Slashdot Mirror

It's just the usual MS shill that re-posts this shit ad nauseam.

It's Googe hater bonch! He gets first post with his many accounts! /. legend tells he is ex-Apple developer Donald "Matthew" Deatherage who got caught pants down with a 14 year old boy... but nobody really knows for sure....

Samsung Moves To Reduce Android Dependence , Apple Closes Marketshare Gap With Android , Apple Beats Android In U.S. Marketshare , Apple Closes In On Android Marketshare , Why Android smartphones are larger than the iPhone , Google Admits Wrongdoing In Mocality Scanda , U.S. Carriers Don't Want Stock Android Phones , iOS Closes Gap With Android Marketshare In U.S. , Google Sponsors Blog Posts To Market Chrome , Java ME Surpasses Android As #2 Mobile Internet OS , Galaxy S And Galaxy Tab Won't Get Android 4.0 , No Such Thing As Android, Only Android-Compatible , Android Chief Andy Rubin Deletes Openness Tweet , Android Update Alliance Is Already Dead , App Developers Betting On iOS Over Android , Europe Accuses Google Of Monopoly Abuse , Samsung Smartphone Sales Report Flawed , Google Reaches $500 Million Settlement With Feds , FTC Probes Android And Google Search , Is Giving Android Away Anti-Competitive? , Google Chairman To Testify At Antitrust Hearing , Google Chairman To Testify At Antitrust Hearing , Google Was Warned On Rogue Drug Ads , Android Users Warned To Avoid Public WiFi , iOS Leads Android U.S Marketshare By 59% ,

Would that be Donald "Matt" Deatherage who used to work for Apple?

interesting link http://baby.indstate.edu/msattler/_people/matt/

Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.

--Barnhill, John Basil (1914)

Fixed that for ya.

Sources: near bottom of page & Better link, go to pg 34

But I'm not a complete asshole, just the movie was a reference to a good quote :)

Yes, the http daemon was called WSPlug.

Homepage is here.

I couldn't agree more. Everytime I start up a new computer system that is targeted for the consumer market I fully expect to hear "Entrance of the Gladiators" play and the start up sound. (other wise know as "the circus music" or "the clown song")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrance_of_the_Gladi ators

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/midis/bigto p.mid

A. The earth's orbit is elliptical. Not only is it an ellipse but the eccentricity, or variance from being circular, is not constant.

B. The earth's orbit and the earth's axial rotation when in this orbit begins to resemble a spirograph http://physics.indstate.edu/west/zoorings/ThreeD%2 0Images/Spirograph%203D.JPG, which has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years.

C. Milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles explain: "The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years."

D. Earth's climate graph shows no distinct pattern. Earth's glacial coverage has gone from historic minimum to maximum in the period of 100 years. It is nonsense to claim that our temperature will continue to rise or even fall for that matter. It is a flip of a coin.

I do not concur with human-caused global warming. I feel it is hysteric, unfounded, and egocentric. I also do not bother watching media hype movies starring washed up politicians who claim they are making a documentary while ignoring an entire side of the debate.

A. The earth's orbit is elliptical. Not only is it an ellipse but the eccentricity, or variance from being circular, is not constant. B. The earth's orbit and the earth's axial rotation when in this orbit begins to resemble a spirograph http://physics.indstate.edu/west/zoorings/ThreeD%2 0Images/Spirograph%203D.JPG, which has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years. C. Milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles explain: "The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years." D. Earth's climate graph shows no distinct pattern. Earth's glacial coverage has gone from historic minimum to maximum in the period of 100 years. It is nonsense to claim that our temperature will continue to rise or even fall for that matter. It is a flip of a coin. I do not concur with human-caused global warming. I feel it is hysteric, unfounded, and egocentric. I also do not bother watching media hype movies starring washed up politicians who claim they are making a documentary while ignoring an entire side of the debate.

The only firmly known correlations to development of Type II diabetes are genetics and obesity. So far nobody that I know of has indicated even a correlation between sugar intake and development of diabetes, much less any indication whatsoever of causation.

What you say IS funny, but it frustrates me that so many people assume high-sugar and high-carb diets necessarily lead to diabetes, when there's some evidence that a high-cholesterol diet (as typically seen with low-carb, high-protein diets where the protein is largely meat) *might* be correlated with development of Type II.

According to "Why I Hate Personal Weblogs" your weblog might not be totally useless! It might actually belong in a useful category, such as 'Expert in a Field'.

