Slashdot Mirror

Requirements to attend CSUN. Score 1000 on SATs (combined math and english), and earn a 2.4 GPA during high school and you qualify. That's pretty darn easy to hit for any average student...

Natural language is inherently ambiguous and real humans love to make it more so with slang and swearing. Take the story of the gorilla artist Jason Sprinkle from Seattle. He was once most known for attaching a ball and chain to the massive hammering man statue on labor day. He had a commission for an art project to support job corp where he made a giant heart and drove it around to different job corp sites where he allow participants to sign the art and his truck. Once person wrote on his truck, "“Timberlake Carpentry Rules (the ‘Bomb’)” on the front bumper of the truck" as a slang for very cool. One day, pre-9/11, he was upset with cuts to city art funding and decided to park the truck, heart and all, in Seattle's main square to draw attention to the arts. Needless to say, the police interpreted the graffiti on his truck literally and the artiest ended-up in jail for a month which essentially ruined his life. OK, cops panicking in the heat of the moment you might expect, but if in the cold light of day prosecutors and the courts have such a problem handling slang, what are the chances some brainless code will be able to handle it?

Wow, good argument, AC. You rebutted that argument with a lot of really good facts! I can tell it is something in which you truly excel.

I did notice, that your argument could have been laid out a bit better. For future reference, check out http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/... for a list of a few fallacies in arguments. With a few minor deletions from your above argument, it would even sound better.

I disagree. In fact had the opposite effect: New Math as taught in the late 1970s/early 1980s was unsuccessful in teaching pre-college math.

Sorry, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The New Math in secondary education was developed in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s. By the early 1970s, the New Math movement was largely dead.

By replacing basic Math education like algebra/geometry with the screwed up "New Math" they ruined math for those of us who actually had to take it in college for engineering. You can't learn Calculus without a solid understanding of Algebra and Geometry.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. In the mid-1950s, high school enrollment in Algebra was down to about 25% of all high students, and enrollment in Geometry was down to less than 12% of high school students. The New Math was about encouraging students to take such courses, by combatting an anti-intellectual populism in the previous generation of educational reformers. It also encouraged clarity in concepts and algorithms in these classes which would line up better with advanced math taught in college. Also, the very idea of teaching calculus in high school was a product of the New Math reform.

New Math didn't teach what we needed to know to be successful in college math.

Without the reform of New Math curricula in the 1950s and 1960s, you may not have even had the option of taking math like geometry or algebra in high school, let alone calculus. How would missing out on such things be better preparation for college math??

I think you're focusing too much on the reforms to primary education, and you don't seem to know what secondary New Math curricular reform was about. It was mostly about emphasizing the math you think claim it was jettisoning from curricula.

I'd suggest you read about what the New Math reform actually was about. Here's a short intro to curricular reforms over the 20th century, here's a longer history of the New Math movement, and here's an intro to the sorry state of secondary math education in the U.S. around 1950 -- which definitely included little decent prep in geometry or algebra. One of the main goals of the New Math reform was to incorporate "a solid understanding of Algebra and Geometry" into the U.S. high school. At times, the reformers did go too far into abstraction, but I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

Fat people eat on the basis of cues not internal hunger. You lose the normal cues to overeat when you eat a new diet and if it satisfies some psychological effect, you feel full while not eating so many calories (if you are fat and your normal cues are really messed up). http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/... and.... is there anything (ok, sex, dope, being proved right) that is more satisfying than chocolate? https://www.psychologytoday.co... so, it would work very temporarily.

Your ignorance is that you can't tell the difference between refinement and disprovement.

What gave you that impression? What I've written is about as controversial as Kuhn -- indeed, a great deal is borrowed directly from him. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing against, but it certainly isn't anything I've written!

You seem to have this odd belief that science progresses iteratively toward truth. It's a strange belief, to be sure, but one that, at least to some small degree, was implied by Popper. (That is to say, I can understand both the attraction and the misconception.) Science, by necessity, cannot lead to truth. Knowledge gained through scientific means is always provisional. If that were not the case, progress would be impossible.

The mountain of evidence is of sufficient height that in order to actually disprove and overturn one of theories your mountain of contrary evidence would have to be even bigger.

