And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

Empirical observation is very powerful, and obviously very useful, and I am not casting any doubt on that. Empirical evidence is good enough for most things, but usefulness does not justify it as a standard for truth. If you want to say we must have empirical evidence for everything except for the idea that we need empirical evidence for everything, then this is what is known as special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

The problem of induction is simply pointing out the lack of rationale for why there should be a uniformity in nature (the constancy of natural law). Science has no answer for it; should the problem be ignored in order that the assumption may be justified? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

I think you're mistaking my position because I am not trying to equalize science and religion; I don't see any conflict between the two. In my worldview, everything that science does is completely justified. I can explain why there is uniformity in nature, and why empirical observation works and can be trusted. My worldview explains why we can know something to be true, and where our rationality comes from. The naturalistic/atheistic worldview can explain approximately none of these things. My argument, essentially, exposes the gaping holes of that position and the leaps of logic over those holes that must be made to justify it.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

Most of what I am called to do as a Christian is predicated in some way upon empirical observation. I am not challenging its usefulness at all; what I am really pointing out in this reply is that the problem of induction is only a problem for the atheist/agnostic and not the Christian.

What you seem to be saying here is that we must have a standard even if we can't explain it. If that is so, or even if it isn't, then I am here to tell you that we already have a standard given to us by the God who created you and me. He told us directly what this standard was when He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for our sins. The standard is Jesus Christ Himself, who said He is the way the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. What He told us is that we must repent of our sins and believe on Him for forgiveness of our sins and that when we do we will be forgiven and receive eternal life.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

No Mouse.
I'm assuming the mouse came into being and obsoleted the touch screen technology before it even took off. I mean who wants fingerprints all over their computer screen.

>> ^Sepacore:

>> ^Yogi:
You don't get free money when an ATM spits it out...they have numbers on them you won't be able to use them you will get caught.

Not quite, comment based on too many movies and you're probably thinking of credit cards.
If your face doesn't get caught by the ATM camera, cash less than $100 changes hands too quickly for anyone to pin you as the one taking the cash from an ATM spit, unless video recordings at shops are involved.
Video recordings at shops won't be involved because cash isn't scanned when traded and therefore offers no immediate time stamp even if the cash numbers are checked later and reported to nation wide databases and flagged as stolen, which they aren't by any store I've worked for or heard of as would be a logistical nightmare and theft opportunity and would likely occur back at a bank after cash pickup.
Cash goes from your hand and straight into the cash draw, no way for the cash to be linked to you outside of DNA or fingerprint analysis.
Due to the many blind spots, the only way i can see someone being caught is if the ATM video recording is linked to a face recognition database that has your face on record. Then it wouldn't matter whether you spent the money or not regardless of the numbers.
The numbers don't stop you from using the cash, nor do they definitely pin one as the thief. They merely help to track the cash after the fact and offer circumstantial evidence.


I've never seen a movie where this has happened. Also you point out that they can track the cash and use it as evidence against you or they could get your picture. That sounds like an open and shut case. Also I've heard of this happening before and the people were caught sooo, thanks.

>> ^Yogi:

You don't get free money when an ATM spits it out...they have numbers on them you won't be able to use them you will get caught.


Not quite, comment based on too many movies and you're probably thinking of credit cards.

If your face doesn't get caught by the ATM camera, cash less than $100 changes hands too quickly for anyone to pin you as the one taking the cash from an ATM spit, unless video recordings at shops are involved.

Video recordings at shops won't be involved because cash isn't scanned when traded and therefore offers no immediate time stamp even if the cash numbers are checked later and reported to nation wide databases and flagged as stolen, which they aren't by any store I've worked for or heard of as would be a logistical nightmare and theft opportunity and would likely occur back at a bank after cash pickup.

Cash goes from your hand and straight into the cash draw, no way for the cash to be linked to you outside of DNA or fingerprint analysis.

Due to the many blind spots, the only way i can see someone being caught is if the ATM video recording is linked to a face recognition database that has your face on record. Then it wouldn't matter whether you spent the money or not regardless of the numbers.

The numbers don't stop you from using the cash, nor do they definitely pin one as the thief. They merely help to track the cash after the fact and offer circumstantial evidence.

I bet it's a bitch to turn on this bike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

Also 3 days later this guy was found dead with a petroleum covered fingerprints all over this apartment.

whomever made this video is powerless, probably will be logging into his welfare account online with a government fingerprint scanner soon

Hate to break it to ya but 90% of law enforcement doesn't waste their time with fingerprints.

