Slashdot Mirror
Hic Hic Hooray: Hiccups Explained
Anonymous Hero writes "Finally after millions of years (and zillions of hiccups) New Scientist gives us an explanation for this most annoying and least obvious of adaptations!"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Pardon me for posting off-topic, but I am looking for a story that was posted on /. some time last summer around June or July. It was about a program that was being designed for Pocket PC that would allow you to input by way of scrolling boxes that would automagically guess the next letter in a specific word by making the next concurrent box bigger and smaller according to the dictionary used. If someone could please reply to this question, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks
PS Can someone at least reply before modding me down this time?
With that out of the way, could they now explain why certain Slashdotters have the need to post lame "FIRST POSTS. I ROXERS UR BOXERS?!" Yeah.
AMD will die within five years implies IBM exec
Only room for two players at the high-end
By Arron Rouse: Thursday 06 February 2003, 13:54
IBM MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST choice of friends for AMD if the attitude of Bill Zeitler is anything to go by. He is predicting IBM and Intel will be the only players at the high-end of the chip market in five years time.
In a gaffe that can only sour relations with AMD, Zeitler - Senior Vice President & Group Executive, Server Group - let slip to Fortune that he thinks the rest of the 64bit competition will fall by the wayside.
AMD is pinning its hopes on its x86-64 technology, all of its new products over the next few years are offshoots from Opteron. If Opteron and its successors are dead in five years, it would leave AMD with nothing. The obvious inference is that Zeitler doesn't expect AMD to be around in five years time.
AMD has worked hard to make its new 64bit processor a success and has gained enormous support within the industry, including from IBM. It is sure to come as a nasty shock that while IBM has been helping AMD along it has also been sharpening the knives behind its back.
BOO! no? still have hiccups?
George W. naked! taking a dump!
see? you can scare the hiccups out of someone!
I am the lord of the pun. Dance Knave!
So you believe the earth is just 7000 years old?
Newsfollow.com
Close to 6000 but I do not know for certain.
Why don't you start by explaining what creationism is then (or post a relevant link) ?
The only creationist arguments I have ever heard that weren't deeply seated in religion were really only arguments against evolution. Proving evolution as Darwin saw it wrong doesn't prove creation right. Evolution is a growing field that is continually changing and (without sounding punny) evolving. Creationism on the other hand is typically a statement of "facts" that are based on scripture and dogma.
My goal here was not to pursuade anyone of my position, but instead ask them to think that the people they talk to about this issue are real people that can think, and are a part of the slashdot community - not some outsider.
It has nothing to do with Christianity specifically. It has everything to do with religion. I am not totally against religion. I may even believe in God (in a collective unconscious sort of way) but I sure as hell don't believe in any of the bullshit, self-righteous rhetoric that comes spewing out of most religious fanatics (95% of the world).
If you are curious there are plenty of resources available, but I'm not interested in walking in circles again.
All of us (well almost all) would agree that scientology is a deceitful institute that should be dispelled
And the difference between Scientology and Christianity is what, a couple of thousand years?
Unfortunately, Creationists are anti-rational.(some might say that they are ir-rational, but I won't go that far.)
THe problem with Creationism is that it isn't Science, it is Religion. It isn't Science because it can't be disproved.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Jesus Christ, the guy just asked you to post a goddamned link. For fuck's sake. Got any links so an atheist like myself can get some Jesus in him?
Would you respect the opinion of someone that claimed the tooth-fairy created earth 38 minutes ago? Your beliefs are just as fucking outlandish. Remember, a stupid belief held by millions is still a stupid belief.
Wow. Somebody just admitted they were doing nothing more than flamebaiting.
Imagine you went to a shepard 4000 years ago and told him: "In the beginning, there was nothing, then molecules of hydrogen blah blah big bang blah blah etc etc..."
Instead, it focuses on the message, that God created everything (the how ain't important here) and that it was all good.
Don't believe it? Fine! Nobody gives a rat's ass!
http://www.xenu.net/
> There are many slashdotters who believe this and can argue quite coherently against evolutionists.
If that's the case, why do we always hear the same old schlock instead of those coherent arguments?
> Use logic, reason, arguments.
Add "evidence" to that recipe and you'll understand why most of us reject mythomagical explanations of how the universe works.
> Creationists understand and agree with natural selection.
Actually, some do, some don't. Some, usually called "theistic evolutionists", don't even deny evolution.
> I do not think this attitude of "evolution is right" should be encouraged on slashdot.
Let's instead encourage looking at the facts, and we'll get the same result.
> All I'm asking is that we change this culture and start to respect opinions of each other.
Even when those opinions are demonstrably idiotic?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I feel compelled to reply to this troll. Why do you have to make comments like this? There are many slashdotters who believe this and can argue quite coherently against evolutionists. I personally have not yet met a single evolutionist who _understands_ the creationist position. Especially on slashdot.
Indeed, I do not. I have never seen any evidence for Creationism. I just cannot take it seriously at all. Remember, shooting holes in "Evolution Theory" is not evidence for Creationism. It's not an either/or question, not a zero sum game. Just that some parts of evolution aren't yet understood well doesn't mean there is any evidence for Creationism.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
> I personally have seen a great deal of positive evidence supporting creationism, and not just arguments refuting evolution.
