Which one do you believe Daddy?
Abbie: Which one of these do you believe Daddy?
Abbie: Mommy and I believe the 2nd one is right.
Me: I agree.
The Angular Mini-Book is a guide to getting started with Angular. You'll learn how to develop a bare-bones application, test it, and deploy it. Then you'll move on to adding Bootstrap, Angular Material, continuous integration, and authentication.
Spring Boot is a popular framework for building REST APIs. You'll learn how to integrate Angular with Spring Boot and use security best practices like HTTPS and a content security policy.
For book updates, follow @angular_book on Twitter.
The JHipster Mini-Book is a guide to getting started with hip technologies today: Angular, Bootstrap, and Spring Boot. All of these frameworks are wrapped up in an easy-to-use project called JHipster.
This book shows you how to build an app with JHipster, and guides you through the plethora of tools, techniques and options you can use. Furthermore, it explains the UI and API building blocks so you understand the underpinnings of your great application.
For book updates, follow @jhipster-book on Twitter.
Abbie: Which one of these do you believe Daddy?
Abbie: Mommy and I believe the 2nd one is right.
Me: I agree.
Posted by Adrian on May 23, 2008 at 08:06 AM MDT #
Posted by 212.59.201.209 on May 23, 2008 at 08:56 AM MDT #
Posted by Maarten on May 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM MDT #
I wish that we didn't make the creation of the Universe into a multiple choice question. Why can't we be content with some things just being a mystery? Do we really believe that we can fathom the creation of the Universe? Most of us can't even figure out how they get those tiny ships into the glass bottles. ;-)
That being said, cheers to your daughter for even thinking about these questions. I bet she's a smart one!
Posted by Chris M on May 23, 2008 at 12:10 PM MDT #
Posted by Ignacio Coloma on May 23, 2008 at 12:48 PM MDT #
This is awesome. How hold is she?
Chris M - human kind can't just accept the mystery because that is not in our nature. If it were we'd all still be shivering in a cave somewhere. As far as fathoming the creation of the universe, I don't think it is entirely possible as mankind can't really grasp the full concept of nothing.
Posted by Jason McDonald on May 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM MDT #
Posted by Cyndy Aleo-Carreira on May 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM MDT #
Posted by David Whitehurst on May 23, 2008 at 01:10 PM MDT #
Posted by Pete on May 23, 2008 at 03:41 PM MDT #
If she's interested in what a third picture might look like, you could have her draw the man in the cloud on picture two and put a zero by him. The Cosmological Argument for kids.
At any rate it's good stuff, and it's clear her art schooling is going better than this kid's is:
http://failblog.org/2008/05/07/art-education-fail
Posted by Bryan on May 23, 2008 at 03:43 PM MDT #
I assume you would not be against any of these discoveries, but where would you draw the line? Each time a mystery is solved, it advances us as a species, and opens the doorway to newer, more exciting questions. That is both the blessing and the curse of humanity. A Church can censure a Gallileo or a government will ban an area of research, but no matter where somebody imposes a line, human curiosity will always bubble back up. It must. Whether given or evolved, we have these complex brains, and the ability to use tools. It would be going against God/Natue not to use them.
Can we fathom the creation of the Universe? Probably not. Should we stop trying to figure it out? God, I hope not.
Posted by ac on May 23, 2008 at 08:06 PM MDT #
ac - You're comment made me think of an Einstein quote I read recently. Yeah, it's a bit cheesy, but so was your comment. It proves nothing and is completely anecdotal, but I still like it.
"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort."
Posted by Bryan on May 23, 2008 at 09:33 PM MDT #
People frequently quote Einstein out of context as some sort of proof that science leads to God. Partly due to frequent misinterpretations of his ideas, he wrote himself in a letter in 1954:
That said, Einstein seems to have had deep respect for those who had religious beliefs, and took the most sensible tact of all -- that religion and science inhabit different, complementary domains. In 1940, he wrote in Nature
We would all be better served if people stopped trying to pit the two against each other. In my own far less elegant words, science attempts to explain how, religion attempts to answer why. They are not competing answers to the same question -- they are in themselves attempts to answer completely different questions.
Posted by ac on May 23, 2008 at 10:53 PM MDT #
ac -
Right you are. That's exactly why I said it 'proves nothing and is completely anecdotal'. As far as I understand it, Einstein was deistic, which doesn't get you to any of the common monotheistic (Islamic, Jewish or Christian) versions of God. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter at all according to the rules of logic thanks to the fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.
I think you're summation is fair. Theologians aren't concerned with how point zero (man on cloud) created point 1 (the Big Bang - as I am understanding the artwork), but are concerned with why. For me personally, the 'how' question is a really, really cool one to get answered... the 'why' one is more important than the 'how' though... as important as it gets actually... because 'why' in terms of man on cloud that created expanding black dot leads me to wonder... why am I here, or you, or anyone else.
At any rate, I'm sure I agree with you on Einstein. I don't mean to pile on any more words or meaning upon what he had to say than what he actually said. He and I just happen to have a common denominator at his level.
Posted by Bryan on May 23, 2008 at 11:30 PM MDT #