gort

28 ms·

241.
by gort 17y ago
Some points in the article could be queried... (but I'm not trying to suggest this invalidates the whole thing) the notion that being a brave warrior helps a man get the girls and leave many offspring has been toppled. Until missionaries m
242.
by gort 17y ago
Well, the claim that the opponent must be wrong, because he has committed a fallacy, is the fallacy fallacy...
243.
by gort 17y ago
There are a couple of explicit condemnations of gambling in the Qur'an, but not in the Bible [as far as I know, corrections welcome] - though things like condemnations of "love of money" might count as indirect condemnations of gambling, I
244.
by gort 17y ago
Putting aside the legal questions, the Wikimedia Foundation's moral position appears to be this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD...
245.
by gort 17y ago
Not necessarily - there's still voicemail to consider.
246.
by gort 17y ago
It's defensible because it's so vague. But if it's fleshed out so that the afterlife of the damned is so unpleasant that they would end their existence if they could, it comes to much the same thing. If it simply means annihilation, then fi
247.
by gort 17y ago
It's fairly likely that our civilisation, should it survive, will make great ethical progress and regard many of our views today as absurd. It's extremely unlikely that this progress will include approval of eternal torture.
248.
by gort 17y ago
I won't repeat what I said above, but I stand by it. We're not children; we're not so incompetent about ethics. "It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such." Indeed. Nevertheless, it is in the Bible you know: Mat
249.
by gort 17y ago
So, if only I had vastly more insight and wisdom, I might approve of torturing ordinary people forever? I find this extremely unlikely. If you're so agnostic about morality that you won't condemn the torture of ordinary people for eternity,
250.
by gort 17y ago
"So the opposite of "Brainy and Sexy" is a Conservative Christian?" Belief in a perfectly good being that tortures people forever if they don't believe in it: not brainy. As for sexy, well, I dunno. [ETA: Hmm, started a horribly off-topic s
251.
by gort 17y ago
Before he asks the question, there are 4 possibilities: 1. A lives, A gets told B dies 2. A lives, A gets told C dies 3. B lives, A gets told C dies 4. C lives, A gets told B dies Since in fact A got told that B dies, we are ei
252.
by gort 17y ago
"I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much." Debates just make both sides seem reasonable. Witness how many people in the U.S. take creat
253.
by gort 17y ago
Well. The user's reaction when the news finally went mainstream - "Is this enough proof you fucking retards? I was right" - suggests to me he was just someone who got frustrated that his (correct) edits were being removed. http://en.wikipe
254.
by gort 17y ago
That's the talk page history, not the article history.
255.
by gort 17y ago
In the Wikipedia article history, I can find the edit you mention at 21:12 and the edit freeze at 21:45, but not the edit you mention at 21:48... This page should show the relevant part of the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t
256.
by gort 17y ago
"This is not an issue on Boeing aircraft." Well. OK. I'm willing to concede that either the programme, or my memory of it, could be wrong. [Edited to add: Wikipedia backs you up on the very sensitive rudder controls on an Airbus. I think wh
257.
by gort 17y ago
"The suggestion is that pilot-commanded rudder inputs put the rudder beyond its structural limits." I know - my point was that, as far as I can remember from the documentary I saw, this danger wasn't/isn't peculiar to Airbus planes. And as
258.
by gort 17y ago
"Rudder reversal is a different issue." I don't believe so. > The bulletin also stated that a rudder reversal was also known as a "rudder doublet" and was defined as "a large rudder deflection input in one direction followed immediately
259.
by gort 17y ago
"the underlying "it's safer in a Boeing" bias." Indeed. I saw a documentary on Flight 587 a while ago, and seem to distinctly remember that both Airbus and Boeing planes suffer from this "rudder reversal" issue.
260.
by gort 17y ago
I found this article quite compelling: http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drive... Imagine you do have an AI with a certain goal. It seems obvious that: It will resist being switched off (because if switched off it can
261.
by gort 17y ago
"those who pretend to be concerned with something other than their own welfare are in denial at best, and manipulative liars at worst." http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy You are not me.
262.
by gort 17y ago
However, I take it almost no murders have ever been committed for the purpose of distributing pictures of them.
263.
by gort 17y ago
There's a fictional character called Jennifer in the piece, who finds smoking morally wrong. Is this really a common view? Surely few people object to it if it's done in a way which minimises or eliminates passive smoking...
264.
by gort 17y ago
If my teeth aren't rotting (they're not) and I'm not getting fat (I'm not) then why shouldn't I? (I do.) It wasn't exactly obvious to me that it would be depleting my potassium levels. :)
265.
by gort 17y ago
This doesn't appear to be true. In an article linked to by the story: http://jcs.org/notaweblog/2009/03/06/trying_to_game_swoopo_c... we are told that last-second manual bids had a possibly suspicious tendency to get lost, and it is hard
266.
by gort 17y ago
I'm not sure I understand you perfectly. A phylogenetic tree (which is essentially a family tree, but for multiple species or even all of life) can certainly be constructed on the basis of DNA alone. But I guess you mean it won't tell us (f
267.
by gort 17y ago
On Wikipedia you can create a "redirect" by making an article whose sole content is, say: #redirect [[Pelagic armorhead]]
268.
by gort 17y ago
The headline makes it sound as if this is the first such thing ever found. I'd like to point to arch-Darwinist P.Z. Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masilla... "The hype is bad news, not because Ida is unimporta
269.
by gort 17y ago
This is the link you intended: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer%27s_paradox
270.
by gort 17y ago
Isn't taxation precisely that? I mean, if the government coming and taking some portion of your stuff isn't an infringement of your negative rights, what is? Yet I'm all for tax, if it pays for necessary stuff.

More ›