This 'essay' is actually quite an interesting read since it brings up a lot of valid distinctions between the different types of weblogs.

Well, actually, it wouldn't fit. The Internet is at least 10 terabytes: http://library.indstate.edu/newsletter/feb03/inter netsize.html

First, let me point to a favorite link of mine about "blogs":

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/bones/WhyIHateWebLo gs.html

Thanks. Now - what leads anyone to believe that blogs are somehow not suspect? A blog is just some random persons blatherings... why should they be any more trustworthy than the TV? I guess if you have all day, you could read hundreds of blatherings and get an idea of the aggregate opinion. Or maybe just the opinions of people with even more time to waste than you do:-)

I wonder why they mention this discovery as leading to cures for cancer. What is brought much closer to cure by this understanding are a clutch of fairly uncommon metabolic diseases in which the body fails to get rid of certain by-product proteins and their subsequent build-up produces one or more nasty symptoms. Cholesterol degredation would be perhaps the most medically significant areas in which to seek cures.
Since /. won't let me comment again for a few minutes, I'll respond here to the "Like Programming?" post .
Yes. Just like that. ribosomes are just like compilers, proteosomes are garbage collection deamons...the parallels between software and molecular biology go way beyond "virus".

I can imagine all the kvetching we're about to hear about how mundane and pointless the vast majority of weblogs and personal websites are (ala this and this), and how too many people are jumping online to post what they had for lunch or what they thought of Lord of the Rings or what they did over the weekend or pictures of themselves drinking a beer, and how it's all a bunch of crap. Someone will use the term "signal to noise ratio," someone will use the word "dreck," someone else will say "mundane."

Here's the thing: Even the most mundane minutae of human existence if fascinating compared with the prevailing (but fading) obsession with network topology and computer technology. The Web was not invented so people could talk about the Web. You People -- the technologists on Slashdot -- have had control of the vast majority of original Internet writing for the past ten years, and it's been nothing but CSS this, or XML that, or RPC SOAP OSS GNU GPL PHP this, or PGP that, SSL HTTP HTML DOM .NET blah blah blah ... Webmonkey stuff.

Does technical discussion have its place on a network first used to distribute physics papers and so forth? Of course. Is talking about the network by definition the most boring thing to do on the network? Absolutely. Do I like asking myself easy, rhetorical questions? YES!!!

My point is, people are going to post baby pictures and bad cryptical poetry about their personal lives and recipes for pulled pork and shallow reviews of episodes of popular mindless TV shows, and I think that's brilliant. It means the network is finally open -- FOR WRITING -- by the masses. By people who are not engineers. It means everday people are CREATING media rather than just consuming it. You might think it's dreck, but their friends and family will get something out of it, and every now and then we'll discover someone writing (or singing or designing or photographing or filming) something brilliant and posting it on their blog, and we'll get something the likes of Viacom or Time Warner wouldn't have put in front of us if we paid them to.

And there will finally be more to the Web than tech talk and old media shovelware.

Just had to get that off my chest.

Is there a single protein in the human body that uses only 5 amino acids?

Thyrotropin-releasing factor only uses 3 if you need a random example.

Makes one wonder if a cost of evolution is biochemical inefficiency.

You are a very silly person.

Read this, it's good.

GMud isn't exactly freeware, but no-nags (abandoned) shareware. AFAIK, the address in the about section is no longer valid to send money to, and the "official" download URL contains a version last updated in 1995. You can find it at the "official" download URL or Google for other sites.

Somewhere along the way the source was released apparently. I saw custom versions of it out there when I last Googled to replace my lost copy.

Note, I'm not recommending using no-nag Shareware in place of freeware in general, but abandonware is a bit different, if you can't pay for it, there's not much you can do.

Waaaayyy back in 1987-89 while attending Indiana State University and getting my B.S. in Computer Science I got the opportunity to co-op for three semesters at Crane Naval Weapons Center near Bloomington Indiana.

It was a pretty interesting experience. The place was huge! Once I got thru the front gate I had another 5 mile drive thru rolling hills and woods before getting to building in which I worked.

I actually don't remember much of what I did, most of it was maintenance on old COBOL based systems the DoD used for inventory management within the Navy. The people I worked with were pretty cool though. Used to have some mean games of spades with some mathematician/statistics guys during lunch.

