Slashdot Mirror

This has drifted completely off topic, but please bear with me. Before writing off the balloon attacks, read up on Japan's Unit 731's activities (warning: it's quite unpleasant reading: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-439776/Doctors-Depravity.html). If the war had gone on just a little longer, we could have been faced with a massive biological warfare attack... it wouldn't have taken many of *those* balloons getting through to make life quite unpleasant.

Sharks in the water indeed...

There was a similar article yesterday.

Rolling stones don't gather Moses. ...

That's why you're studying a Ph.D.

I got no idea what you're saying.

What language are you studying in?

You must have missed the part where Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush's defence secretary sold Saddam chemical weapons.

Here is what you missed

W didn't attack US soil, but he left a trail of blood and destruction on the world that would make Saddam Hussein proud.

Actually, here in the UK we have a law - Theft by Finding. If you find something and don't hand it in you can be prosecuted. This has been used by (for example) supermarkets to stop people taking and eating the food they've thrown out because they can't sell it -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357741/In-court-charged-theft-finding-woman-took-food-Tesco-bin.html

Reminds me of this story. Basically, 29,000 toy yellow ducks fell overboard as it was leaving China back in 1992.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464768/Thousands-rubber-ducks-land-British-shores-15-year-journey.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370371/Vice-Presidents-staff-lock-journalist-closet-hours-fundraiser-stop-talking-guests.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

How are you Obammy apologists going to rationalize this away? If Bush had done this, you all would have been screaming, "ZOMG, shrub = teh Hitler!!!"

Not even Faux News has covered this... and they will cover anything bad.

Remember, if it is on the interwebs, it must be true!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370371/Vice-Presidents-staff-lock-journalist-closet-hours-fundraiser-stop-talking-guests.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

How are you Obammy apologists going to rationalize this away? If Bush had done this, you all would have been screaming, "ZOMG, shrub = teh Hitler!!!"

In the UK, warning others of a police speed trap e.g. by flashing your lights is a criminal offence which will get you hauled into court and fined. So I wonder if these apps would even be legal in the UK (I don't have an iOS device, so I don't know if such things are on sale here).

On the other hand, satnavs with speed camera warnings seem to be legal, but in that case you can argue that the aim is to help you keep your speed down in dangerous areas, i.e. to avoid committing the offence in the first place, whereas with dodging DUI checks, the offence has already been committed, you're just trying to avoid being caught.

No volcanoes? Really?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1271645/Iceland-volcano-ash-cloud-Planes-grounded-Ireland-Scotland.html

Someday something big in Iceland could erupt and Ireland could get ash fall.

Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami.

No it's not. I'm no fan of the Mail, but the headline "Did tonight's super moon cause Japan's tsunami?" leads to "And yet there is not a shred of evidence to support this."

I was reading this in the newspaper a few days ago and it really does look bigger. Almost as if it might crash into us.

So the moon spins around us in an ellipsis, where it's closest to us at perigee and furthest at apogee. Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami.

That's erripse not erripsis.

BTW the tsunami was caused by grobar walming.

Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami.

Yeah, and everyone was blaming it on the earthquake. But it was the moon all along! And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for that meddling kids!

I was reading this in the newspaper a few days ago and it really does look bigger. Almost as if it might crash into us.

So the moon spins around us in an ellipsis, where it's closest to us at perigee and furthest at apogee. Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami.

There's no need to go into a panic so quickly.

Only if the city is a mere 180 meters (600 yards) "East" to "West" *. Nobody needs to be a gun nut to know city buildings' walls and gravity bring bullets to a stop sooner than you seem to think.

Even if everyone were our world's single 1.5-mile-record-holding war sniper, that killing shot had to compensate for 6 seconds of gravity and use a special long-distance rifle. An object (bullet) falls 177 meters in that time. The sniper managed to shave that downward path to only 120m. At 3 meters per floor, the bad guys need to secure a window from a 40 to 60 story building and/or shoot well computed arches into the sky. Average street tugs have training for close range guns, shotguns and maybe machine guns (ha!) and none of those tools are known for sniper-level ranges. Cities tend to be

* See LineFinder's second comment

My japanese geography is mostly wikipedia, but I think the Kanto region wasn't hit too badly. The Fukushima region where the damaged plants are is to the north. Sendai is north of that (it's at least not in the Kanto region from my reading of those maps).