Someone broke into my house once through the front door which was a metal door, you'd think there would be a ton of prints. First I had to remind the cop to dust for prints and then he had a complete "I told you so" attitude after he didn't find any. Never did catch the guy either.

Just like I doubt these guys will get caught. Ever!

>> ^jan:

lots of finger prints left behind

Thanks for asking, that's very considerate of you and appreciated. No worries about crossing paths with me, it's bound to happen and all part of the game.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Hey,
I noticed we are both mining old videos for dead, length, and thumbnail points.

http://videosift.com/video/Red-Dwarf-Wilma-Flintstone

I don't want to step on your turf--or anything--should I leave videos with your fingerprints on them alone?

At first I thought they were using empire at war as the engine, but it does indeed look 2d so it is totally custom. Unfortunately it is kinda sad too, there is no excuse for that display to be chugging like that for 2d images (yes, even at a super high resolution wall display like this, todays consumer CPUs would make hundreds of thousands of 2d objects a joke to throw around).

As for the interface, well to be fair, the people who created this demonstration are probably not game creators. The interface looks nothing more then a simplistic method of choosing what ship types to spawn for an unwinable demonstration battle. In a real game things would be more stream lined. Empire at war is a good example of that. Alot of options can be automated, much like what would happen in a real battle, would you be the fleet commander and not worrying about the deployment of tie fighters from destroyers.

>> ^frizlefry:

Fingerprints on my screen and inefficient slow controls with the possibility of repetitive stress injuries? Sign me up!


Btw friz, welcome to 2011, with millions of touch phones and tablets all over the world being used. Todays glass can be coated in a way where thumb prints don't cause to much of an issue. May be a slight prismatic look when sweaty, but people have no problems enjoying gaming on them. The touch interface shown here is far more superior then a gamepad or mouse could do. Having one hand on a keyboard to help facilitate issuing command types with your next touch could easily be handled with an onscreen panel too.

I mean this interface will open up a whole new area to the possibility of them. The rotary cuff area is easier to aggravate with such injuries. I also forgot to mention prolonged arm waving is more tiring for the user as well. Another needless side effect from this "innovation" in game controlling. Futuristic user interfaces from the movies are designed to look cool, not stand up to repeated everyday human use. Nice flippant comment though

>> ^00Scud00:
>> ^frizlefry: Fingerprints on my screen and inefficient slow controls with the possibility of repetitive stress injuries? Sign me up! You mean that there are video games that don't involve repetitive stress injuries?

>> ^frizlefry:

Fingerprints on my screen and inefficient slow controls with the possibility of repetitive stress injuries? Sign me up!


You mean that there are video games that don't involve repetitive stress injuries?

Fingerprints on my screen and inefficient slow controls with the possibility of repetitive stress injuries? Sign me up!

>> ^westy:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
So, before humans, there were dinosaurs. Is it possible that there were periods of life before that - perhaps intelligent life - whose evidence has been erased by asteroids, weather and time?

That's deffinatly possible you would have thought there would be some evidence left maby its just in a place we have yet to look at , Atlantis , or underground .
but until there is evidence found then its like ghosts or yeties its just speculation and imagination.
Im not very knowlageable on the subject but due to the amount of earth thats populated by people and the different methods for testing things and all the looking around we have done ( geographical maps and servays ) if an inteligent or undustreal race of people existed before we probably would have found evidence for it by now , so that makes it less likely that there was another race unless they cleaned up very well.


Ever read, "Fingerprints of the Gods"? Fascinating book. It can easily be dismissed as quackery but he builds a solid enough case that it can pique a person's interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprints_of_the_Gods

I would recommend it to anyone looking for something entertaining to read.

You can't support the Netherlands approach to hard drugs while decrying the US Prohibition of alcohol. The US prohibition of alcohol was LESS STRICT than Dutch drug laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

In the Netherlands, drug use is illegal. Hard drugs are actively prohibited. As far as I can tell, alcohol consumption was never criminalized in the US, only the manufacture, trafficking, and sale. In practice, the level of enforcement is about the same. They're both "prohibition", not "regulation".

"You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal?" It certainly is for some people, or else you wouldn't find it in grocery stores and gas stations. It's certainly not comparable to the Dutch treatment of hard drugs, where _nobody_ can traffic it.

Any adult can purchase cigarettes. To purchase controlled firearms you need a background check and fingerprints, etc. Which of those models would be used for Heroin?