I'm not sure even the most ardent falsificationist would accept that unusual interpretation. Duhem does a far better job than I can of explaining what's wrong in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Happily, I found the bit important to this discussion described in this equally useful paper: Falsification and The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Lucky

I'm going to guess that you don't have a formal background in science. From what you've written, I'd be willing to bet you're more of an interested layperson as that's the kind of nonsense you'll see written on blogs and forums by the undereducated "defenders of science". I've seen little good come from those groups, and an awful lot of nonsense. Steer clear of them. They've done far more harm to the public understanding of science than even the most ambitious young-earth creationist has ever dreamed.

Short of a university education, which is a bit much to demand of you, I can make some recommendations. Whitehead as a wonderful introduction at the beginning of Science and the Modern World which is well-worth your time just for the historical overview. Kuhn and Popper should follow. Even if you only bother with a summary of their more influential ideas, it should give you a better grounding.

http://www.csun.edu/financialaid/basics/cost.php

That's for the $tate of California. $6500 per year + books (about another $2k max).

The "living with a parent or relative" part is whacked. That 4k should be around zero (I wouldn't charge my kid rent while going to school) and you can dramatically lower the cost of books with a little effort.

Go to a CC for the first two years at next to no cost and you end up spending about $15k-$20k for a 4 year degree. Easily doable with a full time or even part time job or "loan it" if you can't find work while a student. This is not rocket science. Don't go for an education that will cost you more than you can expect to afford by conservative job market estimates.

I see more and more logical fallacies each day by ACs, and the moderators just eat it up.

obvious

That's the red flag here. Look up the non sequitur fallacy.

Were you people stoned in high school or what?

Why is it okay for the very wealthy to build yachts in space while poor people starve and wonder if they'll be able to afford the medication they need to stay alive?

Stopping the building of this "space yacht" wouldn't cause that money to go to better uses, and spending this money here doesn't mean any other programs are going to be cut or slowed because of it. And you can ALWAYS find slightly better uses for your money... Why are we buying candy, when there are people in the world that are starving? Why are you spending time on the internet, when there are people in the world that are starving?

Your argument is a rather simple, old logical fallacy. That's why you got modded as a troll.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20misericordiam

2900+ patents use or refer to triclosan. It's not as simple as you propose, but plausible.

Your cell phone and modem are basically software defined radios.

The idea with modern radio is to get the RF signal down to a frequency where it can be digitized and then do everything else in software. I have often said that, if you tried to implement a 3G cell phone in circuitry rather than software, it would occupy a rather large room.

Is the government really having a fit over sdr? Not so much. For one thing, they can't do much about it. The hardware isn't too hard, as long as you aren't trying to stuff it in a small package. You don't even need high speed a/d converters for the most part. The gnuradio system uses the sound card in your computer. http://www.ettus.com/

The other thing is that most interesting signals are encrypted.

If you want to play, gnuradio-companion is great. You don't need to mess with code because you can drag and drop blocks in an interactive gui. Check out Sharlene Katz's sdr project page. You don't need hardware because you can run the software with files. http://www.csun.edu/~skatz/katzpage/sdr_project/sdrproject.html

That could be true but at the rate they are cutting it that won't last long, the state also asked the CSU to up enrollment a number of years ago. Pretty sure this graph isn't adjusted for inflation even, this year the CSU has the lower funding than it had in 1998-99 (before inflation is taken into account)and 60,000 more students (not to mention the addition of a campus). How do you cut instate enrollment (I know when I came to Cal Poly in 05 >5% of students were out of state, so I let's assume for the sake of argument that it was even less in 99, and 10% now) 50k+ students? That's basically what we're talking about. It should be noted most staff haven't even gotten a cost of living adjustment in years.

I work for Cal Poly SLO as a systems administrator, and we just had our sort of back to school pow wow where they were talking about increasing out of state enrollment. This has been happening for awhile now at cal poly, because the state isn't giving the schools the money they need. It has come out this year that the state now provides less than 50% of our funding (around 45ish IIRC), 10 to 15ish years ago that number was more like 90%.

Look at this graph of CSU funding (has enrollment too), the CSU is now funded with less money than it was in 1999! (and I'm pretty sure those numbers ARE NOT adjusted for in inflation.

It's gotten to the point that office trash now only gets emptied once a month (so basically you have to do it). Of course the buildings where administration is are cleaned every night. It's pretty sad really and I hope that they continue to increase out of state enrollment to try and offset this.

True but you also get a lot more in other countries. CA has infrastructure that's falling apart, failing schools, cut backs in their colleges year after year, and so on.

