Lourdes should be somehow special. But when I looked into it some time ago I was surprised to find that my scepticism didn't fit well with the actual outcomes.
Anyway, I'd recommend caution rather than dismissing the whole thing out of hand.
"The police in turn checked in with the Seoul National University and Korean Institute of Science and Technology"
It really doesn't matter what the science crowd say. A theological claim is being made, not a scientific one, so the authority consulted ought to be a theologian.
I'm gonna get flamed/downvoted for this, I know.
...I'm still not stupid enough to confuse infringement of intellectual property rights with theft. In fact, if anything, over-zealous use of IP is more like theft than piracy is because the great effect of theft is that it unilaterally restricts use of an item.
Just thought that had to be said rather than allowing the notion to slip under the radar into our global consciousness with lines like the following:
"The net seizures came just one week after the White House announced its enforcement plan for confronting theft of intellectual property."
Sixty years ago the same basic kind of people helped Hitler form a police state which suppressed Jews (and others). Today the people aid the police in suppressing Nazi supporters. The only difference in the people is that they grew up under different presuppositions about who is good and who is bad. No one seems to realise that there is a problem with presuppositions that it's okay to suppress people. Of course, freedom of speech has its problems, but I'll take it over totalitarianism any day.
If you mean unquestioning acceptance of a large accrual of tosh, then no you cannot reconcile religion with science. But then under this definition, Christianity doesn't count as a religion (although that doesn't stop a lot of Christians from being "religious").
If you want a definition of "religion" that includes Christianity, then you're going to have to drop the 6000 years since creation claim and the false dichotomy between "creation" and "evolution". These simply are not affirmed by any core Christian doctrine. To whit, I direct you to the Nicene and Apostles creeds (google them), which say nothing about 6000 years or the mechanism by which biodiversity occurred.
Under this latter definition, there really isn't anything to reconcile.
Soon we'll have enough for a whole qubyte!
Ah, this takes me back to the heady days of non-quantum computing when researchers were coming up almost daily with new kinds of bit. Who could forget, for example, the hole in a piece of cardboard or the fiendishly clever toggle switch?
Why not scrap taxation altogether and simply agree that the government will print a certain amount of money each year for government expenses? Just think - no more tax returns, no more money spent on policing taxation, no more slipping through the cracks with tax free dividend & CGT income, no more low income traps, easily predictable inflation, ...
It seems like such a good idea that we'd already be doing it if there wasn't some disastrous downside. So what *is* the downside?
Of course BP is trying to control the reputational damage and have their angle represented. This is hardly evil - it's common sense. What are we going to do next, condemn them for spending $1.5bn and rising on the cleanup and containment effort because it's just a cynical ploy to win our affections?
Seriously, the motivations that need questioning are the ones behind the people who are reporting this "news" and manipulating the public to think that BP are evil as a result.
That's not to say BP aren't evil, there are already allegations that their safety standards weren't very good, but this will all come out in the wash eventually and when it does we'll be able to rationally decide how honourably they've behaved.
Its concentration decreases the more you spread it out. So mixing this stuff with the loop current sounds like it could be a great idea. Wouldn't it, just perhaps, have been useful if the computer model in question also gave and estimate of concentration and compared that to some reasonably safe level? You know, to give us an upper bound on the extent of the disaster.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020