It seems like as far as the earthquake goes, the Kanto region was just fine. The nuclear plant is the concern in the kanto region now and neither you nor the japanese slashdotter could have forseen that.

So... I guess you're both justified?

For the MOX in Unit 3 comment http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Meltdown_at_Japanese_Nuclear_Power_Plant__A_Disaster_Waiting_to_Happen_110313
Not much MOX news in google.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576199884191526312.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8379134/Nuclear-meltdown-threat-Japan-preparing-for-a-worst-case-scenario.html
and for the "minimal" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366055/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Navy-crew-months-radiation-1-HOUR.html
The USS Ronald Reagan was around 100 miles (160km) offshore.

To solve the problem is VERY simple, but the politicians don't like it. When you move to summer time, move the clocks 1/2 hour forward instead of 1 hour... and then LEAVE them there. No more going forwards and backwards wasting time changing countless clocks and gadgets, and no more bickering about moving the timezone multiple hours forward like the UK had recently just to please some European fascists.

Recent campaign for UK to be on Berlin Time
Portugal wants to move back to GMT

To solve the problem is VERY simple, but the politicians don't like it. When you move to summer time, move the clocks 1/2 hour forward instead of 1 hour... and then LEAVE them there. No more going forwards and backwards wasting time changing countless clocks and gadgets, and no more bickering about moving the timezone multiple hours forward like the UK had recently just to please some European fascists.

Recent campaign for UK to be on Berlin Time
Portugal wants to move back to GMT

and you don't expect the lawyers to start asking for personal data because of trolling. (I'm going to shoot that president, and the vice-president of the United States with my ak47.)

The idea that a single off-the-cuff comment is hardly going to lead to all sorts of trouble coming down on you is an interesting view to take, however ITYF it's not shared by the majority of those in positions of authority.

Since a howitzer is capable of both direct and indirect fire, I doubt you would want to laser one up unless you are shooting in proximity to a black hole.

Well, go with the direct fire route and a big battery pack and it's still usable.

If you can put a Howizter into an AC-130, why not a scaled up version of this?

Who needs indirect fire when you can just rain down mayhem from an aircraft?

Here in the UK, the Supreme Court may be about to redefine the creative threshold. Unfortunately, publishing information intended to enable or assist persons to remove or circumvent [a] technical device gives the copyright holder the same remedies as infringing their copyright would. So you can't publish it anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-477733/Sleepy-Spend-time-internet-watching-TV-say-scientists.html and http://aqfl.net/node/5268 (my poll). :)

The UK has 1 camera for every 14 citizens and we don't have anywhere near that many here.

Don't believe everything you read; that number has long been discredited. It's more like one for every 33 people (do the sums yourself). And of course most of it isn't state surveillance; most of the cameras are privately owned and run.

Relevant enough for Western countries sending out diplomats to establish relations (source, source).

I'd say you aren't paying attention.

Ok, rather than continue this pointless one liner garbage, I looked at your history.

It'd be better for you to pull your head out of...the sand and pay attention to the real world, but OK, whatever.

You wrote:

Government grants people the privilege of creating another fictitious person they can hide behind to escape responsibility for their choices. Where'd the government get the authority to create people out of thin air?

Statements like this are colossally idiotic. Corporate personhood treats corporations in some areas like people, but the law never confuses corporations with people.

Riiiight. The Supreme Court decided that Our Corporate Person Masters (may they live forever!) don't have any limits on their free speech rights when it comes to political campaign contributions. No confusion there at all.

A lot of places have limited liability corporations that act almost the same as the US ones do,

The US isn't "A lot of places."

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you government-worshipers to grasp.

The US was an experiment, intentionally designed to be different from the rest of the world. Because most of the rest of the world is broken. The federal government is here to protect our freedoms. Not to protect a bunch of rich blue-bloods from the consequences of their decisions. Well, that was supposed to be the theory, anyway.

without the fiction of corporate personhood. And their corporations commit the same sort of abuses as US corporations do. For example:

Ah, yes. Good ol' Dutch East Indies. We really should have learned from their monstrous example, realized corporate personhood is one of the single worst ideas ever, and moved back to sanity.

Corporate personhood played no role in the notorious corporations of that era.

The government granted a bunch of special privileges to a collective of rich business owners. Who then proceeded to abuse those privileges in really horrifying ways. This led (directly or not) to a genocide or two. Call it corporate personhood or call it fascism. It was evil then, and it's evil now.