Look at the funding the CSU has received from the state vs the number of students. The state basically demanded enrollment go up, promised funding and never delivered, to the point this year now has a smaller budget than 12 years ago.

I don't often watch TV/movies, preferring to just loop a playlist as white noise when I'm doing stuff, but I "watched" all of Scrubs, 181 episodes at something like 45 minutes each, in four weekends a few months ago. (Which clocks in at... 135.75 hours or 5.65625 days.)

http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
"According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day"

Not only was the library at my university (California state university Northridge) the first to implement this, but my library also housed starfleet academy. Beat THAT http://library.csun.edu/About/ASRS http://library.csun.edu/About/InMedia

Not only was the library at my university (California state university Northridge) the first to implement this, but my library also housed starfleet academy. Beat THAT http://library.csun.edu/About/ASRS http://library.csun.edu/About/InMedia

1 - People rip DVDs to files around 700MB / 1GB that's 2 hours. And that's good enough for TV

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/04/netflix-now-has-800000-canadian-customers/
a High Definition video stream which consumes about 2.3 GB per hour.

The TV industry is telling me that I need to have BluRay player (~ 16GB/hour) to take advantage of my expensive new HD TV, now you're saying "Bah, even DVD is too much, you don't need that kind of quality, highly compressed 480i (0.5 GB/hour) is good enough for your 1080p TV"

Oh, I get it. All I'm saying is that ripped DVDs don't look "bad" on my 32 inch TV, and certainly watchable on bigger screens.
Of course BluRay looks stunning. But I can see that only from being right in front of the TV.
2GB/hour of HD content may look great, but I guess I wouldn't mind not having that for TV shows, for example.

2 - Do people really watch almost 7h of TV per day?

http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes

How much would they watch if it wasn't for commercials? It's almost 50% show 50% commercials nowadays.
Streaming/Tivo/etc leads to a different pattern of watching.

1 - People rip DVDs to files around 700MB / 1GB that's 2 hours. And that's good enough for TV

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/04/netflix-now-has-800000-canadian-customers/
a High Definition video stream which consumes about 2.3 GB per hour.

The TV industry is telling me that I need to have BluRay player (~ 16GB/hour) to take advantage of my expensive new HD TV, now you're saying "Bah, even DVD is too much, you don't need that kind of quality, highly compressed 480i (0.5 GB/hour) is good enough for your 1080p TV"

2 - Do people really watch almost 7h of TV per day?

http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes

"You forgot the null hypothesis." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:33AM (#32535272)

Heh, YOU seem to have forgotten you used 3 logical fallacies here in your attempts @ "illogic"... So, ok "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:

"Now, you started the dick-waving about degrees long before I pointed out your sock-puppeting.I am not actually asking you to prove that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:33AM (#32535272)

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html [csun.edu]

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

I did so when you brought up logic (and other things to try to discredit me, and you can't, because you don't even possess a degree in CSC, CIS/MIS or Philosophy to your name... if you do? Prove you have them) in order to show I am a CORRECT AUTHORITY (per appeal to authority in logic no less, off topic though your dragging it to the arena of logic is, I can run there too, & quite well judging by what is below, vs. your "fine performance" (not, logical violations like MAD on your end was more like it & trying to use what suited you ONLY conveniently and failing on your part there also)).

After all - you forced me into doing so, & it appears that when the shoe is on the other foot and you are asked to do the same?? You RUN, lol!

I replied when you asked I prove my credentials in fact, in order to show that I am more of an authoritative figure on many levels in the subject at hand than you are is all.

(The topic here and this forums section, in case you had not noticed? It is comp. sci. related material, not logic, which you are trying to "save face" in thinking your "strong" in it, and you obviously are NOT judging by how much you blatantly violate its tenets for proper debate as shown here).

First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?

Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).

You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).

Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From ->

"You forgot the null hypothesis." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:33AM (#32535272)

Heh, YOU seem to have forgotten you used 3 logical fallacies here in your attempts @ "illogic"... So, ok "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:

"Now, you started the dick-waving about degrees long before I pointed out your sock-puppeting.I am not actually asking you to prove that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:33AM (#32535272)

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html [csun.edu]

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

I did so when you brought up logic (and other things to try to discredit me, and you can't, because you don't even possess a degree in CSC, CIS/MIS or Philosophy to your name... if you do? Prove you have them) in order to show I am a CORRECT AUTHORITY (per appeal to authority in logic no less, off topic though your dragging it to the arena of logic is, I can run there too, & quite well judging by what is below, vs. your "fine performance" (not, logical violations like MAD on your end was more like it & trying to use what suited you ONLY conveniently and failing on your part there also)).

