gonvaled

70 ms·

721.
by gonvaled 10y ago
Also british - Cameron's father (and probably Cameron, caught lying), non the less. EDIT Why the downvotes? Factually incorrect? Don't think so: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david
722.
by gonvaled 10y ago
Don't agree. Refactoring does not mean that you need to refactor the tests, but that you will be testing other pieces. That is, when you refactor the old pieces are still there (in the libraries), and their tests still work, but you ar
723.
by gonvaled 10y ago
Genesis is metaphorical.
724.
by gonvaled 10y ago
Religion was at the center of everything when human knowledge was very limited, and religious claims could not be proved or disproved. While knowledge progresses, religion is still in the business of making claims about non-falsifiable thin
725.
by gonvaled 10y ago
Ah, ok, I would say the word "world" can be understood in this context as "universe"
726.
by gonvaled 10y ago
> That's pretty revisionist. Religion certainly was not like that in the past. "There is a teapot orbiting the sun, between Venus and Mercury". That is a very concrete fact, and in principle verifiable. I am anyway makin
727.
by gonvaled 10y ago
> Christianity is about the person of Christ, it's a historical claim, and therefore open to investigation by reason, according to the historical method What investigation? That there was a person called Christ living in that period
728.
by gonvaled 10y ago
The Big Bang is a scientific theory which follows (explains) what we know about the world. It is a testable and falsifiable theory. Science does not claim to know what happened before the Big Bang, and does not even claim that the Big Bang
729.
by gonvaled 10y ago
Well, I would say most religions have been forced then to become more and more "Deistic", since the influence of god in the world has become less and less easy to sustain. Current religions still claim that god takes part in the d
730.
by gonvaled 10y ago
> This is kind of weird. Most people I know would distinguish between "the world" (not created in the big bang) and "the universe" (also not created in the big bang -- it's an expansion event -- but at least rela
731.
by gonvaled 10y ago
The way they put it in the survey is exclusive: 93.9 + 6.1 + 0.0 = 100.0
732.
by gonvaled 10y ago
> 93.9% of Icelanders younger than 25 believed the world was created in the big bang, 6.1% either had no opinion or thought it had come into existence through some other means and 0.0% believed it had been created by God. Why are those e
733.
by gonvaled 11y ago
Were you scared when he bought three years ago, and went public?
734.
by gonvaled 11y ago
You are turning the tables here: it is not me the one postulating the existence of an non-falsifiable entity; quite the contrary: I am assuming that all phenomena in the universe is based on measurable quantities. You are advocating that co
735.
by gonvaled 11y ago
A person is also not a constant thing, but anyway past actions have a lot of weight. I do not trust them because what they did, how they did it, worked for them. They'll try again (they try still now, with a lower profile) whenever the
736.
by gonvaled 11y ago
(Sorry, out of context) > Would I trust a "redeemed" Greg Gopman. Nope. Which is exactly the same reason why I will never trust Microsoft: even if current actions are okayish, what they did in the past has disqualified them f
737.
by gonvaled 11y ago
Sure. Another level of conscience. Materialism accepts that things are neither white nor black, but gray; the world is more complex than what we want it to be; simplifications take you only so far. Rabits are more conscious that amoebas, an
738.
by gonvaled 11y ago
Not an expert, but I would say the opposite view is also not backed by studies, or can you correct me there?
739.
by gonvaled 11y ago
> Perhaps another sense could lead us into a entirely new conception of life. Exactly: other environments would push evolution (in whatever form happens in other ecosystems) in complete different ways. > Furthermore we really have no
740.
by gonvaled 11y ago
I am not with you there: in my opinion conscience is an emergent property of the way matter (in this case probably the human brain) is organized.
741.
by gonvaled 11y ago
> There are only a finite number of elements, and these elements are prouduced in similar ways due to radioactive decay and stellar processes. Of these, a simple study shows that carbon is best. Maybe another element (or compound) perfor
742.
by gonvaled 11y ago
When discussing these issues I have always the impression that we have a too strong anthropomorphic view. For example, we assume that life needs a liquid for support, but maybe it can work with other substance (gas, plasma, ...). We think
743.
by gonvaled 11y ago
Infuriating: "the rising tide model is no longer working" What dishonesty! What is a model that's supposed to produce results on the long term and destroys society on the medium term? A lie, that's what it is. Socialists
744.
by gonvaled 11y ago
I avoid self checkout - slow and inconvenient. But it's just a matter of improving the technology: we'll get there eventually.
745.
by gonvaled 11y ago
You fire one cashier and install 100 self checkout machines. Problem solved!
746.
by gonvaled 11y ago
Criptographicaly secure would be good enough for me. If the only means of craking the data us brute force, and it takes 1000 years with current technology to do so, then I'm happy. Iphones security can be circunvented by 6 engineers in
747.
by gonvaled 11y ago
The US has secret laws, secret trials, secret institutions, ... Basically, your country has long been run by secret powers, and you keep believing the show. The "FBI is trying to set legal precedent" is part of the show: if they g
748.
by gonvaled 11y ago
None of those countries continuosly bombard me about how free and good they are.
749.
by gonvaled 11y ago
Does everybody misspell its?
750.
by gonvaled 11y ago
The whole thing is a charade. Since the Snowden revelations we know that: - the NSA has access to any information it wants, with (coerced or not) collaboration from US companies - the affected companies can not talk about it. In fact, they

More ›