OK, list your 10 best bits of evidence.
Or your best 3, if you prefer.
Or even just 1, if you'd like.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Articles
There is however a large discrepancy between belief in creationism and evolutionary creationism. One belief states that the world and the human race is 10 000 years old (give or take) , and that both were willed into existance by God. The other states that world is several billion years old, and humans evolved from monkeys through mechanisms and in a universe willed into existance by God.
No one is going to change their mind on this issue because of a post on Slashdot, and I'm not trying to argue one side over the other. Just pointing out that this *is* a tech oriented community, so people are more likely to emphasize the emperical and quantifiable. While the debate on evolutionary creationism has factors which land strongly in the unknowable (ie is there a God?), creationism has some fairly strong evidence to the contrary (dinosaurs).
Regardless, I don't think it's worth getting *angry* about either way... personally that's always been one of my biggest problems with fundamantalists: if they know in their heart of hearts that they're right, why do they get *so* worked up if someone starts asking questions? I mean.. I think I'd have a hard time getting someone red in the face by refusing to believe in gravity...
> I have to agree. I love that fact that on slashdot, everyone is all about respecting opinions of others,
Oh, please. On Slashdot you can get flamed for saying you're on Slashdot.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I personally have not yet met a single evolutionist who _understands_ the creationist position.
Forget that, I haven't met many evolutionists who understand evolution.
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
actually I would say that the fanatics only make up a tiny percentage of those who consider themselves religious... its just the fanatics are the loudest and they capture the attention, while the normal, peaceful "live and let live" religious people are quiet and don't need to raise a fuss to proclaim their faith.
But... most people are too lazy or just don't want to accept this fact and say things like 95% of the world are "self-righteous" and "religious fanatics."
A shame really.
sad robot making broken music
I think that I canm explain what creationism is.
.
Have a look at my hand, nothing in it see, nothing in this hand either.
Now I'll just cover my hand with this towel, say the magic words, and WHAT THE HELL, IS THAT AUSTRALOPITHECUS GAHI?
No, no must just be my imagination, and now, I'll remove the magic towel, and . .
Bunch of Flowers!!
Besides, I've argued with you before, I still remember you. I remember being very frustrated at you failing to listen to what I was saying. No way I want to do that again.
Anyway, it's no different from the "We're talking about millions of years" portal. As Fry said (Futurama), "Time makes fools of us all."
Your behaviour is puzzling. You immediately post a link to a site that bashes Scientology, but seem very reluctant to post anything that would describe and support rational creationism. This sounds suspicious. Basically, what you say amounts to: "I am no mystic, I have solid facts and experiments to support my beliefs; but you'll have to take my word for this since I have no time and you are too dumb".
Actually, you're achieving the exact opposing goal. I think ANY rational person has mental alarms ringing all over as soon as he identifies this pattern. So your choice is simple. Either you describe and support your views, or you lose all credibility.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
> actually I would say that the fanatics only make up a tiny percentage of those who consider themselves religious... its just the fanatics are the loudest and they capture the attention, while the normal, peaceful "live and let live" religious people are quiet and don't need to raise a fuss to proclaim their faith.
You got that right. Some of my favorite people are fundamentalists. Curiously, they aren't trying to have mythology taught in science class.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Evolution is only a theory. The definition of the word theory includes:
"the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"
and
"applausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"
So the problem with creationism include the following: Where are the facts. The Bible can not be stated as a fact as it is written by man. The moment you accept it as the Word of God then you have brough religion in to the frame. The plausibility is in doubt. The moment you bring in a supreme creator laying down dinosaur bones to test us religion rears it's ugly head again. Also using occams razon what's more likely that nearly every science known to man is wrong in some way or another (Physics, Geology, Zoology, Anthropology etc.) or the World really is millions of years old. Many people make the mistake of concentrating on evolution alone but there are many many theories which set the age of the Earth.
Its not bigotry that sets me against creationism merely an appraisal of the facts and their plausibility. Creationism just doesn't stand up scientifically. I am a Pagan by the way and so not totally against religion/faith.
> Besides, I've argued with you before, I still remember you.
Yes, I remember pointing out the folly of your arguments in the past as well.
> I remember being very frustrated at you failing to listen to what I was saying. No way I want to do that again.
Co-out noted, though I give you credit for being wise enough not to expose the bankruptcy of your beliefs again.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One belief states that the world and the human race is 10 000 years old (give or take) , and that both were willed into existance by God. The other states that world is several billion years old.. This is not necessarily true -- there are plenty of creationists who believe the earth is several billion years old (me included). The difference being what the word "day" means in the book of Genesis. Original Hebrew can show it to mean "period of time". Similarly, the Bible says to God "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day" (i.e. human's time is mostly incomparable to God's time) Ergo, the 6 days God took to create the earth was actually a lot longer.
"Truth is not decided by majority vote" consensus gentium -- Norman Geisler