Hard to get much more serious than Deepwater Horizon. How many people died? Environmental devastation, swept under the rug. There are still worries about species going extinct, and how safe fish from the Gulf are to eat. BP got a slap on the wrist over it.

The "slap on the wrist" appears to be at least $8 billion dollars just in

According to yahoo finance, BP's gross revenue for the past 3 years was around $890 million. Assuming their accountants are even vaguely honest (dangerous assumption), call that 25 years lost income. So calling it a "slap on the wrist" was an understatement. But thinking it was a real punishment is just blazingly stupid.

direct costs. And the lawsuits really are only starting. BP is already settingt aside money for a $20 billion fund for claims which should be full by the end of 2013. These amounts aren't "slaps" but a significant portion of BP's total stock valuation (which currently is a bit over $140 billion down from a peak just prior to the accident of something like $170-180 billion). Also, if you were inclined to figure out how many people died in the Deepwater Horizon accident rather than ask pointless rhetorical questions, you could have googled it to see that 11 people died.

Those were the direct deaths.

Which were bad

I think they are explicitly going to be used for surveillance at home and not abroad.

In dire need indeed

I'd say you aren't paying attention.

Ok, rather than continue this pointless one liner garbage, I looked at your history. You wrote:

Government grants people the privilege of creating another fictitious person they can hide behind to escape responsibility for their choices. Where'd the government get the authority to create people out of thin air?

Statements like this are colossally idiotic. Corporate personhood treats corporations in some areas like people, but the law never confuses corporations with people. A lot of places have limited liability corporations that act almost the same as the US ones do, without the fiction of corporate personhood. And their corporations commit the same sort of abuses as US corporations do. For example:

Ah, yes. Good ol' Dutch East Indies. We really should have learned from their monstrous example, realized corporate personhood is one of the single worst ideas ever, and moved back to sanity.

Corporate personhood played no role in the notorious corporations of that era.

Hard to get much more serious than Deepwater Horizon.

How many people died? Environmental devastation, swept under the rug. There are still worries about species going extinct, and how safe fish from the Gulf are to eat.

BP got a slap on the wrist over it.

The "slap on the wrist" appears to be at least $8 billion dollars just in direct costs. And the lawsuits really are only starting. BP is already settingt aside money for a $20 billion fund for claims which should be full by the end of 2013. These amounts aren't "slaps" but a significant portion of BP's total stock valuation (which currently is a bit over $140 billion down from a peak just prior to the accident of something like $170-180 billion).

Also, if you were inclined to figure out how many people died in the Deepwater Horizon accident rather than ask pointless rhetorical questions, you could have googled it to see that 11 people died.

So in the past few posts of yours, you made at least three big errors. Why don't you get a clue first before you post further?

Perhaps it is time to fight back?

I dislike that any web site I visit can pull irrelevant information from my browser.. perhaps a privacy option or plugin for Firefox which whitelists information provided to websites?

Perhaps allow either an override or random values to be sent instead?

We know that Mozilla is looking into similar options - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334615/Privacy-victory-Firefox-plans-stop-firms-tracking-look-online.html - but this is addressing the problem at a higher layer.

Any thoughts out there?

I currently run NoScript, AdBlock Plus, Ghostery, Better Privacy plugins.. but nothing I've seen can prevent or change data sent to the web server.

One problem is CFL's production costs far exceed what normal light bulbs cost to make (easily a factor 10). In return you get somewhere near 40% savings on the power required for lighting (40%, as lots of things aren't fixed merely by changing the light bulb).

So they only become good for the environment after a number of hours of light, and that's over a year for better models, up to 3 years for sucky bulbs. Obviously the large majority fall at least halfway on the "sucky" scale.

In reality therefore, CFL's are only good for the environment in the places where the assumption that they burn a lot more than a year holds true. They won't survive much longer than 5 years in any case (burning or not), so any CFL burning less than 20% of the time (which is most every lamp in the house except those in the living room in my house) are a net-negative for the environment.

But it's a massive subsidy for firms who claim to be green, but obviously aren't. So politicians are happy : money for cronies. Lunatic lefties are happy : another government supported industry, heavily regulated. Loony greens are happy : "green" companies "do well". Socialists are happy : "jobs are created". And everyone suffers yet again to make lunatics feel good.

Of course, real jobs are lost. The environment has to bear the increased fossil fuel usage, the athmosphere has to swallow even more CO2 (but don't worry : it's mostly emitted in China, and thus Obama can look good while destroying the environment even more), and by forcing these companies out of America, gaia can find fewer polluted creeks : they can't report on those in China or Indonesia at all.