After all - you forced me into doing so, & it appears that when the shoe is on the other foot and you are asked to do the same?? You RUN, lol!

I replied when you asked I prove my credentials in fact, in order to show that I am more of an authoritative figure on many levels in the subject at hand than you are is all.

(The topic here and this forums section, in case you had not noticed? It is comp. sci. related material, not logic, which you are trying to "save face" in thinking your "strong" in it, and you obviously are NOT judging by how much you blatantly violate its tenets for proper debate as shown here).

First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?

Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).

You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).

Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From ->

Ok, "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:

First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?

Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).

You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).

Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)

That, along with your use of ILLOGIC in your "Tu Quoque" (you too) type tactics here later -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474586 ? Please... lol! You're making me laugh.

(Better luck next time, lol!)

---

"From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all)" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???

DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself... again, better luck next time (especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"? You failed again even where you *THINK* you are "strong"... and obviously? You're not, and merely just another "GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA CHILD" @ best).

---

"Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree to your name "pseudo expert" (where I actually have multiple degrees in CSC, CIS/MIS & more?)... Please, give us a break.

APK

P.S.=> Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away" & try to pull that puny trick so you can try to "get the last word"? LOL, no way... apk

Ok, "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:

First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?

Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).

You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).

Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)

That, along with your use of ILLOGIC in your "Tu Quoque" (you too) type tactics here later -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474586 ? Please... lol! You're making me laugh.

(Better luck next time, lol!)

---

"From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all)" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???

DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself... again, better luck next time (especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"? You failed again even where you *THINK* you are "strong"... and obviously? You're not, and merely just another "GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA CHILD" @ best).

---

"Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree to your name "pseudo expert" (where I actually have multiple degrees in CSC, CIS/MIS & more?)... Please, give us a break.

APK

P.S.=> Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away" & try to pull that puny trick so you can try to "get the last word"? LOL, no way... apk

Ok, "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:

First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?

Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).

You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).

Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)

That, along with your use of ILLOGIC in your "Tu Quoque" (you too) type tactics here later -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474586 ? Please... lol! You're making me laugh.

(Better luck next time, lol!)

---

"From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all)" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???

DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself... again, better luck next time (especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"? You failed again even where you *THINK* you are "strong"... and obviously? You're not, and merely just another "GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA CHILD" @ best).

---

"Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree to your name "pseudo expert" (where I actually have multiple degrees in CSC, CIS/MIS & more?)... Please, give us a break.

APK

P.S.=> Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away" & try to pull that puny trick so you can try to "get the last word"? LOL, no way... apk

Ok, "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:

First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?

Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).

You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.

(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).

Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)

That, along with your use of ILLOGIC in your "Tu Quoque" (you too) type tactics here later -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474586 ? Please... lol! You're making me laugh.

(Better luck next time, lol!)

---

"From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all)" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???

DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself... again, better luck next time (especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"? You failed again even where you *THINK* you are "strong"... and obviously? You're not, and merely just another "GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA CHILD" @ best).

---

"Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)

Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree to your name "pseudo expert" (where I actually have multiple degrees in CSC, CIS/MIS & more?)... Please, give us a break.

APK

P.S.=> Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away" & try to pull that puny trick so you can try to "get the last word"? LOL, no way... apk

"Already refuted this -- in fact, this specific thing. You know exactly where I did, because you posted something about "making excuses" without actually reading it. Hint: Ad-hominem takes the form of:" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @03:04PM (#32462028)

This:

---

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

---

Now, didn't you do THIS below, your own words quoted from this exchange no less, directed MY WAY here?

---

"You're a jackass with regular frequency" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:54PM (#32426278)

and this:

"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)

---

and far more like both of those (calling me a "dick" in one too), directed MY way...

Ahem: THOSE? Those are pretty obvious ad hominem attacks directed my way, by yourself, out of frustration!

Nuff said... on THAT account, as you said it yourself (clearly an ad hominem attack directed MY way by yourself... you, with no degrees, licenses or certs, & apparently no professional experience you can demonstrate (let alone any that's done well on the subject of computing which you strayed from massively going off topic as trolls are often 'wont to do' & you have in ad hominem attacks no less & you, lol, tried to use "LOGIC " on me? Illogic is MORE LIKE IT, because you violate logic via the ad hominem logical fallacy right off the bat no less, repeatedly & evidenced above!))