One of the oddest things was the overtime pay. In the fall my manager would come to me and say "Do you want to work some overtime? We have this overtime budget that we need to spend or we won't get approved for it next year." So regardless of what my workload was (usually pretty light) I would work a few Saturdays here and there for the extra $.

They offered me a full time position upon graducation, but the pay rate just wasn't there. Besides there were a lot of rumors floating about that the base was going to close or the operations like the IT dept. getting moved somewhere else.

The various dating techniques can be tied together (and are). The geologists talk of the "Geologic Column". Try this link (although it's primarily a debunking of the young earth, rather than a good basic article in geology.) Or this talk.origins FAQ.

Similarly, recent history is well mapped by the intersection of dendrochronology and carbon-14 dating. C-14 techniques are good enough to get C-14 levels from a single tree ring. So, you go to an old but living tree and take a core. Counting tree rings directly gives you years in the past. The oldest trees are around 5000 years old. But! the tree ring patterns in a locality are consistent. So you find the same patterns in the dead trees in the area. With brutal amounts of work (it's called the scientific method - 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration), you can map C14 levels for a lot of time in a number of areas.

Then you can take your dendrochronologically corrected C-14 clock and date, for example, a number of landslides and other disasters from the trees and wooden artifacts in them, under them, and above them.

Young-earth creationists, such as the site you reference, attempt to break down the strong network of interrelated geologic theory with point arguments, mostly spurious. Answers in Genesis has pages like this one which claim that under some conditions, trees have more than one growth ring per year, and various other niggles. They are niggles, because they throw a lot of weight on small details, distracting you from the bigger picture. The trick is, learning enough about things like how chronology is really done is grad school stuff, while making plausible objections is grade school stuff.

I really want to link to the hoax "debunking" of the atom bomb, but I can't find a link.

I guess this is close enough to on-topic.

... that there might also be fewer girls interested in CS?. Just because fewer girls apply for CS degrees does not automatically mean that there is some sort of bias against women in CS programs. One possible reason for this could be that despite recent progress, CS/MIS/IT work is still seen as relatively geeky. And in my honest experience, females (especially younger ones) seem more influenced by social pressures 'n wut-not than guys are. It could be that this geeky image that still surrounds our job field is also hampering the influx of women into the field. Just a hypothesis... but it feels true.

At any rate... I know very few girls in the CS program at my skool. But those few girls that enroll are treated as well, if not better, than the guys in the program (we're all happy to have women around... duh!).

after looking at the current mood going on this topic, i'm pretty sure i'll get hammered on moderation for this... but here we go...

Macro-Evolution is a THEORY. And despite what biology teachers like to profess in modern educational institutions, there is absolutely no more proof for it than there is for creationism. Evolutionists like to use the arguement of how easy it is to see the proof of it... but the exact same can be said for Creation. You just have to be willing to look. No matter which way you go, you must be willing to take a leap of faith.

I had the opportunity of seeing a Creation-Science vs. Macro-Evolution debate at my university not long ago. Amongst other things that infuriated the hell out of the evolutionist, was this interesting tidbit: while many species share body parts that are quite similar in design and function (ie. eyes), the genetic coding for those similar parts is not only completely different, but located in a completely different part of the creatures' DNA. Example: Logic would assume that if birds evolved from reptiles, then the genetic coding for the body parts that they share in common would be located in the same place, and be relatively similar. This does not hold true, however. At the genetic level, there is no proof of evolution... as the genetic differences between different families can be immense . Not to mention the broad genetic differences between different classes, orders, phylums and kingdoms! But the physical similarities between different species is often undeniable. So, this begs the question: if there is no genetic similarities (read: evolutionary relationship) between two physically similar creatures of different biologic-families, why do they have so much in common? The answer could very well be a common Creator.

Personally, in the absense of any real, solid and factual proof of evolution, I choose to believe in God and Creationism. At the heart of it, all evolution really is is a religion. Only with evolution the priests are called "biologists."

after looking at the current mood going on this topic, i'm pretty sure i'll get hammered on moderation for this... but here we go...

Macro-Evolution is a THEORY. And despite what biology teachers like to profess in modern educational institutions, there is absolutely no more proof for it than there is for creationism. Evolutionists like to use the arguement of how easy it is to see the proof of it... but the exact same can be said for Creation. You just have to be willing to look. No matter which way you go, you must be willing to take a leap of faith.