The result is of course, very predictable. The environment does bad so "more intervention is clearly needed". CO2 increases so "it's yet again even more worse than we thought !". Jobs are lost so "more regulation/stimulus is needed". And government cronies, "surprisingly" do well so "it's all really the fault of the rich Jewish bankers in wall street !".

Lunacy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein

In reality things are simple : energy costs money. Transport cost money. Mining costs (lots and lots) of money. People cost money. All these things are bad for the environment. So you want to do what's best for the environment ? Really ? It's simple : save every last penny you have and DON'T BUY STUFF YOU DON'T NEED. Of course, greenies have become exactly what they accuse their "enemies" to be : they're little more than deluded spoiled rich kids, who feel an irresistible need to take other's toys to feel big, and throw a tantrum if they're asked to go a single day with an last year's model of the iphone. (because apple really is the worst brand you can buy for the environment, or labor laws, ...).

As long as people prefer deluding themselves to facing the truth, things won't change, and obviously lunatics are attracted by fringe parties that want to change everything to their design. Nothing new there. Forcing others is all leftist greens have left. Green policy intents have been reduced over the years to amassing power, and destroying the environment in order to justify putting more power in their hands. Furthermore : lunatics only find fault in others, and not in their own behavior. That's why they needed 3 full airports, with expanded parking space, to put all the private jets at the latest "anti-co2" conference.

If we were to put a huge import tax on lightbulbs (and smartphones, perhaps ?), they would have to be produced cheaply inside America, under our stringent environmental laws. Now *that*

It depends on the garage: My garage lamps, if I had a garage currently, would be used quite a bit since I would be spending a fair bit of time out there. Other folks, not so much: The garage might just be where they park their cars, and/or have some infrequently-accessed storage. Either way, "garage" by itself doesn't indicate much about the usage of the bulb, but only that the space it is installed in was at one point intended to park a car in.

And it depends on the bulb.

Perhaps some forward-thinking bloke, back in the day 40 years ago, installed a 130V lamp instead of a 120V, which is a common "trick" for areas with bulbs that are difficult to replace or where safety is more important than efficiency. Or perhaps its particular tungsten filament just has an unusually high impedance.

The oldest known, continuously-lit light bulb is currently about 109 years old, and still doing fine.

For one to last 40 years is impressive, but is really no more impressive than a 40-year-old Ford that still runs fine with minimal maintenance: It's unusual, but there were so many of the things made that it is a statistical certainty that some of them will last a lot (decades, at least) longer than others.

In other news, I've got an old 15-year-old hard drive that still works fine. Is it remarkable? Perhaps. Is it an indication of forgotten manufacturing prowess? I doubt it -- this particular device was just lucky. Most others failed a long time ago.

From the FOIA.ZIP file is the document called "prescient.doc":

"An ESTB/ASTB Thematic Programme Proposal

Palaeoclimatic Research and Earth System Modelling for Enhanced ClImatic and ENvironmental PredicTion (PRESCIENT)

We propose a joint five-year Earth Science/Atmospheric Science Thematic Programme of Research designed to enable more rigorous testing of the capabilities and reliability of GCMs, with a specific focus on increasing the sophistication and versatility of the Earth System model being developed at the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (HC).

Informed social and economic planning demands a genuine and realistically defined predictive capability for climatic and environmental change. Accurate prediction requires an understanding of both natural and anthropogenic mechanisms of change. Our only realistic approach to developing such an integrated and quantitative capability is through the use of advanced General Circulation Models (GCMs) which attempt to simulate the operation of the whole Earth System. Major advances in GCM development are currently underway and UK research in this area is at the forefront of this development. It is now evident, however, that these models require thorough testing beyond that achievable by comparison with the short instrumental-based observational record. Palaeoclimate data can extend the instrumental record, provide evidence on the nature of past mean climates, climate variability and extreme events during periods of different climate forcing; and provide evidence of the likelihood and possible mechanisms of extremely rapid ‘switches’ between different modes of climate operation. ... snip ..
Deliverables
The major deliverables will be:
1) More confidence in the veracity of predictions of 21st Century Climate Change
2) Major improvement in our ability to disentangle ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ climate change
3) More confidence in current claims of detection and attribution of human induced climate change through better knowledge and understanding of natural climate variability.