Give us a HUGE break, go get degrees in CSC/CIS/MIS along with some noted as decent professional experiences in this field so you can stay on topic and not have to use ad hominem logical fallacy invalid "arguments" & attacks on myself here.

You've blown it there, just as you have hugely on "Open Sores" (whose projects like UltraDefrag 64 I try to help the devs & be somewhat active in, in my spare time (not much of it here either) & freewares/sharewares of my own & others over time way before the open source movement even really "took off", no less) being easy to use to exploit bad coding practices or risky instructions in (like the sscanf example I used), along with degrees in English & some forensics training (per your additional 'typical troll "english grammar/spelling/writing style critiques"' you also directed MY way, yet again, lol, minus those degrees on your part or professional experiences in it also), plus a Psychology degree and license to practice (during your other libelous insinuations you directed my way here too).

We MIGHT take you seriously then, and lend some credence to your words.

---

"Nope. Never have. In fact, if this was the only thing that determined the security of a system, you'd have a point." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584)
on Friday June 04, @03:04PM (#32462028)

You don't dare to, because any experienced coder (especially those trained to look for security issues in code) will tell you that things like sscanf which I cited are some of the types of things you look for to exploit them (putting SQL parms into URL's might be another vs. using stored procs for example, one for the "Web boys" here)... that's FAR FASTER & EASIER TO DO, with "Open Sores" code, than is using a debugger or fuzzer on closed source code.

ADDITIONALLY & IMPORTANT:

Again, you're doing your usual "putting words in my mouth I never said", as you have before!

I never sa

"Even if I was calling you a name, attacking the man is not automatically argumentum ad-hominem" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @04:10PM (#32463058)

You did call me names here, derogatory ones, repeatedly out of frustration at being unable to discredit myself or my source (SECUNIA.COM largely)... &, 'Ahem' - per my subject line above: "BEG TO DIFFER", & so does this material from an educational institution as well, apparently:

---

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

---

Nuff said... on THAT account!

---

"If that's true, you should realize that what you're doing here is an Appeal to Authority -- and yes, you're using it in a fallacious way." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @04:10PM (#32463058)

LOL, oh "sure, sure"... you mean myself being in possession of dual degrees around CSC &/or CIS/MIS (from a TOP NOTCH NORTHEAST US SCHOOL NO LESS) doesn't qualify myself as "expert", especially in comparison to yourself with nothing like that to your credit?

Do you mean my having worked in this field for over 16++ yrs. now professionally & doing well enough in it (see list below)??

Yea... right:

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

----

Especially compared to you, who cannot evidence any of the above himself??

Heck - I am "THE EXPERT", and, an authority on the subject of computing! Especially since an accredited & highly reputable educational institution or two state that I am per actual degrees, 1.5++ decades of professional successful

As per usual, all you have is your "speculations" (more like more THINLY VEILED ad hominem logical fallacy based illogical attacks of myself, rather than the points I made here) even after that guy told you off.

Let's look at this ANOTHER way, shall we? Here we go:

CAN YOU PROVE HE IS MYSELF, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT?

(No, you cannot, period!)

You're REALLY reaching... lmao! Especially with this:

"surely you can show me where you're getting this from." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @06:27PM (#32464632)

ANY STANDARD DEFINTION (which is tough from LOGIC, as it's largely considered a "pseudo-science" by many still sadly, even though it has a HUGE following in Discrete Mathematics even using it, along with digital electronics also, what with its lack of standardizations such as the Universal Quantifier notation which varies, logician to logician for example) of AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy where one attacks "the man" and not his points rather in a debate) which you used here constantly in off topic name calling directed my way here backs what he said... I put up a couple here, and now I will just do so again for that guy, just to silence your further b.s. here:

AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy):

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")

From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

Nuff said...

---

"Really, APK's "voice" is pretty blatant, especially compared to most others here." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @06:27PM (#32464632)

Thank you. It ought to be compared to MOST OTHERS HERE, because many are like you: No degrees, no years to decades of professional hands-on experience "in the trenches" doing the topic material here (CSC related, which I have the degree work in & you do not), as well as a list to their credit on CSC related grounds in reputable publications over time per this VERY PARTIAL LIST TO MY CREDIT (of which again, you have not even a FRACTION of to your credit):

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Lastly, being paid for an article that made

According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours/week, or 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year). In a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube. Compiled by TV-Free America; 1322 18th Street, NW ; Washington, DC 20036
(202) 887-4036

source

There are reasons to disarm an entire society. There are reasons not to. "Compelling" arguments are made for both sides, as both exist or existed somewhere.

