Slashdot Mirror

So they pulled the questions at the last minute because they said that it conflated knowledge of scientific facts and the acceptance of scientific facts, and that the study should only talk about knowledge of, not acceptance of scientific facts. As the redacted section pointed out, "correct" responses to the questions about evolution and the Big Bang increased when prefaced with phrases as "according to the theory of evolution..." and "according to astronomers...".

That reasoning is flawed. It's the acceptance of scientific facts that is paramount for a modern and educated society. Just because I can correctly say, "Psychics cast magic spells and consort with the devil," doesn't mean I believe it. In fact, if a society that does believe that, that's deeply troubling and backwards. If a society does not accept scientific facts, it is an superstitious and backwards society, and deserves all the derision it gets.

But no. The religious right didn't want these findings published because they want to perpetuate the idea that religious beliefs (specifically, their beliefs) are sacrosanct. This is a country where people want science books banned, because they contain *gasp* science!

Times like this I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' take on criticizing religion. "You can't talk bad about religion. Why not? You MUST not. That's why."

Fuck that shit.

Cynical-C has done a few of these, where he posts one star reviews of commonly accepted "greats". His list includes not only books, but also movies like Jaws, and albums like Revolver. Amusing stuff.

http://www.index.hr/images2/anatoli-bugorski_W.jpg
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/anatoli.jpg

Probably people that think it's some limited promotion to create buzz, then start charging once the demand coming it.

No, it's just some of us weren't able to complete our "AOL trial CD" thrones before AOL got stingy.

Locked up? More like they'll wind up in one of these: http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/van -large.jpg/

"This is why I think copyright infringement should be up to the courts to investigate and prove or disprove as a criminal matter and NOT the plaintiff (corporations)" Copyright violation is up to the plaintiffs to prove, rather than the government, because (typically) it is NOT a crime, but a civil matter. But that could change http://openskills.blogspot.com/2007/04/copyright-i nfringement-crime.html/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,116791-c,copyrig ht/article.html/ http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=7502/

Some said pink? http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/hko pen.jpg (when greeted with Error 500, click in the URL bar and just hit enter again.)

Fort Bend School Email Addresses

Ooooh.... .dk ;-) I see where that comes from ;-))

But I agree, yes.... Fundamentalist US people have more in common with fundamental Islam people, than anything else. A bit like US versus French: they hate each other but both stand for Liberty... Odd, isn't it?

I much prefer playing "Tr0n", myself.

I've seriously considered saving up the $200 for a bottle of the stuff, not for the vodka itself so much as the bottle.

After all, how often do you see a liquor bottle shaped like an AK-47? :)