Other deliverables will be:
4) A methodology for the validation of climate models using palaeo-data
5) Better constraint/validation of the sub-process operation and climate output of the most recent HC model(s).
6) An empirical basis for improving the pragmatic definitions of extreme event recurrences under different climate boundary conditions and assessing future recurrence probabilities (with practical application in engineering, building design, agriculture, coastal protection, etc.)
7) A more coordinated and interactive body of earth and climate model scientists and an increased number of young interdisciplinary researchers with experience of assessing and using palaeodata in a climate modelling context.

They weren't kidding about "deliverables". Their contracts with the IPCC had delivery dates for "data" that would support AGW, including sign offs, just as if they were programmers contracted to deliver a working program to some business. In fact, "programmers" are what they are. If you have read the HARRY_README.txt file that was also in the FOIA.ZIP files you'd understand exactly HOW they managed to gather that "data" which would support their agenda. Just search for the "F**K" word, without the asterisks to locate sections where they describe the quality of their data, or the word "synthetic" to learn how they replaced real data with .... synthetic data.

Of course, "deliverable" #1 is a washout: Wrong .... again!. But, they planned ahead with "deliverable #7", which is more along the lines of AgiProp than science. In an email (1102687002.txt) dated Dec 10,

"UK no longer has imperial ambitions"

The first foreign dignitary to Mubarak-free Egypt -- the British Prime Minister, with a party of 8 defense-firm CEOs in tow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359316/Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-takes-arms-dealers-Egypt-promote-democracy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Here are the scary looking picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358861/BP-Gulf-oil-spill-Shocking-images-prove-seabed-STILL-coated.html

I didn't read the article but that crab looks alive to me. It's standing with it's head elevated and appears to be supporting itself with it's legs. I would not expect a dead crab to look like this. Hell, it even looks like the retina in its left eye is still reflective. As for the brittle stars, there are numerous species in the Gulf ranging from bright orange to pink, black and the tan color that those appear to be.

Don't get me wrong, there is no way in hell that the gulf will totally recover by 2012, but these two photos in particular don't prove shit and show nothing of significance. Well perhaps they show how stupid "Daily Mail Reporter" is.

Here are the scary looking picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358861/BP-Gulf-oil-spill-Shocking-images-prove-seabed-STILL-coated.html

Yeah, I saw Janet Jackson on the right, scary indeed.

Here are the scary looking picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358861/BP-Gulf-oil-spill-Shocking-images-prove-seabed-STILL-coated.html

The best thing to come out of that was the media reaction to it. The Daily Star couldn't make its mind up whether it was for or against paedophilia as shown here. The Daily Fail as ever was keen to contradict itself by publishing a shock reaction to the satire, while in the same issue publishing pictures of Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie (13 & 11) in their bikinis.

Source: The Observer.

Not knowing who has a gun and who doesn't will have the largest effect.

Bingo. These types of criminals know that a law-abiding citizen will not be carrying a gun in a city/state which does not allow it. This is just one reason why violent crime is more prevalent in those areas, all other conditions being equal.

'For the United States, the choice is clear; on the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness,', U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

"Hillary Clinton ordered American officials to spy on high ranking UN diplomats, including British representatives" link

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned on Monday the leak of more than 250,000 classified State Department documents, saying the U.S. was taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who "stole" the information" link

The Muslim world at large has no desire to oppress women the way Saudi does; more women than men work in Morocco...

Like Ruby?

for example, and Pakistan and Bangladesh had women Prime Ministers

Well, Benazir Bhutto is a rather bad example. Things didn't work out so well for her.

Cairo is the Hollywood of the middle east, home to a large music and film industry and even scantily dressed women.

But all of the closeted gay royal Saudis go to Bahrain for their DTF("down-to-fuck") restroom encounters.

Two BBC journos have written books denouncing left wing bias throughout the BBC. Most recently Peter Sissons, but before that Robin Aitken.

Obviously off-topic, but interesting and wonderful fodder for the tin-foil hat crowd

It appears that China has built several cities meant to house millions of people, yet they remain completely empty:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339536/Ghost-towns-China-Satellite-images-cities-lying-completely-deserted.html
http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_340_30137.php

And how does this jive with your 'debunked' claims? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html note they're referring to not Wakefield but Walker, independent researchers.

And how does this jive with your oh-so-unassailable position? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html. I see both sides taking up their stance with religious certainty. How sad.