I give more credence to the reasons not to do so. Such as tyranny (scroll down to Athenaion Politeia 14-15), racist oppression, and worst, out-right genocide, over and over.

Well, it is!

Look at the thing on a map. There it is tucked into the bottom of Iraq.

Have you ever listed to Kuwaiti? It sounds so much like Iraqi that it may as well be Iraqi.

Therefore, Kuwait is "part" of Iraq! :)

Signed, Saddam Hussein (FROM THE GRAVE!)

Yes, energy. It takes a faster processor to handle more data, and it takes more electronics to run the display (more pixels = more transistors = more heat lost due to switching). Given a 720p system and a 1080p system made with comparable technology, the 720p system will be more energy efficient (in terms of Watts per square inch).

"Pish-posh," one might say, "that's only a difference of a few Watts. No big deal!" But Americans watch an average of over 4 hours of TV per day or about 1500 hours per year. That's 450 billion TV-hours per year. Given that amount of TV usage, every extra Watt of power our televisions consume is, over the course of a year, equivalent to the amount of energy in 2.65 billion gallons of oil. If 720p displays save only 5 Watts*, that's 13 billion barrels of oil over the course of a year.

Given that our annual oil consumption is over 20 billion barrels per day, you might say that's only a drop in the barrel. But we have to start somewhere. Energy won't conserve itself!

* Watch out! That number might have dingleberries stuck to it.

Conflict of interest is the first possible reason which comes to mind.

Scratch the surface, and it might be found that those making or at least influencing the decision turn out to have very strong ties to MS.

It's common for MSFTers to try to dismissing criticism by calling the critics conspiracy theorists and other names. That's a form of flawed logic, called an ad hominem fallacy. Name calling works in the forum of public opinion, but it does not change the underlying facts. In this case, there is a strong possibility of a conflict of interest, regardless of the names the messengers get called.

I'm not particularly interested in epistemology or its technical philosophical definitions of knowledge and belief. The plain old English definitions we're all used to serve well enough. I'll look into it anyway though, thanks. :)

Saddam invaded Kuwait and made lame attempt to explain his position on annexing it (it was always part of Iraq, etc).

Not defending Saddam Hussein at all, but there's some historical basis for Iraq and Kuwait being the same country.

The west has been fooling around with that region for a *very* long time, and it hasn't necessarily done very much good.

Saddam was a horrible asshole. Everyone can agree with that. But, like when Tito died in Yugoslavia, sometimes when you have some horrible asshole in charge, it keeps a difficult balance of people who would otherwise kill each other.

Now we get to be the assholes keeping everyone from killing each other ...

Performance increases are flatlining? Since when? That would imply innovation is decreasing, and that would be incorrect. Do you even know what you're talking about? I seem to recall an individual from IBM that has a method to completely re-engineer storage as we know it and increase it 100 fold. Not Linear. Nvidia (and previously ATI) in their high competition moments have doubled the speeds of their graphics cards every 6-12 months. Video game systems increase exceedingly more than double their processing capacity per 2-4 year generations. The PS3 can handle 55.3 billion operations , where the Ps2 could only handle 6.5 billion operations.

People do indeed pay for processing power, thats what money is. Things are getting better, and faster, and cheaper, as they always have in the first place. You still have to spend on average 400-700$ for a decent up to date PC, and 700-1000 for a medium gaming rig, and 1500 for a real gaming rig, and 3 grand for an insane gaming rig. That hasn't changed one bit in probably 8 years now. Paying less than those amounts is similar to comparing buying a new but inexpensive car (like a civic) versus buying a 10-20 year old thing to just "get around town"(like an 87 or 97 buick/cadillac).

Windows will be gone in 10 to 15 years hopefully, things will continue get better at that point.

Stop watching TV.

From: http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html/
Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion

That's roughly 800 hours per person per year.

like women who spend time together tend to align their menstrual cycles... or do you think that's another 'correlation'?

What evidence do you have that Bush is a man of honor? Because he professes to be religious? I'm sorry, but his record, both before and after becoming president, show him to be a callous opportunist with delusions of grandeur.

The man thinks God speaks directly to him.

