Flat earthers are crazy

ers

one needs to understand them, and which ones are how important, and what o ther designs have missed. It's all reasoning plus other stuff. If you doubt it, ask a newbie to make design choices, they srew up on basic reasoning.

Of course, whether it illustrates the point we were discussing is less cert ain.

NT

ers

one needs to understand them, and which ones are how important, and what o ther designs have missed. It's all reasoning plus other stuff. If you doubt it, ask a newbie to make design choices, they srew up on basic reasoning.

Of course, whether it illustrates the point we were discussing I'm less sur e.

NT

Yes. My first big one was something I was almost 100% certain was impossible.

NT

That is one fallacy society has a real problem with today, appeal to authority. Sure it has its place, but it's well overvalued.

NT

I don't know why it matters, but I've been employed since graduating with my undergrad in EE.

And then the toilet lid fell on their heads.

Do you even know what 'Turn the other cheek' referred to?

A much easier question to answer than the one David Brown posed.

?Matthew 5:38?5:42 KJV

?Luke 6:27?31 KJV

The King James Version of the Bible isn't an entirely reliable translation, but I don't recall much controversy about those two passages.

All you need to demonstrate the earth-centric model is a burning brand from the fire - put it on the ground, lift it in a semi-circle over someone's head, and end behind a rock on the other side.

Lots of things are obvious with hindsight.

Yes, science and engineering have always worked together to make progress.

The biggest challenge with "appeal to authority" is getting the right authority. Ancient books are poor authorities on anything in modern society or the natural world. Even worse is the bizarre idea of listening to the opinions of pop stars and other celebrities as though they were experts on medical issues.

Yes.

I also know how different people have massaged its meaning, and interpreted it in different ways, in order to continue doing what they have always done while claiming to do so on divine authority.

Hypocrisy has always been popular with people in positions of power.

(Note that I don't think "turn the other cheek" is a sensible policy for a state leader - at least not all of the time. But I don't think religion has a place in any kind of government, and I don't think a literal reading of the Bible is a sensible way to live.)

When the ancient books were written, people had little other choice than listening to the pop stars and other celebrities of their time for medical and other advice. That is why the content of those books is mostly based on fantasy (there are some links to actual events but of course their record in the book is very distorted because the story has been written down centuries after it actually happened).

Today, we can choose between consulting celebrities or people who have actually studied the matter. Still, some people prefer the celebrities or even those old books. Strange.

I don't consider burning people at the stake for worshipping the wrong brand of the same monotheistic religion particularly appealing. YMMV

Our solar system is about half the age of the universe. The very first generation of stars would not have had enough metals to form planets.

There is time for at least one generation of stars perhaps two that could form planets prior to our solar system but the distances between stars means that unless they have developed truly astonishing propulsion systems they are highly unlikely to ever reach their nearest star except by perhaps sending a probe.

I prefer last Tuesdayism. It is pure heresy to believe in last Thursdayism on a Thursday.

You might be able to persuade a few superstitious Americans that intelligent design will hold water but in the UK most Victorians were able to understand the basics of Darwinian evolution.

The design errors in the human eye suggest that evolution produced it or that our intelligent designer was having a bad day. Take your pick.

Actually it is generally a good engineering heuristic to reject insane ideas unless they have at least some redeeming features.

Explaining things that we don't yet understand through scientific analysis with God-did-it just so stories has absolutely no merit.

Yours is truly the God of the gaps in human knowledge.

That's why I like small companies run by tekkies, where profit is an accidental byproduct of cool design.

Me too. Well, the company I work for is big enough now that it is run by people who understand things like money, customer relationships, and so on. But their attitude is that the administration exists to let the tekkies do their jobs, not that the tekkies exist to work for the administrators. And that's the way it should be :-)

Usually, the tekkies exist to implement what the salesmen have already sold to the customers...

In case you haven't already seen it:

My daughter does all that for me. But I'm still Dad (and still the President) to tech still comes first.

HP was great as long as H and P ran it.

But their attitude is that the administration exists to let the

Not here.

I'd go a little further and say "while they were alive and active". Their influence lived on for a few years as they became less active.

Carly Fiorina (yes, the Republican presidential hopeful) explicitly dec;ared the HP Way was dead and replaced, IIRC, by the Rules of the Garage or somesuch instantly forgettable blather.