I had the opportunity of seeing a Creation-Science vs. Macro-Evolution debate at my university not long ago. Amongst other things that infuriated the hell out of the evolutionist, was this interesting tidbit: while many species share body parts that are quite similar in design and function (ie. eyes), the genetic coding for those similar parts is not only completely different, but located in a completely different part of the creatures' DNA. Example: Logic would assume that if birds evolved from reptiles, then the genetic coding for the body parts that they share in common would be located in the same place, and be relatively similar. This does not hold true, however. At the genetic level, there is no proof of evolution... as the genetic differences between different families can be immense . Not to mention the broad genetic differences between different classes, orders, phylums and kingdoms! But the physical similarities between different species is often undeniable. So, this begs the question: if there is no genetic similarities (read: evolutionary relationship) between two physically similar creatures of different biologic-families, why do they have so much in common? The answer could very well be a common Creator.

Personally, in the absense of any real, solid and factual proof of evolution, I choose to believe in God and Creationism. At the heart of it, all evolution really is is a religion. Only with evolution the priests are called "biologists."

This article works in the same idiom as the Weekly World News...same tone, same approach to information. Referring to most of the people as simply "scientists," even calling them "famous scientists" at the end of the article. Real journalists don't quote people like this. Real journalists get information from multiple sources. And real journalists don't suddenly start talking about cyborgs and aliens in the middle of an ostensibly serious article. Is this a translation of a Russian article? Is the language used as bad in the original Russian, or is this written in English by someone for whom English is a second language?

"Neanderthal man...was considered to be in the intermediate position between the pithecanthropus and the modern human." Not by most anthropologists. Neanderthal man (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis--HSN) was considered to have died out about 30,000 years ago. "Died out" as in "leaving no descendents," or "not able to be called the ancestor of jack squat in modern times." They thrived for about 200,000 years. Homo Sapiens Sapiens--HSS--appeared 120,000 years ago. So, for about 90,000 years HSS and HSN shared space.

For those who read the Clan of the Cave Bear series, the first book is about a HSS girl raised by a tribe of HSN.

The Neanderthals were the first group to display abstract thought. They buried their dead, they had rituals, they drew abstract symbols in their artwork. They were not nearly as dumb as previously thought.

There are 2 theories about HSN: that HSS came "out of Africa" and killed/displaced HSN, or that modern HSS are descended from HSN and other hominids in Europe and Asia.

Actually, it occurs to me that all that I wrote about journalists above really relates to editors. This wasn't posted on slashdot as a joke. This was posted under the category of "science," not humor. It doesn't belong in this category at all. It's a joke that the slashdot editors decided to let this one through.

More useful information can be found from lots of other places:

• Neanderthal-modern.com
• Discovery.com
• The Real Eve
• the cyber perspective
• BBC News from 2000

Totally, complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD.

I lost 40 pounds through moderate diet and excercise, and kept it off for 4 years on a 90% vegetarian diet with plenty of carbs. I only gained it back when I started working insane ours and had to cut exercise. Even at 250 pounds now (and losing again, thanks to exercise), my heart rate is low, my cholesterol is below 160, and by blood pressure has never tested over 130/80 (typically lower)

Frankly, I don't see how the 'industry' has any more to gain that Dr Atkins does through the reverse position. I'm not doubting the validity of his 'diet', which involved STRUCTURED, REGULAR MEALS AND EXCERCISE.... He could have you eating buttered white bread 3 times a day at regular intervals with exercise, and you would lose weight. The only thing that will help you in the long run is a commitment to living healthfully.

As for your comments:

FACT: The foods that you are often encouraged to eat the most of, are the foods that are the easiest and the cheepest to produce. They are also the ones that MAXIMIZE profit for that industry.

What is your point?? That companies encourage you to eat their highest profit products is obvious.

Are you saying the food industry is suppressing Atkins because he is threatening there highest profit lines of business? That is baloney.

FACT: Fat in your diet, or [sic]protien does not put fat on your body - carbohydrates do. Period. End of discussion.

http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/ (in particular: http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/lipid-synthes is.html and http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/fatty-acid-ox idation.html)

Read these links. You can eat whatever you want as long as you keep your blood sugar down (ie, eating nothing but fat is completely equal to exercise+low cal diet as both will keep insulin levels down, but only one accelerates your metabolism and excercises your heart and lungs...)

FACT: Anyone who says otherwise has either bought the industry hype, or has outright been bought by them.

Right.... remember to put on your tin foil hat. Again, if you can't support your argument, attack your adversaries...

FACT: Benign dietary ketosis (NOT the same thing as ketoacidosis) is the ONLY WAY your body removes fat stores.