He has done everything he can to subvert the intent of our constitution.

He has appointed people who call the most important document in our country a mere piece of paper.

He and his crew are bandits.

They have come to power to sack the treasury, transferring as much cash to their cronies as possible.

The situation is so bad that one risks sounding slightly insane even talking about it honestly.

Cheney, the man who told someone, on record, to fuck off, is "quiet, calm, collected, well spoken, and brilliant?"

The crew of pirates and thugs running the White House have demonstrated that they will throw absolutely anyone under the bus for the smallest of reasons.

I'm sorry that we have such different viewpoints and I don't wish to offend, but you should know that the majority of Americans feel more like I do than like you do.

That "crap" getting sent off to the landfill is biodegradable paper!

Paper in landfills does not degrade significantly; newspapers have been dug up after 50 years, still legible.

Please recycle your paper and cardboard. Thanks.

if everyone started taking your suggestion, the post office would waste a *lot* of fuel delivering unnecessary mail around.

The point is that if everyone started doing it, junk mailers would be paying for a lot of return postage, and would perhaps finally have an incentive to send out less junk.

Well put. Keep in mind that those labels used to try to sign bands based on the idea of exposure. The angle was always that they "knew the music business" and could arrange shows, provide space on store shelves for their records/tapes/CD's, and in general make the band more money. But what we're seeing now is a situation in which those labels are less and less capable of trapping new talent, because the bands themselves realize how little added value the old channels offer over self-promotion. Who wants space on a store shelf when traditional music stores are dying all around us? Just ask the latest victim, Tower Records. Hell, ask the record store owner I knew in indie rock hotbed, Chapel Hill, who one day confided in me that if he didn't run an eBay store on the side, he would be out of business.

Depending on the band's budget, direct-to-consumer marketing can be as simple as a band web page with PayPal buttons on it for downloading DRM-free mp3s, or it can consist of television or radio advertising, or anything else you can imagine. If you're a new, unproven band, and you have a good idea of what you're trying to accomplish coupled with the discipline to keep your overhead low, then you really don't need the "help" of a Sony BMG, an Atlantic or a Warner.

As an addendum, if your Web site is this one: http://www.csun.edu/~jeffw/, all you need to do is add titles to your frames and you're pretty much done. That's an impressive site and full of very useful information.

I've been on a few Section 508 task forces and committees for state and federal agencies as well as training for site/content creators for federal contractors, and would happily sign off on that site as extemely accessible.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Wow. Congratulations. You managed to work in a meaningless cliche on the first line of your post!

International law aside,

Yup, better put that aside, because according to UNSEC #687, this war was not only justified, but required under international law.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should have all resigned on the spot once it was demonstrated that Saddam had no WMD's. They've spend hundreds of billions of dollars, gotten thousands of U.S. soldiers killed, and tied up our military for bogus reasons. They should have resigned, but we haven't even gotten a real appology. To hell with them and anyone who makes excuses for them.

Well that would have been silly because it has never been demonstrated that "Saddam had no WMD's". On the contrary, the ISG concluded that Iraq was most certainly in violation of the UN requirements regarding WMD disarmament.

There weren't any, even the Administration has admitted so. Didn't you get the memo?

You'd better re-read that memo. The only thing that the Administration has admitted is that the prewar intelligence was flawed, which is why the President commissioned The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Administration has never "admitted" that the justifications for going to war were invalid, because they certainly were not.

Lying about a blowjob is impeachable, but lying the country into war and blatantly violating the consitution is not? The hypocracy of the GOP knows no bounds.

If you will note my grandparent post, I don't think that Bill Clintons perjury offense was impeachable either. But at least his offense was real, not a made up, I-don't-like-the-person-in-charge fantasy. Like I said before, the Constitution provides for impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors", not for political revenge.

Problem: there hasn't been anything of the kind.

Problem: you have no authority to speak on that issue, only Congress and the courts do. And, well, they haven't finished speaking yet.

Um, no. SCOTUS already ruled in Hamdan that the AUMF was not a blank check for the administration. End of story.

Nonsense. SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan that the AUMF didn't change article 21 of the UCMJ. End of story. The AUMF clearly did give the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent further terrorist attacks, and SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that AUMF gave the President authority to conduct anything that was a "fundamental incident of waging war", which intelligence gathering clearly is.