And how does this jive with your oh-so-unassailable position? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html. I see both sides behaving with religious certainty on this issue. How sad.

The UK would be very interesting. You would be facing the GCHQ/NSA (US bases) at home. Would they suggest net/web 2.0 stays up to track everybody in realtime and offer locations of interest to ~Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs).
Find and "remove" the leaders and the lone-wolf types who suddenly become very active.
The "phone network" is the GCHQ so your data call to an ISP outside the UK would just add another number to be tracked back to you and then blocked/recoreded.
Public phones, mobile phones may only allow a sub set of calls, eg a "white list" of local emergency services and the police tip line.
Mesh wireless network is just more quality signals intelligence to act on. The US and UK are very very good at tracking any wifi, cell or sat phone.
Look up and you will see the next gen Nimrod/Islander or drone collecting all the realtime voice prints on any "linux phone".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268535/Superspy-sky-soon-patrolling-British-cities-search-hidden-terror-cells.html
Use any phone after the 'emergency' and your voice of interest will add some new billing/address/id or just location. CCTV can do the rest.
Ham radio would be the same. They have learned from the French use of minitel (1980's French computer network) setting up protests.
Whats left? U.S. military satellite transponders ie "The Great Brazilian Sat-Hack Crackdown" http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2009/04/fleetcom ?

Or is it that my computer's clock is really off? Because it was done in December of 2011 according to the video in the article. Anyway this hardly is something new since there was this £500 launch this summer in fancy orange styrofoam http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1288688/The-incredible-pictures-edge-space--taken-30-digital-camera-attached-balloon.html and even this 150$ launch from September 2009 and subsequent Project Icarus http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment

When chicken embryos start to develop they have teeth buds and the beginnings of multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA tells the developing embryo to absorb them. Much like human embryo's absorb embryonic gill slits. Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside edge. Other studies have also been successful in regressing feathers into scales.

This is not hypothesis. This is not supposition. This is not interpretation. This cold hard, hold in your hands see with your own eyes type reproducible proof. It has already been done, in Canadian universities no less, and is documented and reproducible. One more thing. No DNA was ever added to the bird DNA. This was done using 100% pure chicken DNA.

They have proved that bird DNA contains genes that create dinosaur characteristics. The only way this can happen is through the evolutionary process.

So like when Galileo first pointed his telescope at the heavens and learned that Aristotle was wrong modern scientists have pointed their microscopes at developing bird embryos and learned that they are correct. Evolution is real.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html

Note:The 'Daily Mail' isn't the gold standard for scientific reporting but here it does a good job of describing the research so the public can understand it (creationists excepted). Names of people and institutions where the work was done are given allowing Internet searches to the relevant papers and science reporting.

OK So let me get this straight Chicken embryo's start to develop teeth buds. Dinosaurs have teeth. Therefore evolution is real.. I can't argue with the logic in that...

The fact is you can go all day about evolution is real, but the fundamental thing that you and I disagree with is first cause. I'll give a small example.
How did a single cell evolve? in the 1850's, it was easy to answer a cell was thought to be a blob of goo. Now we know it is incredibly complex.

Give me one shred of evidence showing the first cause of where the design of cells came from? Oh wait, you don't like that term, "design", I forgot. Where did they come from? The fact is you don't have a clue. No one does.

Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment

When chicken embryos start to develop they have teeth buds and the beginnings of multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA tells the developing embryo to absorb them. Much like human embryo's absorb embryonic gill slits. Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside edge. Other studies have also been successful in regressing feathers into scales.

This is not hypothesis. This is not supposition. This is not interpretation. This cold hard, hold in your hands see with your own eyes type reproducible proof. It has already been done, in Canadian universities no less, and is documented and reproducible. One more thing. No DNA was ever added to the bird DNA. This was done using 100% pure chicken DNA.

They have proved that bird DNA contains genes that create dinosaur characteristics. The only way this can happen is through the evolutionary process.

So like when Galileo first pointed his telescope at the heavens and learned that Aristotle was wrong modern scientists have pointed their microscopes at developing bird embryos and learned that they are correct. Evolution is real.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html

Note:The 'Daily Mail' isn't the gold standard for scientific reporting but here it does a good job of describing the research so the public can understand it (creationists excepted). Names of people and institutions where the work was done are given allowing Internet searches to the relevant papers and science reporting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350807/How-humans-97-orangutans-New-research-shows-DNA-matches.html