COMPLETELY FALSE AND RIDICULOUS. Ketogenesis only occurs when acetyl-CoA levels exceeds the capabilites of the TCA (Krebs Citric Acid) cycle to utilize it. Granted, it is a SYMPTOM of high levels of fatty acids in the blood (rapid release of fatty acids from adipose (fat) cells), but it is certainly not the only method. Your body can easily remove fat stores through the following process: Low levels of glucose in the blood stimulate the release of glucagon, glucagon causes a reactions in adipose cells which activates hormone sensitive lipase, triggering a reaction converting the triacylglycerols stored in the adipose cells to fatty acids and glycerol which diffuse into the blood, and all cells are totally capable of passively absorbing fatty acids from the blood and converting them to acetyl-CoA in the cytoplasm via Fatty acid + ATP + CoA -------> Acyl-CoA + PPi + AMP.

Totally, complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD.

I lost 40 pounds through moderate diet and excercise, and kept it off for 4 years on a 90% vegetarian diet with plenty of carbs. I only gained it back when I started working insane ours and had to cut exercise. Even at 250 pounds now (and losing again, thanks to exercise), my heart rate is low, my cholesterol is below 160, and by blood pressure has never tested over 130/80 (typically lower)

Frankly, I don't see how the 'industry' has any more to gain that Dr Atkins does through the reverse position. I'm not doubting the validity of his 'diet', which involved STRUCTURED, REGULAR MEALS AND EXCERCISE.... He could have you eating buttered white bread 3 times a day at regular intervals with exercise, and you would lose weight. The only thing that will help you in the long run is a commitment to living healthfully.

As for your comments:

FACT: The foods that you are often encouraged to eat the most of, are the foods that are the easiest and the cheepest to produce. They are also the ones that MAXIMIZE profit for that industry.

What is your point?? That companies encourage you to eat their highest profit products is obvious.

Are you saying the food industry is suppressing Atkins because he is threatening there highest profit lines of business? That is baloney.

FACT: Fat in your diet, or [sic]protien does not put fat on your body - carbohydrates do. Period. End of discussion.

http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/ (in particular: http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/lipid-synthes is.html and http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/fatty-acid-ox idation.html)

Read these links. You can eat whatever you want as long as you keep your blood sugar down (ie, eating nothing but fat is completely equal to exercise+low cal diet as both will keep insulin levels down, but only one accelerates your metabolism and excercises your heart and lungs...)

FACT: Anyone who says otherwise has either bought the industry hype, or has outright been bought by them.

Right.... remember to put on your tin foil hat. Again, if you can't support your argument, attack your adversaries...

FACT: Benign dietary ketosis (NOT the same thing as ketoacidosis) is the ONLY WAY your body removes fat stores.

COMPLETELY FALSE AND RIDICULOUS. Ketogenesis only occurs when acetyl-CoA levels exceeds the capabilites of the TCA (Krebs Citric Acid) cycle to utilize it. Granted, it is a SYMPTOM of high levels of fatty acids in the blood (rapid release of fatty acids from adipose (fat) cells), but it is certainly not the only method. Your body can easily remove fat stores through the following process: Low levels of glucose in the blood stimulate the release of glucagon, glucagon causes a reactions in adipose cells which activates hormone sensitive lipase, triggering a reaction converting the triacylglycerols stored in the adipose cells to fatty acids and glycerol which diffuse into the blood, and all cells are totally capable of passively absorbing fatty acids from the blood and converting them to acetyl-CoA in the cytoplasm via Fatty acid + ATP + CoA -------> Acyl-CoA + PPi + AMP.

Totally, complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD.

I lost 40 pounds through moderate diet and excercise, and kept it off for 4 years on a 90% vegetarian diet with plenty of carbs. I only gained it back when I started working insane ours and had to cut exercise. Even at 250 pounds now (and losing again, thanks to exercise), my heart rate is low, my cholesterol is below 160, and by blood pressure has never tested over 130/80 (typically lower)

Frankly, I don't see how the 'industry' has any more to gain that Dr Atkins does through the reverse position. I'm not doubting the validity of his 'diet', which involved STRUCTURED, REGULAR MEALS AND EXCERCISE.... He could have you eating buttered white bread 3 times a day at regular intervals with exercise, and you would lose weight. The only thing that will help you in the long run is a commitment to living healthfully.