Complete, unadulterated horseshit. The government was already able to spy on susptected terrorists to their hearts content under FISA. As other posters have pointed out, thousands of FISA warrants have been issued since 1978, and only four have been denied.

So what? This information immaterial to this claim or this issue. This discussion about what authority the President has been given to prevent further terrorist attacks, not about how many warrants have been issued since 1978.

And, if they were actually serious about protecting Americans from terrorism, they'd do something about security for ports and chemical plants.

Nice red herring. And I would argue that you don't have the slightest clue what "they" are doing about security for ports and chemical plants.

And as far as "testing the limits of power", that's something they need to do with the legislative branch and have it sorted out by the courts, a la the PATRIOT act. Not act in secret, ousid

Appeal to authority is not always a logical fallacy. It can also be a valid tool for supporting an argument. Why just see this page for proof. :) If the authority is an actual authority on the topic at hand, then it increases the power of the argument. Are you suggesting that Dijkstra isn't an authority in CS? Good luck arguing that one. :)

(Note the smiley). :) Heh.

No, you're only the last person on Slashdot.

Interesting. I work with computers for a living, which too might be a niche or minority on Slashdot as well.

I'm not a big TV buff, but its nice sometimes to zone and do mindless stuff in front of my 46" TV that is a little ways across the room, so my eyes can focus on something at a different range of distance that I'm accustomed to from working 8+ hours a day in front of a computer.

I'm probably a minority or singularity here on Slashdot because I have friends that come over to my house. They like watching commercial free HD broadcasts on a larger screen vs crowding around a small computer monitor.

Here are some data regarding American TV usage: link.

When 99% of the population owns a TV and on average camps out 4 hours a day in front of it, well the data is probably out of date like I am. I also don't live in my mother's basement. Wow, I'm really starting to feel old :)

• Deposition
• Lithofication
• Uplift
• Erosion
• Deposition (again)
• Lithofication (again)
• Uplift (again)
• Etc.

Or why not do the same with evolution? So why do you answer a question with a question? By doing so you dodge the question of why not prove something before believing in it. Because if you do it backwards you will end up believing whatever you cultural heritage suggests.

As far as your question goes - Ues starting by questioning evolution or old earth assumptiong is recommended. And yes, there is a preponderance of evidence to support evolution and old earth. Again, as in angular unconformities, I prefer the simple examples as evidence versus detailed technical arguements. For example, any physical geologic separation of life forms such as a continent, island or mountain range are attendent with variations of life forms and formation of related species. Look at Madagascar, Australia, Gelapagos islands, or Sierra Nevada mountains. Predicted and actually required by evolution but not predicted or even suggested by creationism.

Doctor Hovind has not made _any_ contributions to science or geology. He has no formation training in science. If Hovind has been dishonest in his credentials, question everything he has to say. Beware of the individual who is "dishonest for god".

Unconformities do not typically involve bending of rock. Which makes it more difficult to deal with on a short time frame. Many unconformities, such as ones at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, do not have significant bending - so to have them tilted as "soft muds" with no distortions would be improbable if not impossible. To have large sections of the earth move in parallel requires lithification or solidification before tilting and uplift and erosion. A few nice examples:

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4

BTW bending of solid rock is not difficult at high hydrostatic pressures and temperatures.

Again, I haven't read a lot of actual science studies on geology I don't think you necessarily need to. You need a little scepticism, discernment and common sense to appreciate angular unconformities and other geological structures. For example, in this photo photo which deposition layer represents the flood. These are gravel layers separted by lava flows. Presumptions are not required to understand the earth is old and tortured.

BTW you last arguemenst sounds a lot like relativism. Truth does not care about your relative view point.

"isn't natural" is a logical fallacy. Cannabis is natural. Radiation is natural.

Read about logical fallacies here:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Natur e,%20appeal%20to

Hypnosis is a well known phenomena. You don't have a buggy brain if you're able to be hypnotized.

Read about Hypnosis here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis

It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts [technai]. But when they came to letters [grammata], Theuth said, "This invention, O King, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; I have discovered a remedy [pharmakon: potion, medicine, drug] both for the memory and for wisdom." Thamus replied: "O most ingenious [technikotate] Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a power opposite to that which they in fact possess. For this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it; they will not exercise their memories, but, trusting in external, foreign marks [graphes], they will not bring things to remembrance from within themselves. You have discovered a remedy [pharmakon] not for memory, but for reminding. You offer your students the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom. They will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

Here's to another 200 years of "well enough."