As for your comments:

FACT: The foods that you are often encouraged to eat the most of, are the foods that are the easiest and the cheepest to produce. They are also the ones that MAXIMIZE profit for that industry.

What is your point?? That companies encourage you to eat their highest profit products is obvious.

Are you saying the food industry is suppressing Atkins because he is threatening there highest profit lines of business? That is baloney.

FACT: Fat in your diet, or [sic]protien does not put fat on your body - carbohydrates do. Period. End of discussion.

http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/ (in particular: http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/lipid-synthes is.html and http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/fatty-acid-ox idation.html)

Read these links. You can eat whatever you want as long as you keep your blood sugar down (ie, eating nothing but fat is completely equal to exercise+low cal diet as both will keep insulin levels down, but only one accelerates your metabolism and excercises your heart and lungs...)

FACT: Anyone who says otherwise has either bought the industry hype, or has outright been bought by them.

Right.... remember to put on your tin foil hat. Again, if you can't support your argument, attack your adversaries...

FACT: Benign dietary ketosis (NOT the same thing as ketoacidosis) is the ONLY WAY your body removes fat stores.

COMPLETELY FALSE AND RIDICULOUS. Ketogenesis only occurs when acetyl-CoA levels exceeds the capabilites of the TCA (Krebs Citric Acid) cycle to utilize it. Granted, it is a SYMPTOM of high levels of fatty acids in the blood (rapid release of fatty acids from adipose (fat) cells), but it is certainly not the only method. Your body can easily remove fat stores through the following process: Low levels of glucose in the blood stimulate the release of glucagon, glucagon causes a reactions in adipose cells which activates hormone sensitive lipase, triggering a reaction converting the triacylglycerols stored in the adipose cells to fatty acids and glycerol which diffuse into the blood, and all cells are totally capable of passively absorbing fatty acids from the blood and converting them to acetyl-CoA in the cytoplasm via Fatty acid + ATP + CoA -------> Acyl-CoA + PPi + AMP.

Ok, I look at a few more of the articles, but bear in mind, that I'm extremely distrustfully of AIG, due to it's use of highly misleading (completely dishonest, IMHO) information.

But first, a small opps on my part. K/Ar dating should only be used on samples >2 Mya, not 30 as I stated in a earlier post. My mistake, this is due to the very long half life of K (in the billions of years). Ar/Ar dating is much better for geological dating of much more recent objects.

Radioactive ?Dating? in Conflict

Ignoring critisms of Snelling's ethics (he also publishs in the science lit. quoting dates in the millions and billions of years without mentioning that he disbelieves them), this paper is very sparse on experimental details. In particular, the inclusions of xenoliths (which are well known to give a false reading if the sample isn't correctly prepared). There may be many other problems with his analysis but it is impossible to tell, as he really hasn't given any experimental details away. Also (admittly a not a major part of this paper) there is a real problem with his explaination of the false dates (" fluctuating, magnetic field affected the incoming cosmic ray influx, resulting thus in a lower radiocarbon production rate and therefore radiocarbon ?ages? much greater than the true ages"), when carbon is celibrated it tends too underestimate the ages, therefore, if anything the dates are too low, not too high.

I couldn't connect to your second link.

The next page which I looked at Superbugs: Not super after all, is just plain stupid. The whole paper is just a giant strawman arguement. Evolution doesn't have to lead to a gain of information (loss of eyesight in cave fish is a good example), so the authors foundation is built on a falsehood. He then presents no evidence to support his claim (instead he pretty much states some dumbed down first year cell bio information). This isn't a arguement, it's a joke.

I couldn't get the next three links to work (this is quite strange as I managed to get the third one to go yesterday, but didn't get time to read it), however, on the basis of the four that I've read, I really aren't impressed. What your presenting is propaganda not science.

If your interested, here is a article by a Christian geologist on radiodating.

As a postscript, I found this site which mentioned Snelling's paper. Apparently, there is considerable doubts over whether or not it is wood at all in the rock. Alex Cherkinsky, of the Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group, stated "I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample". If this is true, then Snelling is a downright lier. (Source)

Urhm.. yeah I mirrored it, I'm sure it's illegal and all because of the copyright issues, but oh well. I suppose If I get a notice telling me to remove it, I will.

mirror.

"Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

The same is true for a film. The director may tell you what impression he wanted the viewer to get, or what was in his mind when he directed it. The actors can tell you what emotions or reactions they wanted to stimulate. But the experience stands on its own two feet.